Chapter XXXI: Preface (14)

HE suffered under Dioclesian, and is ranked by the Greeks among the great martyrs. His modern Greek acts say, his lingering martyrdom was continued by divers torments during twenty-eight years; but are demonstrated by Baronius and others to be of no authority. Two churches at Constantinople were dedicated to God under the invocation of St. Clement of Ancyra; one called of the Palace, the other now in Pera, a suburb of that city. Several parts of his relics were kept with great devotion at Constantinople. His skull, which was brought thence to Paris when Constantinople was taken by the Latins, in the thirteenth century, was given by queen Anne of Austria to the abbey of Val de Grace. See Chatelain, p. 386. Le Quien, Oriens Chr. t. 1, p. 457.

ST. AGATHANGELUS,

THE fellow-martyr of St. Clement, bishop of Ancyra. His relics, with those of St. Clement, lay in a church in the suburbs of Constantinople, now called Pera; but were brought into the West when that city was taken by the Latins.

ST. ILDEFONSUS, B.

HE was a learned Benedictin abbot of a monastery called Agaliense, in a suburb of Toledo, promoted to the archbishopric of that city after the death of Eugenius, in December, 657, according to F. Flores; sat nine years and two months, and died on the 23d of January, 667, according to the same learned author, in the eighteenth year of king Rescisvintho. His most celebrated work is a book On the spotless virginity of the Virgin Mary, against Helvidius, Jovinian, and a certain Jew: he breathes in it the most tender devotion to her, and confidence in her intercession with her Son. He had a singular devotion to St. Leocadia, patroness of Toledo. Certain sermons of St. Ildefonsus on the B. Virgin Mary, and some letters, are published by Flores.[1] Some of his letters, which were first given us by D'Achery, were reprinted by cardinal D'Aguirre.[2] In Spanish this saint is called Ildefonso, and by the common people Alanso, for Alphonsus, which is an abbreviation of Ildefonsus. See his short life by St. Julian, bishop of Toledo, twenty-three years after his death. In Mabillon, saec. 2. Fleury, b. 39, n. 40. That by Cixila is not authentic. See especially the remarks of the learned F. Flores on these two lives, &c., in his Spana Sagrada, t. 5, tr. 5, c. 3, n. 31, p. 275, and app. 9, ib. p. 522. F. Flores reckons St. Ildefonsus the thirty-first bishop of Toledo, from St. Eugenius, the disciple of St. Dionysius of Paris, whom, with the writers of his country, he counts the first, in the year 112.

Footnotes: 1. F. Flores. Spana Sagrada, t. 5, append. 7, p. 490. 2. Card. D'Aguirre, Conc. Hispan. t. 2, p. 534.

{208}

ST. EUSEBIUS,

AN ABBOT BETWEEN ANTIOCH AND BER[OE]A

HIS example was a perpetual and a most moving sermon, and his very countenance inspired all who beheld him with the love of virtue. He took nourishment but once in four days, but would not allow any of his monks to pass above two days without eating. He prescribed them mortifications of each sense in particular, but made perpetual prayer his chief rule, ordering them to implore the divine mercy in their hearts, in whatever labor their hands were employed. While Ammianus, who had resigned to him the government of the abbey, was one day reading aloud, out of the scriptures, for their mutual edification, Eusebius happened to cast his eye on certain laborers in the field where they sat, so as not to give due attention to the lecture: to punish himself for this slight fault, he put on, and wore till his death, for above forty years, a heavy iron collar about his neck, fastened by a stiff chain to a great iron girdle about his middle, so that he could only look downwards under his feet: and he never afterwards stirred out of his cell but by a narrow passage from his cell to the chapel. His sanctity drew many disciples to him. He flourished in the fourth century. See Theodoret Philoth. c. 4. Item Hist. Eccles. l. 4, c. 28.

JANUARY XXIV.

ST. TIMOTHY, B. AND M.

See Tillemont, t. 2, p. 142.

ST. TIMOTHY, the beloved disciple of St. Paul, was of Lycaonia, and probably of the city Lystra. His father was a Gentile, but his mother Eunice a Jewess. She, with Lois his grandmother, embraced the Christian religion, and St. Paul commends their faith. Timothy had made the holy scriptures his study from his infancy.[1] When St. Paul preached in Lycaonia, in the year 51, the brethren of Iconium and Lystra gave him so advantageous a character of the young man, that the apostle, being deprived of St. Barnaby, took him for the companion of his labors, but first circumcised him at Lystra. For though the Jewish ceremonies ceased to be obligatory from the death of Christ, it was still lawful to use them (but not as of precept and obligation) till about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem with the temple, that the synagogue might be buried with honor. Therefore St. Paul refused to circumcise Titus, born of Gentile parents, to assert the liberty of the gospel, and to condemn those who erroneously affirmed circumcision to be still of precept in the New Law. On the other side, he circumcised Timothy, born of a Jewess, by that condescension to render him the more acceptable to the Jews, and to make it appear that himself was no enemy to their law. St. Chrysostom[2] here admires the prudence, steadiness, {209} and charity of St. Paul; and we may add, the voluntary obedience of the disciple. St. Austin[3] extols his zeal and disinterestedness in immediately forsaking his country, his house, and his parents, to follow this apostle, to share in his poverty and sufferings. After he was circumcised, St. Paul, by the imposition of hands, committed to him the ministry of preaching, his rare virtue making ample amends for his want of age. From that time the apostle regarded him not only as his disciple and most dear son, but as his brother, and the companion of his labors.[4] He calls him a man of God,[5] and tells the Philippians, that he found no one so truly united to him in heart and sentiments, as Timothy.[6] This esteem of the apostle is a sufficient testimony of the extraordinary merit of the disciple, whose vocation and entrance into the ministry was accompanied with prophecies in his behalf.[7]

St. Paul travelled from Lystra over the rest of Asia, sailed into Macedon, and preached at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ber[oe]a, in the year 52. Being compelled to quit this last city by the fury of the Jews, he left Timothy behind him, to confirm the new converts there. On St. Paul's arrival at Athens he sent for him, but being informed that the Christians of Thessalonica lay under a very heavy persecution for the faith, he soon after deputed him to go thither, to comfort and encourage them under it; and he returned to St. Paul, then at Corinth, to give him an account of his success in that commission.[8] Upon this the apostle wrote his first epistle to the Thessalonians. From Corinth St. Paul went to Jerusalem, and thence to Ephesus, where he spent two years. Here he formed a resolution of returning into Greece, and sent Timothy and Erastus before him through Macedon, to apprize the faithful in those parts of his intention, and to prepare the alms intended to be sent the Christians of Jerusalem.

Timothy had a particular order to go afterwards to Corinth, to correct certain abuses, and to revive in the minds of the faithful there the doctrine which the apostle had taught them; who, writing soon after to the Corinthians, earnestly recommended this disciple to them.[9] St. Paul waited in Asia for his return, and then went with him into Macedon and Achaia. St. Timothy left him at Philippi, but rejoined him at Troas. The apostle on his return to Palestine was imprisoned, and after two years custody at Caesarea, was sent to Rome. Timothy seems to have been with him all or most of this time, and is named by him in the titles of his epistles to Philemon, and to the Philippians and Thessalonians, in the years 61 and 62. St. Timothy himself suffered imprisonment for Christ, and gloriously confessed his name, in the presence of many witnesses; but was set at liberty.[10] He was ordained bishop by a prophecy, and a particular order of the Holy Ghost.[11] He received by this imposition of hands, not only the grace of the sacrament, and the authority to govern the church, but also the power of miracles, and the other exterior gifts of the Holy Ghost. St. Paul being returned from Rome into the East, in the year 64, left St. Timothy at Ephesus, to govern that church, to oppose false teachers, and to ordain priests, deacons, and even bishops.[12] For St. Chrysostom[13] and other fathers observe, that he committed to him the care of all the churches of Asia: and St. Timothy is always named the first bishop of Ephesus.[14]

St. Paul wrote his first epistle to Timothy from Macedon, in 64; and his second, in 65, from Rome, while there in chains, to press him to come to Rome, that he might see him again before he died. It is an effusion of his heart, full of tenderness towards this his dearest son. In it he encourages {210} him, endeavors to renew and stir up in his soul that spirit of intrepidity, and that fire of the Holy Ghost, with which he was filled at his ordination; gives him instructions concerning the heretics of that time, and adds a lively description of such as would afterwards arise.[15]

We learn[16] that St. Timothy drank only water: but his austerities having prejudiced his health, on account of his weak stomach and frequent infirmities, St. Paul ordered him to use a little wine. The fathers observe that he only says a little, even in that necessity, because the flesh is to be kept weak, that the spirit may be vigorous and strong. St. Timothy was then young: perhaps about forty. It is not improbable that he went to Rome to confer with his master. In the year 64 he was made by St. Paul bishop of Ephesus, before St. John arrived there, who resided also in that city as an apostle, and exercising a general inspection over all the churches of Asia.[17] St. Timothy is styled a martyr in the ancient martyrologies.

His acts, in some copies ascribed to the famous Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, but which seem to have been written at Ephesus, in the fifth or sixth age, and abridged by Photius, relate, that under the emperor Nerva, in the year 97, St. John being still in the isle of Patmos, St. Timothy was slain with stones and clubs by the heathens, while he was endeavoring to oppose their idolatrous ceremonies on one of their festivals called Catagogia, kept on the 22d of January, on which the idolaters walked in troops, every one carrying in one hand an idol, and in the other a club. St. Paulinus,[18] Theodorus Lector, and Philostorgius,[19] inform us, that his relics were with great pomp translated to Constantinople in the year 356, in the reign of Constantius. St. Paulinus witnesses, that the least portion of them wrought many miracles wherever they were distributed. These precious remains, with those of St. Andrew. and St. Luke, were deposited under the altar, in the church of the apostles in that city, where the devils, by their howlings, testified how much they felt their presence, says St. Jerom;[20] which St. Chrysostom also confirms.[21]

* * * * *

Pious reading was the means by which St. Timothy, encouraged by the example and exhortations of his virtuous grandmother and mother, imbibed in his tender years, and nourished during the whole course of his life, the most fervent spirit of religion and all virtues; and his ardor for holy reading and meditation is commended by St. Paul, as the proof of his devotion and earliest desire of advancing in divine charity. When this saint was wholly taken up in the most laborious and holy functions of the apostolic ministry, that great apostle strongly recommends to him always to be assiduous in the same practice,[22] and in all exercises of devotion. A minister of the gospel who neglects regular exercises of retirement, especially self-examination, reading, meditation, and private devotion, forgets his first and most essential duty, the care he owes to his own soul. Neither can he hope to kindle the fire of charity in others, if he suffer it to be extinguished {211} in his own breast. These exercises are also indispensably necessary in a certain degree, in all states and circumstances of life; nor is it possible for a Christian otherwise to maintain a spirit of true piety, which ought to animate the whole body of all his actions, and without which even spiritual functions want as it were their soul.

Footnotes: 1. 2 Tim. iii. 15. 2. Praef. in 1 Tim. 3. Serm. 177, n. 7. 4. 1 Thess. iii. 2. 1 Cor. iv. 17. 5. 1 Tim. vi. 11. 6. Phil. ii. 20. 7. 1 Tim. i. 18. 8. Acts xviii. 9. 1 Cor. xvi. 10. 10. Heb. xiii. 23. 11. 1 Tim. iv. 14. 12. 1 Tim. {}. 13. Hom. 15, in 1 Tim. 14. Eus. l. 3, c. {} Conc. t. 4, p. 699. 15. 2 Tim. iii. 1, 2. 16. 1 Tim. v. 23. 17. In the Apocalypse, which was written in the year 95, Christ threatens the bishop of Ephesus, because he was fallen from his first charity, and exhorts him to do penance and return to his first works. (Apoc. xi. 4.) Calmet says, that this bishop could be no other than St. Timothy; Pererius, Cornelieus a Lapide, Grotius, Alcazar, Bossuet, and other learned men, agree in this point; also Tillemont, t. 2, p. 147, and Bollandus ad 21 Jan. pp. 563 & 564. Nicholas a Lyra and Ribera cannot be persuaded that St. Timothy ever deserved such a censure, unless we understand it only of his flock. The others say, he might have fallen into some venial remissness in not reprehending the vices of others with sufficient vigor; which fault he repaired, upon this admonition, with such earnestness, as to have given occasion to his martyrdom, in 97. He was succeeded in the see of Ephesus by John I., who was consecrated by St. John Evangelist. (See Consitut. Apostol. l. 8, c. 46.) Onesiumus was third bishop of Ephesus. See Le Quien Oriens. Chris. t. 1, p. 672. 18. Carm. 26. 19. L. 3, c. 2. 20. In Vigilant. c. 2. 21. Hom. 1, ad Pop. Antioch. 22. 1 Tim. iv. 7 and 13.

ST. BABYLAS,

BISHOP OF ANTIOCH AND MARTYR.

From St. Chrysostom, l. contra Gentiles de S. Babyla, and hom. de S. Babyla, t. 2, ed. Ben. p. 531. He wrote the first discourse against the Gentiles, expressly to confound them by the miracles of this saint. He spoke the second five years after, in 3871 on St. Babylas's feast, before a numerous auditory, and mentions Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, and others, who were to speak after him on the same subject. The miracles were recent, performed before the eyes of many then present. Nome of the three acts of this saint in Bollandus can be authentic. See Tillemont, Mem. t. 3, p. 400, and Hist. des Empereurs, t. 3, and F. Merlin. Dissertation contre M. Bayle sur ce que rapporte S. Chrysostome du Martyre de S. Babylas, Mem. de Trevoux, Juin 1737, p. 1051. Also Stilting, the Bollandist, in Vit. S. Chrysost. Sec.15. p 439, ad 14 Septemb. t. 4.

About the year 250.

THE most celebrated of the ancient bishops of Antioch, after St. Ignatius, was St. Babylas, who succeeded Zebinus in the year 237, and governed that church with great zeal and virtue, about thirteen years, under the emperors Gordian, Philip, and Decius. Philip, an Arabian by birth, and of mean extraction, raised by the young emperor Gordian to be prefect of the praetorian guards, perfidiously murdered his master at the head of his victorious army in Persia, and caused himself to be acknowledged emperor by the senate and people of Rome, in the year 244. We have very imperfect histories of his reign. Eusebius says that he abolished the public stews and promiscuous bathing in Rome, which Alexander Severus, the most virtuous of the heathen emperors, had in vain attempted to do. The same historian adds, it was averred[1] that Philip, being a Christian, subjected himself to canonical penance at Antioch, where being arrived on the eve of a great festival, as the chronicle of Alexandria relates, he presented himself at the Christian oratory, with his wife; but being excluded by the bishop, with a meek rebuke for his crimes, he made his exomologesis, or confession, and ranked himself among the penitents without doors. St. Jerom, Vincent of Lerins, Orosius, and others, positively affirm that this emperor was a Christian: and Eusebius, Rufinus, St. Jerom, Vincent of Lerins, and Syncellus say, that Origen wrote two letters, one to the emperor Philip, another to his wife, with an authority which the Christian priesthood gave him over emperors.

Philip assisted at the heathenish solemnity of the thousandth year of Rome; but his presence was necessary on that occasion, nor is he said to have offered sacrifice. He was indeed a bad Christian, and probably only a catechumen, an ambitious and cruel tyrant, who procured the death of Misitheus, father-in-law of Gordian, murdered Gordian himself to usurp his empire, and put to death the young prince, son of the king of Persia, of the Parthians, left a hostage in his hands: circumstances mentioned by St. Chrysostom. Having reigned something upwards of five years, he was slain with his son Philip, his colleague in the empire, by Decius, about the middle of the year 249. The peace and favor which the church had enjoyed during his reign, had much increased her numbers, but had relaxed the fervor of many, as we see in St. Cyprian's works, and in the life of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus. Whole cities had embraced the faith, and public {212} churches were erected. Decius equally hated the Philips and the Christian religion, against which he published the most cruel edicts in the year 250; which caused the seventh general persecution, permitted by God to purge away the dross to his flock, and to awake them to fervor.

St. Chrysostom extols the courage and zeal of St. Babylas, in shutting the church-doors against an emperor and a barbarous tyrant, then at the head of a victorious army. We find Philip styled conqueror of the Parthians, in an inscription in Gruter,[2] by which he seems to have returned triumphant, though Zonoras pretends he had bought a peace. Eusebius mentions it as a report, that the emperor received the bishop's rebuke with meekness, and submitted to public penance: but St. Chrysostom insinuates, that the same tyrant, in a rage for being refused admittance, threw St. Babylas into a dungeon, where he soon died. St. Jerom says that Decius imprisoned him, which seems the true account. F. Stilting thinks that Decius, after being proclaimed emperor in Pannonia, marched first against Philip, and when he was slain, led his army into Syria, where Priscus, Philip's brother, commanded the troops of those parts, and Jotapian about that time assumed the purple, but was soon crushed. At this time he doubts not but Decius was forbid by St. Babylas to enter the church, because he was an idolater, and had perfidiously murdered a prince who was the son of some king of a nation of barbarians, who had sent him as a hostage to that tyrant. For many transactions of that time are not recorded by the Roman historians. At least it seems to have been under Decius that St. Babylas consummated his martyrdom by the hardships of his prison: and when dying, ordered his chains to be buried with him, as the happy instruments and marks of his triumph. The Christians built a church over his tomb. His body rested here about one hundred years, till 351, when Gallus Caesar translated it to Daphne, five miles from Antioch, to oppose the worship of a famous idol of Apollo, which gave oracles in that place. Gallus erected a church, sacred to the name of St. Babylas, near the profane temple, and placed in it his venerable ashes in a shrine above ground. The neighborhood of the martyr's relics struck the devil dumb, as is averred by St. Chrysostom. Theodoret,[3] Sozomen, and others, who triumph over the pagans on this account.[4] Eleven years after, Julian the Apostate came to Antioch, in the year 362, and by a multitude of sacrifices endeavored to learn of the idol the cause of his silence. At length the fiend gave him to understand, that the neighborhood was full of dead bones, which must be removed before he could be at rest and disposed to give answers. Julian understood this of the body of St. Babylas, and commanded that the Christians should immediately remove his shrine to some distant place; but not touch the other dead bodies. Thus do the fathers and Christian historians of that age relate this miracle.[5] The Christians obeyed the order, and with great solemnity carried back in procession the sacred relics to Antioch, singing on this occasion the psalms which ridicule the vanity and feebleness of idols, repeating after every verse: "May they who adore idols and glory in false gods, blush with shame and be covered with confusion." The following evening, lightning fell on the temple of Apollo, and reduced to ashes all the rich and magnificent ornaments with which it was embellished, and the idol itself, leaving only the walls standing. Julian, the emperor's uncle, {213} and governor of the East, upon this news hastened to Daphne, and endeavored by tortures to compel the priests to confess if the accident had happened by any negligence, or by the interposition of the Christians: but it was clearly proved by the testimony of these very priests, and also by that of several peasants who saw the fire fall from heaven, that lightning was the cause. The Apostate durst not restore the idol lest the like thunder should fall on his own head: but he breathed nothing but fury against the Christians in general, more especially against those of Antioch, the fatal effects of which he intended they should feel at his return from the Persian war. Vain projects against God, who defeated them by his unhappy death in that expedition! The ruins of this temple remained in the same condition above twenty years after. The Roman Martyrology, with that of St. Jerom and others of the West, celebrate the memory of St. Babylas on the 24th of January, but the Greeks on the 4th of September, together with three children martyred with him, as St. Chrysostom and others mention. His body is said to be now at Cremona, brought from the East in the crusades. St. Babylas is the titular saint of many churches in Italy, France, and Spain.

Footnotes:
1. [Greek: Touton katexei xristianon honta] Eus. l. 6, c. 3.
2. P. 273.
3. Theodoret l. 3. Hist. c. 6, and de Graecor. Affect. l. 10. Rufin.
Chrys.
4. St. Chrysostom has given us the lamentation of Libanius, the
celebrated heathen sophist, bewailing the silence of Apollo at
Daphne; adding that Julian had delivered him from the neighborhood
of a dead man, which was troublesome to him.
5. Ammianus Marcellinus, a heathen, and Julian's own historian, says b.
2, p. 225, that he caused all the bones of dead men to be taken away
to purify the place.

ST. SURANUS, ABBOT IN UMBRIA,

WHO gave all things, even the herbs out of his garden, to the poor. He was martyred by the Lombards in the seventh century, and his relics were famed for miracles.[1]

Footnotes: 1. St. Greg. Dial. l. 4, c. 22.

ST. MACEDONIUS, ANCHORET IN SYRIA.

HE lived forty years on barley moistened in water, till finding his health impaired, he ate bread, reflecting that it was not lawful for him to shorten his life to shun labors and conflicts, as he told the mother of Theodoret; persuading her, when in a bad state of health, to use a proper food, which he said was physic to her. Theodoret relates many miraculous cures of sick persons, and of his own mother among them, by water on which he had made the sign of the cross, and that his own birth was the effect of his prayers, after his mother had lived childless in marriage thirteen years.[1] {214} The saint died, ninety years old, and is named in the Greek menologies. See Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. l. 5, c. 19, and Philotheae, c. 13. St. Chrysost. hom. 17, ad Pop. Antioch.

Footnotes:
1. The great Theodoret was dedicated to God by his parents before he
was born, and was educated in the study of every true branch of
Syriac, Greek, and Hebrew learning. He gave a large estate to the
poor, and entered a monastery near Apamea, but was taken out of it
against his will, and consecrated bishop of Cyrus in 423, being very
young. He converted all the Marcionites, Arians, and other heretics
in his diocese, in which he reckons eight hundred churches, or
parishes. (Ep. 113, p. 987.) Cyrus was a very small poor town in a
desert country, eighty miles from Antioch, one hundred and twenty
from Apamea, and one hundred and seventeen from Samosata. Though
Theodoret lived in great poverty, he enriched the poor and the
churches, and built for his city an aqueduct, two large bridges,
porticoes, and baths. In 430 pope Celestin and St. Cyril of
Alexandria wrote to John, patriarch of Antioch, against Nestorius,
who on his side sent an orthodox letter to the same prelate: soon
after St. Cyril wrote his third letter to Nestorius, to which he
subjoined twelve anathematisms against the errors of Nestorius. In
this writing certain obscure phrases occur, which John of Antioch
thought favorable to the heresy of Apollinaris: whereupon he engaged
Theodoret to undertake a confutation of them. Theodoret carried on
this contest with great warmth in several writings, and when the
ecumenical council of Ephesus was assembled in 431, refused, with
John of Antioch, and the rest of the forty Oriental bishops, to
enter it, because Nestorius had been condemned in it on the 21st of
June, before they arrived at Ephesus on the 27th. They even went so
far as to pretend to excommunicate St. Cyril, and form a schism in
the church. F. Garnier, the most declared enemy to Theodoret among
the moderns, lays to his charge several things, of which Tillemont
and others clear him. It is certain that he wrote with great
bitterness against St. Cyril, and his anathematisms, as appears from
the works which he wrote upon that occasion, especially certain
letters and fragments of his Pentalogus, (or work in five books,
against St. Cyril,) still extant. But St. Cyril having made a clear
confession of his faith in a letter to Acacius of Ber[oe]a, Theodoret
loudly declared him orthodox, and this he proved even in letters
which he wrote to Nestorius himself, and to Alexander of Hierapolis,
his own metropolitan, the warmest of all St. Cyril's enemies. John
of Antioch and many others made their peace with St. Cyril, about
the month of April. In 433, Theodoret stood out some time longer, by
refusing to condemn the person of Nestorius. St. Cyril and John of
Antioch afterwards admitted him to their communion without requiring
that condition, and Theodoret labored to gain over Alexander of
Hierapolis; but in vain, so that this prelate was banished by the
emperor; Theodoret himself, though he enjoyed the communion of St.
Cyril, and of John of Antioch, was often accused, because he
persisted to defend the person of Nestorius. The persecution was
often renewed against Theodoret, so long as he adhered to Nestorius,
especially after St. Cyril, St. Proclus, and all the western
prelates condemned the writings of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, as the
master of the heresiarch Nestorius in his capital error. The
Orientals defended Theodorus, and Theodoret endeavored to justify
him by several writings against St. Cyril, of which only fragments
quoted in the fifth council are extant. St. Cyril, by his silence
and moderation, calmed this dispute, and always maintained peace
with the Orientals from the time it was settled between them. His
death happened in June, 444, and Dioscorus, the impious Eutychian,
was his successor. Theodorus, bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia, who
died in 428, in his erroneous writings laid the foundation both of
the Pelagian and Nestorian heresies. Theodoret, in his writings
against St. Cyril, adopts certain expressions which favored
Nestorianism, and were condemned in the fifth general council;
nevertheless, his sentiments were always orthodox, as is proved by
Tillemont, (Art. 20, t. 15, p. 253,) Natalis Alexander, Graveson,
&c. By exerting his zeal against Eutyches and Dioscorus, he incurred
the indignation of their sect, and the false council of Ephesus
pronounced a pretended sentence of deposition against him.
Theodosius the younger first forbade him to stir out of his diocese,
and when he desired to go to Rome to justify himself, in 450,
banished him to his monastery near Apamea. The emperor Marcian put
an end to the persecution raised by the Eutychians under his
predecessor; yet Theodoret chose to continue in his monastery till
he was called by pope Leo to assist at the council of Chalcedon. He
had received, with great applause, the excellent letter of that pope
to Flavian, and St. Leo declared null all the proceedings of
Dioscorus against him at Ephesus, and restored him to his see,
(Conc. t. 4, p. 622.) The council of Chalcedon met in 451, and in
the seventh session, held on the 26th of October, Theodoret
presented his request that his writings and faith might be examined.
Those who were prepossessed against him would not allow any such
examination, but required that he should anathematize Nestorius,
which he at length did; and the council, with high commendations,
declared him orthodox, and worthy of his see. Marcian, by a law
published the following year, annulled the edict of Theodosius
against him and Flavian. He died at Cyrus, about the year 458. The
heresy of Nestorius he had clearly condemned from the beginning,
with John of Antioch, in their exhortatory letter to Nestorius,
(Conc. t. 3, p. 394). What mistakes and faults he fell into he
cancelled by his edifying repentance; and the great virtues which he
practised even under his disgrace, the extent of his learning, and
the sublimity and acuteness of his genius, have established his
reputation in all succeeding ages, and he is deservedly ranked among
the must illustrious fathers of the church. His excellent writings
are the most authentic monuments of his extraordinary learning and
piety. He modestly compares himself (Proleg. in Osee. t. 2, p. 700)
to the Jewish poor women, who in the building of the tabernacle,
having neither gold nor silver to give to God towards this work,
picked and gathered together the hair, thread, or cloths,
contributed by others, or spun, or sewed something, not to be found
quite empty-handed. St. Chrysostom was taken away from Antioch in
397, and Theodoret was only born about the year 393: but though he
had not the happiness of hearing his divine discourses, he took him
for his principal model, and especially in his comments on the
scriptures usually adhered to those of that incomparable doctor. His
works were printed at Paris, in 1642, in four volumes in folio, to
which F. Garnier, a learned Jesuit, in 1684, added a fifth under the
title of an Auctarium, containing certain letters and discourses of
this father, with several prolix historical dissertations on the
Nestorian heresy. The judicious F. Sirmond, far more equitable than
F. Garnier. admires Theodoret's brevity, joined with great
perspicuity, especially in his commentaries, and commends the
pleasing beauty and attic elegance of his style. Photius praises his
fruitfulness of invention, the purity of his language, the choice of
his words, and the smoothness and neatness of his style, in which he
finds everywhere a decent and noble elevation, though he thinks his
metaphors sometimes too bold. This great critic calls his method of
short notes the most accomplished model for interpreting the holy
scriptures, and mentions, as an instance of his sincere humility,
that he never employs a single word, or produces a quotation for
ostentation, never falling into digressions foreign to his purpose;
we may almost say, that a superfluous word scarce ever escapes him.
(Phot. Cod. 203, p. 526. Cod. 31, 46, 56.)

His comments on St. Paul, and on most of the books of the old
Testament, are concise literal, and solid, but contain not that
inexhausted and excellent treasure of morality which we find in St.
Chrysostom, whose commentaries Theodoret had always before him: this
latter excels chiefly on the prophets. His church history, in five
books, from the close of that of Eusebius in 324 to 429, is a
valuable compilation. Photius justly prefers his style to that of
Eusebius, Evagrius, Socrates, and Sozomen, as more historical,
clear, and lofty, without any redundancy. (Cod. 31) His religious
history, or Philothea, (_i.e._ History of the Friends of God,)
contains the lives of thirty monks and anchorets of his time. He was
himself an eye-witness to several of the miracles which he relates
to have been wrought by the sign of the cross, holy water, and
blessed oil. Of some other miracles which he mentions, he tells us
that they were so authentic and notorious that no one who believes
those of Moses, Elias, and the Apostles, could deny them. The five
books, Of Heretical Fables, are a history of ancient heresies which
he wrote at the request of Sporacius, one of the imperial
commissaries at the council of Chalcedon, who was consul in 452. In
the fourth book, he inveighs most bitterly against Nestorius, whom
he had for some time unwarily favored. The letters of Theodoret
which are extant, amount to the number of 146. His book Against the
twelve Anthematisms of St. Cyril, he tacitly recalled by his
condemnation of Nestorius; also his Pentalogus on the same subject,
which is now lost, except some fragments preserved by Marius
Mercator. His three dialogues against the Eutychians, he entitled
Polymorphus, (_i.e._ of many shapes,) and Eranistes, that is, the
Beggar, because the Eutychian error was gathered from the various
heresies of Marcian, Valentin, Arius, and Apollinaris. The first
dialogue he calls the Unchangeable, because in it he shows that the
divine Word suffered no change by becoming man. The second is
entitled The Inconfused, from the subject, which is to prove that in
Christ, after the Incarnation, the divine and human nature remain
really distinct. The third is called, The Impassible, because in it
the author demonstrates that the divinity neither did nor could
suffer; the same is the purport of his Demonstration by syllogisms.
The dialogues were written about the year 447; for the author
clearly confutes Eutyches, though he never names him; and it appears
that St. Cyril was then dead, the author reckoning him in the end
among the Catholic doctors, who had formerly flourished in the
church, and among the stars which had enlightened the world. (Dial.
2. p. 86, and 111.)

Theodoret's ten sermons On Providence, is a work never yet
paralleled by any other writer, ancient or modern, on that sublime
subject; whether we consider the matter and the choice of thoughts,
or the author's sincere piety, or his extensive knowledge, and the
depth of his philosophical inquiries, or the strength and solidity
of his reasoning, or the noble sublimity of the expression, and the
elegance and perspicuity of the diction. It was the love of God
which engaged him to undertake, in this task, the defence of the
cause of our best Father and supreme Lord, as he modestly assures
us, (p. 320,) and this motive animated him with fresh life and
uncommon vigor in exerting and displaying the strength and beauty of
his genius on so great a subject.

His twelve discourses On healing the Prejudices of the Greeks, are
an excellent apology for our faith against the pagans; a performance
which falls little short of the former. In it we meet with many
curious anecdotes relating to the heathenish theology of the
ancients, and the impiety and vices with which their philosophers
disgraced their profession. In the eighth of these discourses, which
is entitled, On the Martyrs, he clearly demonstrates that the
veneration which Christians pay to the saints in heaven, is entirely
different from the worship which the heathens give to their false
gods, and elegantly explains (pp. 591, 660, 606) in what manner the
souls of the martyrs now in heaven, with the choirs of angels, are
our protectors and mediators with God, the physicians of our bodies,
and savers of our souls: the portions of their divided relics are
the guard and protection of our cities, which through their
intercession with God obtain divine gifts: Christians give their
names to their children to put these under their patronage: it was a
custom to hang up before their shrines, gold or silver images of
eyes, feet, or hands, as tokens or memorials of health, or other
benefits received by their means: they keep their festivals, as
those of Peter, Paul, Thomas, Sergius, Marcellus, Leontius,
Panteleemon, Antoninus, Mauritius, and others, in prayer, divine
canticles, and holy sermons. The same he testifies in his other
works. Almost every life of holy monks which he wrote, he closes by
imploring their intercession, and mentions that as far as Rome,
handicraftsman hang up in their shops the picture of St. Simeon
Stylites, hoping by their devotion to share in the protection of his
prayers. (Philoth. c. 26, p. 862.) We learn from, him, that
Christians were always accustomed to make the sign of the cross on
the cup before they drank. (Hist. Eccl. l. 3, c. 13.) He often
extols the virtues of that holy sign, honored, as he says, by all
Christians, whether Greeks, Romans, or Barbarians, (Serm. 6, de
Prov. p. 580, t. 4,) and he relates, (Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 1,) that
Julian the Apostate, by making it in a fright, drove away the devils
which one of his enchanters was invoking. His book in praise of
virginity, to which he refers us, (on 1 Cor. vii. 33.) is lost; also
the book in which he confuted both Eutyches and Nestorius, which is
mentioned by Gennadius (c. 89) and Marcellinus. (ad an. 466.) His
book Against the Jews, and several others, have not reached us.
Among those which are extant his Octateuch, (or comments on the five
books of Moses, and those of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth,) to which he
added comments on the books of Kings and Paralipomenon, much
commended by Photius, seems to be the last work which he wrote. See
Tillem. t. 15. Ceillier.

{215}

ST. CADOCUS, OR CADOC, ABBOT IN WALES.

CADOC was son to Gundleus, a prince of South Wales, by his wife Gladusa, daughter of Braghan, whose name wax given to the province now called Brecknockshire. His parents were not less ennobled by their virtues than by their blood, and his father, who some years before his death renouncing the world, led an eremitical life near a country church which he had built, was honored in Wales among the saints. Cadoc, who was his eldest son, succeeded in the government, but not long after followed his father's example; and embracing a religious life, put himself under the direction of St. Tathai, an Irish monk, who had opened a famous school at Gwen{t}, the ancient Venta Silurum of the Romans, afterwards a bishop's see, now in ruins in Monmouthshire. Our saint made such progress both in learning and virtue, that when he returned into Glamorganshire, his own country, he spread on every side the rays of his wisdom and sanctity. Here, three miles from Cowbridge, he built a church and a monastery, which was called Llan-carvan, or the Church of Stags, and sometimes Nancarvan, that is, the Vale of Stags. The school which he established in this place became most illustrious, and fruitful in great and holy men. By our saint's persuasion St. Iltut renounced the court and the world, and learned at Llan-carvan that science which he preferred to all worldly treasures. He afterwards founded the great monastery of Llan-Iltut. These two monasteries and that of St. Docuinus, all situated in the diocese of Landaff, were very famous for many ages, and were often governed by abbots of great eminence. St. Gildas, after his return from Ireland, entered the monastery of St. Cadoc, where he taught for one year, and copied a book of the gospels, which was long preserved with great care in the church of St. Cadoc, and highly reverenced by the Welsh, who used it in their most solemn oaths and covenants. After spending there one year, St. Gildas and St. Cadoc left Llan-carvan, being desirous to live in closer retirement. They hid themselves first in the islands of Ronech and Echni. An ancient life of St. Cadoc tells us, that he died at Benevenna, which is the {216} Roman name of a place now called Wedon, in Northamptonshire. Some moderns take it for Benevento, in Italy, where they suppose him to have died. Chatelain imagines this St. Cadoc to be the same who is honored at Rennes, under the name of Cadoc, or Caduad, and from whom a small island on the coast of Vennes is called Enes-Caduad. St. Cadoc flourished in the beginning of the sixth century, and was succeeded in the abbacy of Llan-carvan, by Ellenius, "an excellent disciple of an excellent master," says Leland. See the Acts of St. Cadoc, in Capgrave; Usher's Antiquities, c. 13, p. 252. Chatelain's Notes on the. Martyr. p. 399.

JANUARY XXV.

THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL.

See Tillemont, t. 1, p. 192.

THIS great apostle was a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin. At his circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, he received the name of Saul. His father was by sect a Pharisee, and a denizen of Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia: which city had shown a particular regard for the cause of the Caesars; on which account Cassius deprived it of its privileges and lands; but Augustus, when conqueror, made it ample amends by honoring it with many new privileges, and with the freedom of Rome, as we read in the two Dions and Appian. Hence St. Paul, being born at Tarsus, was by privilege a Roman citizen, to which quality a great distinction and several exemptions were granted by the laws of the empire.[1] His parents sent him young to Jerusalem, where he was educated and instructed in the strictest observance of the law of Moses, by Gamaliel,[2] a learned and noble Jew, and probably a member of the Sanhedrim; and was a most scrupulous observer of it in every point. He appeals even to his enemies to bear evidence how conformable to it his life had been in every respect.[3] He embraced the sect of the Pharisees, which was of all others the most severe, though by its pride the most opposite to the humility of the gospel.[4] It was a rule among the Jews that all their children were to learn some trade with their studies, were it but to avoid idleness, and to exercise the body, as well as the mind, in something serious.[5] It is therefore probable that Saul learned in his youth the trade which he exercised even after his apostleship, of making tents.[6]

Saul, surpassing all his equals in zeal for the Jewish law and their traditions, which he thought the cause of God, became thereby a, blasphemer, a persecutor, and the most outrageous enemy of Christ.[7] He was one of those who combined to murder St. Stephen, and by keeping the garments of all who stoned that holy martyr, he is said by St. Austin to have stoned him by the hands of all the rest;[8] to whose prayers for his enemies he ascribes {217} the conversion of St. Paul:[9] "If Stephen," said he, "had not prayed, the church would never have had St. Paul."

After the martyrdom of the holy deacon, the priests and magistrates of the Jews raised a violent persecution against the church at Jerusalem, in which Saul signalized himself above others. By virtue of the power he had received from the high priest, he dragged the Christians out of their houses, loaded them with chains, and thrust them into prison.[10] He procured them to be scourged in the synagogues, and endeavored by torments to compel them to blaspheme the name of Christ. And as our Saviour had always been represented by the leading men of the Jews as an enemy to their law, it was no wonder that this rigorous Pharisee fully persuaded himself that _he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth_.[11] By the violences he committed, his name became everywhere a terror to the faithful. The persecutors not only raged against their persons, but also seized their estates and what they possessed in common,[12] and left them in such extreme necessity, that the remotest churches afterwards thought it incumbent on them to join in charitable contributions to their relief. All this could not satisfy the fury of Saul; he breathed nothing but threats and the slaughter of the other disciples.[13] Wherefore, in the fury of his zeal, he applied to the high priest and Sanhedrim for a commission to take up all Jews at Damascus who confessed Jesus Christ, and bring them bound to Jerusalem, that they might serve as public examples for the terror of others. But God was pleased to show forth in him his patience and mercy; and, moved by the prayers of St. Stephen and his other persecuted servants, for their enemies, changed him, in the very heat of his fury, into a vessel of election, and made him a greater man in his church by the grace of the apostleship, than St. Stephen had ever been, and a more illustrious instrument of his glory. He was almost at the end of his journey to Damascus, when about noon, he and his company were on a sudden surrounded by a great light from heaven, brighter than the sun.[14] They all saw the light, and being struck with amazement, fell to the ground. Then Saul heard a voice, which to him was articulate and distinct; but not understood, though heard by the rest:[15] _Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?_ Christ said not: Why dost thou persecute my disciples? but me: for it is he, their head, who is chiefly persecuted in his servants. Saul answered: _Who art thou, Lord?_ Christ said: _Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. It is hard for thee to kick against the goad:_ "to contend with one so much mightier than thyself. By persecuting my church you make it flourish, and only prick and hurt yourself." This mild expostulation of our Redeemer, accompanied with a powerful interior grace, strongly affecting his soul, cured his pride, assuaged his rage, and wrought at once a total change in him. Wherefore, trembling and astonished, he cried out: _Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?_ What to repair the past? What to promote your glory? I make a joyful oblation of myself to execute your will in every thing, and to suffer for your sake afflictions, disgraces, persecutions, torments, and every sort of death. The true convert expressed this, not in a bare form of words, nor with faint languid desires, nor with any exception lurking in the secret recesses of his heart; but with an entire sacrifice of himself, and an heroic victory over the world with its frowns and charms, over the devils with their snares and threats, and over himself and all inclinations of self-love; devoting himself totally to God. A {218} perfect model of a true conversion, the greatest work of almighty grace! Christ ordered him to arise and proceed on his journey to the city, where he should be informed of what he expected from him. Christ would not instruct him immediately by himself, but, St. Austin observes,[16] sent him to the ministry[17] which he had established in the church, to be directed in the way of salvation by those whom he had appointed for that purpose. He would not finish the conversion and instruction of this great apostle, whom he was pleased to call in so wonderful a manner, but by remitting him to the guidance of his ministers; showing us thereby that his holy providence has so ordered it, that all who desire to serve him, should seek his will by listening to those whom he has commanded us to hear, and whom he has sent in his own name and appointed to be our guides. So perfectly would he abolish in his servants all self-confidence and presumption, the source of error and illusion. The convert, rising from the ground, found that, though his eyes were open, he saw nothing. Providence sent this corporal blindness to be an emblem of the spiritual blindness in which he had lived, and to signify to him that he was henceforward to die to the world, and learn to apply his mind totally to the contemplation of heavenly things. He was led by the hand into Damascus, whither Christ seemed to conduct him in triumph. He was lodged in the house of a Jew named Judas, where he remained three days blind, and without eating or drinking. He doubtless spent his time in great bitterness of soul, not yet knowing what God required of him. With what anguish he bewailed his past blindness and false zeal against the church, we may conjecture both from his taking no nourishment during those three days, and from the manner in which he ever after remembered and spoke of his having been a blasphemer and a persecutor. Though the entire reformation of his heart was not gradual, as in ordinary conversions, but miraculous in the order of grace, and perfect in a moment; yet a time of probation and a severe interior trial (for such we cannot doubt but he went through on this occasion) was necessary to crucify the old man and all other earthly sentiments in his heart, and to prepare it to receive the extraordinary graces which God designed him. There was a Christian of distinction in Damascus, much respected by the Jews for his irreproachable life and great virtue; his name was Ananias. Christ appeared to this holy disciple; and commanded him to go to Saul, who was then in the house of Judas at prayer: Ananias trembled at the name of Saul, being no stranger to the mischief he had done in Jerusalem, or to the errand on which he was set out to Damascus. But our Redeemer overruled his fears, and charged him a second time to go to him, saying: _Go, for he is a vessel of election to carry my name before Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel: and I will show him how much he has to suffer for my name_. For tribulation is the test and portion of all the true servants of Christ. Saul in the mean time saw in a vision a man entering, and laying his hands upon him, to restore his sight. Ananias, obeying the divine order, arose, went to Saul, and laying his hands upon him, said: _Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to thee on thy journey, hath sent me that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost._ Immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he recovered his eyesight. Ananias added: _The God of our fathers hath chosen thee that thou shouldst know his will and see the just one, and shouldst hear the voice from his mouth: and thou shalt be his witness unto all men to publish what thou hast seen and heard. Arise, therefore, be baptized and washed from thy sins, invoking the name of the Lord._ Saul then arose, was baptized,{219} and took some refreshment. He stayed some few days with the disciples at Damascus, and began immediately to preach in the synagogues, that Jesus was the Son of God, to the great astonishment of all that heard him, who said: _Is not this he who persecuted at Jerusalem those who invoked the name of Jesus, and who is come hither to carry them away prisoners?_ Thus a blasphemer and a persecutor was made an apostle, and chosen to be one of the principal instruments of God in the conversion of the world.

* * * * *