EULALIA, the daughter of Christian parents, lived on a farm outside the gates of Barcelona. Now, when she heard that persecution had broken out, she cried, "Thanks do I render to Thee, Lord Jesu Christ, and glory to Thy holy Name, for now I behold that which I have desired, and I believe that with Thy help all my desire shall find accomplishment." Then the young girl at night escaped from her home, and, entering the city in the morning, presented herself before the magistrate, and defied him and his gods. The magistrate ordered her to be whipped, thinking that the lashes on her tender skin would subdue her constancy. But he was mistaken. She accepted the sufferings with joy, and was then stretched on the little-horse and her sides torn with iron hooks and burnt with torches. And in her agony she looked up to heaven and cried, "Lord Jesu Christ, hear my prayer, and perfect Thy work in me, and bid me be numbered among Thine elect in the rest of life eternal." And when she had so prayed, her soul sped from her, and entered into the Paradise of God, as a dove flies to its nest. Then the executioners cast her off from the rack upon the blood-stained soil; but the magistrate ordered, "Let the body hang to be devoured by the birds of the air." Then a light snow began to fall out of heaven and softly cover the virgin's naked and mangled body with a pure white pall. Then the executioners, astonished, withdrew, and on the third day the Christians were allowed to bear away the sacred relics.

Patroness of Barcelona and of sailors. Her relics are preserved at Barcelona, in the Cathedral. She is represented in art, with her soul, as a dove, issuing from her mouth, or lying covered with snow before a rack. It seems to be an error to regard her as having been crucified. In the Acts the command of the magistrate is, "Let her hang on the cross"; but this refers to the rack on which she was stretched. She is, however, sometimes represented with a cross.

S. MELETIUS, PATR. OF ANTIOCH.
(A.D. 381.)

[Commemorated by Greeks and Romans on the same day. But Maurolycus, by mistake, inserts him along with S. Meletius, B. of Pontus, on Dec.4th. Authorities:—Sozomen, Socrates, Theodoret, and the oration of S. John Chrysostom in his honour.]

The history of this noble Confessor is a sad one, for it opens up to us a picture of the dissensions which tore the Church in the 4th century. It will be remembered that the Church was at that period suffering from the prevalence of Arianism, which denied the Eternal Godhead of the Son. Favoured by the Court, Arianism had penetrated into the Church on all sides; many of the bishops were Arian, others were semi-Arian, unwilling to pronounce decidedly against the Godhead of Christ, and unwilling also to declare that great doctrine to be the Truth. The election of the bishops being in the hands of the people, if among the laity and clergy low views of Christ's nature prevailed, an Arian was chosen to be their bishop. It was none the better when the emperors interfered to nominate, for they would expel an orthodox prelate and substitute for him one who was an Arian. And it must be remembered that Arians were at that time mixed up with Catholics, as parties in the Church, and did not at first stand to one another in the position of separate and antagonistic communions. By the predominance of the votes of Arians, Meletius was elected and consecrated bishop of Beroea, and was afterwards by the same influence translated to the See of Sebaste.[37] He was present at the council of Seleucia (359), where he sided with the shifty semi-Arian Acacius of CÆsarea. But his eyes seem to have opened to the truth, and that gentle and peace-loving disposition which made him at first willing to soften differences was braced up by the imminence of the danger to true religion, to take a bold step. A council, assembled at Antioch in 361, placed Meletius in the see. This excellent man had a persuasive eloquence and a disposition which endeared him both to Catholics and Arians. A rumour began to spread that he was positively Catholic. After some sermons of a general character, he was desired to take part in a series of expositions of the great controverted text, Prov. viii.22. After George, bishop of Laodicea, had given a strongly Arian address, and Acacius, bishop of CÆsarea, had read a paper which seemed to aim at a safe ambiguity, Meletius rose, and asserted, in unequivocal language, the essential doctrine of NicÆa. The church rang with cries of applause and wrath, proceeding from Catholics and Arians. The Arian archdeacon stopped the new patriarch's mouth with his hand. Meletius held out three fingers, then one; and when his lips were freed by the archdeacon's seizing his hands, he repeated aloud his former words, and exhorted the people to cling to the Nicene faith. This could not be borne; the council, at another session, deposed Meletius; the Emperor Constantius drove him into exile; Euzoius, an old comrade of Arius, was made bishop of Antioch; and a new creed was published which affirmed that the Son was in nowise like to the Father, and was made out of what once was not. This led to a separation between the Catholics and the Arians. The latter were put in possession of all the churches, by imperial authority. Unfortunately, the Catholics were divided. Many held with the orthodox banished patriarch, Meletius, but some of the more obstinate refused to acknowledge him, and to communicate with those who did, because he had been ordained through Arian influence at Sebaste. On the accession of the Emperor Julian the Apostate, Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, and Eusebius of Vercelli resolved to do what was possible to allay the miserable schisms which devastated the East and Egypt. Accordingly a council was summoned at Alexandria, to which Eusebius betook himself, but Lucifer, sending a representative to the council, hasted to Antioch, where, with that unfortunate precipitancy which characterised all his actions, he ordained one Paulinus to the Patriarchate, a man belonging to the extreme orthodox side, without waiting the return of Meletius, who had been recalled from banishment. As soon as the council of Alexandria had reinstated S. Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli arrived at Antioch, and found that the visit of Lucifer of Cagliari had made matters worse instead of healing divisions. There were now three Patriarchs of Antioch: one, Euzoius, the Arian, in possession of all the churches except one, which, out of personal friendship for Paulinus he had ceded to him; another, Meletius, the banished and now recalled patriarch, against whose orthodoxy no breath of doubt was raised; and Paulinus, acknowledged by the Roman pontiff, at the head of a small party who rejected Meletius, because he had once been mixed up with Arians. Eusebius regretted what had been done, but his respect for Lucifer, says Socrates, induced him to be silent about it, and, on his departure, he engaged that all things should be set right by a council of bishops. Subsequently, he laboured with great earnestness to unite the dissentients, but without effect. Shortly after the departure of Eusebius, Meletius arrived in Antioch, and was obliged to assemble the faithful who clung to him outside the walls of the city. This was in 362. On June 26th, 363, Julian died, and his successor, Jovian, was a Catholic. Instantly the party of Acacius held a conclave, and agreed to become orthodox, conforming to the Catholic creed, showing very plainly, says Socrates, that their great object was to be in agreement with the imperial mind. Acacius had a meeting with Meletius, and joined his party.

The Emperor Jovian was succeeded by Valens in the East, in 364, and Meletius was again driven into exile, for the cruel tyrant was an Arian. As he was being taken out of the city in the chariot of the governor, the mob, exasperated at losing their beloved prelate, would have stoned the chief magistrate, had not Meletius screened him with his mantle. He was banished into Armenia, and during his absence, the Catholics were left without pastors through the severity of the imperial orders. Valens fell before the Goths, in the great battle of Hadrianople, in 378, and was succeeded by Gratian, who recalled the bishops that had been banished, and ordered "that the churches should be given up to those who held communion with Damasus, bishop of Rome."[38] Paulinus promised to communicate on the subject with Damasus. "Meletius, the mildest of men," continues Theodoret, "addressed Paulinus in a kind and affectionate manner: 'As God,' said he, 'committed to me the care of this flock, and as you have received the charge of another, and as our respective sheep hold the same doctrines, let us, O friend, unite our flocks. Let us throw aside all contests for superiority, and tend with equal assiduity the sheep entrusted to us. If the episcopal chair of this city be to us a matter of contention, let us place the holy gospel upon it, and let us seat ourselves on each side of it. If I die first, thou, O friend, wilt become the only ruler of the flock; but if your death occur before mine, I will, as far as I am able, tend the flock alone.' Paulinus, however, refused to comply with the offer so kindly and affectionately made by Meletius. The general sent by Gratian to execute his orders, after reflecting on what had been stated, gave up the churches to the holy Meletius. Paulinus continued to rule those who had from the beginning separated themselves from the rest of the flock."

S. Athanasius, S. Eusebius of Samosata, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Gregory Nyssen, S. Basil the Great, S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Pelagius of LaodicÆa, S. Amphilochius of Iconium, and nearly the whole of the East were in communion with Meletius, whereas Paulinus alone was acknowledged by Pope Damasus of Rome, the whole of the West, and Egypt. The Pope sent to him a synodal letter denouncing various heresies which prevailed in the East. Meletius at once summoned a council at Antioch, in 378, and accepted the synodal letter, though addressed to his rival.

Two great saints arose from the rival parties: S. Jerome, who was ordained priest by Paulinus, and S. John Chrysostom, who was the disciple of Meletius, from whom he received deacon's orders.

The Emperor Theodosius resolved to assemble a council in order to settle various affairs concerning the welfare of the Church, and to crush the Macedonian heresy. The bishops, 150 in number, met at Constantinople on May 2nd, 381, and Meletius was appointed to preside. "When the whole assembly of bishops had been ushered into the palace," says Theodoret, "the emperor, without noticing the others, ran up directly to the great Meletius, and embraced him kissed his eyes, lips, breast, head, and the right hand which had crowned him, and exhibited all those demonstrations of affection which would be shown by a dutiful son on beholding a beloved father after a long separation."[39] During the council, Meletius was attacked by an illness which proved fatal. He exhorted the bishops to peaceful courses, and died while the council was sitting. "Where now," asked S. Gregory of Nyssa, in the funeral sermon, "is that sweet calm look, that radiant smile, that kind hand which was wont to second the kind voice?" His name, as S. Gregory observed, expressed the sweetness of his character; and S. Chrysostom adds, that so dear had the gentle patriarch become to the people of Antioch that they had engraved his likeness on their rings, their cups, and the walls of their bed-rooms. His funeral was magnificent; lights were borne before the embalmed corpse, and psalms sung—this latter was "a practice quite contrary to the usual Roman customs," curiously says Sozomen.[40] These honours were repeated in all cities through which it passed, until it rested beside the grave of S. Babylas, at Antioch.

S. ETHELWOLD, B. OF LINDISFARNE.
(A.D. 740.)

[Anglican Martyrology of Wilson. Authorities:—Simeon of Durham and Malmesbury.]

There is nothing of much importance to relate concerning this saint, who was minister to S. Cuthbert in Farne, afterwards abbot of Mailros, and finally bishop of Lindisfarne.

S. BENEDICT OF ANIANE, AB.
(A.D. 821.)

[Roman Martyrology. Authority:—His life by Ardo Smaragdus, his disciple.]

This Benedict, the reviver of monastic discipline, was the son of Aigulf, Count of Languedoc, and served King Pepin and his son Charlemagne as cupbearer. But, at the age of twenty, he resolved to seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness with all his heart. From that time forward he led a mortified life in the Court for three years, eating sparingly and allowing himself little sleep. In 774, having narrowly escaped drowning, he made a vow to quit the world entirely. Returning to Languedoc, he was confirmed in his resolution by the advice of a hermit, named Widmar, and, under pretext of going to the Court at Aix-la-Chapelle, he went to the abbey of S. Seine, five leagues from Dijon, and became a monk there. His discipline of himself was most severe. He frequently spent the whole night in prayer, standing barefoot on the ground in a keen frost. On the death of the abbot, the brethren desired to elect Benedict, but he, knowing their aversion to a reformation, left them, and retired to a hermitage, in 780, on the brook Aniane, on his own estate in Languedoc. Here he was joined by the hermit Widmar and other solitaries, who placed themselves under his direction. They earned their livelihood by their labour, and lived on bread and water, except on Sundays and great festivals. In a short while Benedict had three hundred monks under his rule, and he built a monastery; and also exercised the office of general inspector to all the monasteries of Provence, Languedoc, and Gascony. King Louis the Pious, who succeeded his father, Charlemagne, in 814, committed to the saint the inspection of all the abbeys in his kingdom. In 817 he presided at an assembly of abbots, to enforce restoration of discipline in their monasteries. He died at Inde, a monastery near Aix-la-Chapelle, on February 11th, 821, at the age of seventy one; but his festival is usually observed on the following day, which is that of his burial.

[36] This is a mistake, as Bollandus has pointed out; the cross means the little-horse on which she was extended.

[37] It is uncertain whether he was first at Sebaste or at Beroea. Socrates says he was translated from Beroea to Sebaste, but there are circumstances which make this statement impossible to reconcile with other facts.

[38] Theodoret, lib. v. c.2.

[39] Lib. v., c.7.

[40] Lib. vii., c.10.