AFTER the martyrdom of S. James, and the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans, the surviving apostles and disciples of our Lord are reported to have assembled at Jerusalem to consult who should be appointed bishop in the room of S. James. They unanimously declared Simeon, the son of Cleopas, as deserving to succeed to that important office. He is said to have been cousin-german to our Saviour, for Hegesippus asserts that Cleopas was the brother of Joseph. Hegesippus gives the following account of his martyrdom:—"There are those that take the lead of the whole Church as martyrs, even the kindred of our Lord. Profound peace had lasted for the Church till the days of Trajan, when Simeon, the relative of our Lord, being the son of Cleopas, was waylaid by the heretics, and was accused to the Consul Atticus. After he had been tormented many days, he died a martyr, with such firmness that all wondered, even the president himself, that a man of one hundred and twenty years of age should endure such tortures. At last he was ordered to be crucified."

In art, S. Simeon appears with a cross, and as a very aged man. Some of his relics are preserved in the church of S. James the Great, at Bologna; his head in the Jesuit church at Brussels; other portions of the body at Lisborne, near Lipstadt, in Westphalia.

SS. CLAUDIUS, MAXIMUS, AND COMP., MM.
(A.D. 295.)

[Almost all Martyrologies. Authority:—The very ancient, but fabulous Acts of S. Susanna, VM. See Aug.11th.]

Claudius and Maximus were brothers of Pope S. Caius, and S. Gabinius, priest in Rome. Maximus was count of the privy purse to Diocletian, and Claudius also held a post of distinction about the person of the emperor. Their family was one of the most noble in Rome, and when Galerius Maximianus, the CÆsar, had lost his wife, Valeria, daughter of Diocletian, the emperor resolved on finding for his son-in-law another wife, of good repute and honourable birth. Hearing of the beauty and modesty of Susanna, daughter of Gabinius, he sent Claudius to the father, to ask the hand of Susanna for the young CÆsar. But Susanna had resolved to love and devote herself to none, save Jesus Christ. When she was brought into the room by her father to hear the flattering announcement, her uncle Claudius would have kissed her, but she gently withdrew her face, saying, "Pardon me, my uncle, but no man has ever kissed me." Then she declared that she was resolved to continue in celibacy, loving none save Jesus. Claudius was surprised and alarmed, for the request of an emperor is the same as a command. He had already received some Christian teaching from his brothers, the bishop and the priest, and now was fully convinced of the power of that religion which could make a young girl reject a princely lover and the prospect of a throne, with every prospect of death as an alternative. He consulted with his brother Maximus, and with his wife PrÆpedigna, and they, together with his sons, Alexander and Cutias, forseeing an explosion of imperial rage, which would sweep them all away, hastened to receive the sacrament of regeneration, and then Claudius and Maximus calmly informed the emperor that the maiden preferred a heavenly to an earthly crown. Diocletian was furious, and gave over Maximus, Claudius, and the whole family to be disposed of by one Julian, a heathen favourite, and apparently personally hostile to Maximus and Claudius. He hurried these brothers, with the wife and sons of Claudius, to CumÆ, where they were burnt alive, and their ashes cast into the river. Gabinius and his daughter Susanna were reserved in prison to suffer later.

SS. CONSTANTIA, AND HER COMPANIONS, VV.
(4TH CENT.)

[In some authors on Jan.28th; in others, on Feb.17th; in others, on Feb, 25th; also on Feb.18th. Authority:—The Acts of S. Agnes, attributed to S. Ambrose, but of questionable authenticity; and the apocryphal Acts of SS. John and Paul.]

S. Constantia, daughter of Constantine the Great, was afflicted with a distressing disease, apparently scrofula. The Roman general, Gallicanus, being much in favour with Contantine, and having lost his wife, was offered Constantia in marriage by the emperor. Gallicanus was called off to oppose an inroad of the barbarians on Thrace, and he vowed, if he obtained the victory, to accept the faith of Christ. He succeeded in repulsing the enemy, and returned to Rome to find that Constantia had been healed of her scrofula at the tomb of S. Agnes, and that she had persuaded his three daughters, Augusta, Attica, and Artemia, to live with her, as consecrated virgins, near the shrine of the virgin martyr, to whose intercession she attributed her cure. It is difficult to decide what shadow of historical foundation there is for this story.

S. FLAVIAN OF CONSTANTINOPLE, B. M.
(A.D. 449.)

[Roman Martyrology; but by the Greeks on Feb.16th. Authorities:—Nicephorus Callistus, Evagrius, and the letters of S. Leo the Great to Flavian.[54]]

It is not easy to understand the position of any great man of the eventful 4th and 5th centuries, without a general knowledge of the struggles of the Church against one heresy after another for the maintenance of the true doctrine, as to the natures and person of Christ Jesus, and this it is almost impossible to compress into a single article on the life of one actor in that eventful period. S. Proclus, author of the famous "Tome," as it was called, or doctrinal statement on the Incarnation, was patriarch of Constantinople. S. Leo, pious, earnest, Roman-spirited, was bishop of Rome. Domnus was patriarch of Antioch. The great S. Cyril of Alexandria was dead, and had left a large bequest to his successor, conjuring him, "by the venerable and awful mysteries," to befriend his kindred. The archdeacon Dioscorus was elected in his place, and forthwith extorted from the family of Cyril considerable sums, and imprisoned and otherwise outraged the nephews of the deceased patriarch. The new patriarch had previously borne a fair character, but his exaltation revealed a spirit at once tyrannous and sensual. His life became openly scandalous. He deposed from their functions those whom Cyril had favoured; he burnt the house, felled the trees, and hacked up the land of one deacon against whom he bore a grudge.

S. Proclus of Constantinople died on October 24th, 447, and Flavian, the treasurer of the church, was elected to succeed him. He immediately became obnoxious to the eunuch Chrysaphius, by refusing him the fee which the creatures of the court attempted to impose on the patriarchs on their appointment. Theodosius, the younger, was then emperor; his sister, Pulcheria, was at the head of the orthodox party in the Church, and the royal chamberlain, Chrysaphius, godson of Eutyches, supported the heretical party out of motives of hostility to the rival power of Pulcheria, and affection for his godfather. Dioscorus of Alexandria took the same side as Chrysaphius, and these men used their influence to expel from their dioceses bishops who did not satisfy them. Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, the famous ecclesiastical historian, was anathematized by the haughty patriarch, Dioscorus, in his cathedral at Alexandria; and Theodoret wrote to Flavian of Constantinople, complaining of the outrage. Domnus of Antioch took part with Theodoret, and sent envoys to Constantinople in his favour, whom Theodoret charged with letters, in which he protested his orthodoxy, declaring that he believed in one Christ, truly God, and truly man. "I give Him one worship," he wrote, "yet I know that the Godhead and the flesh are distinct, for the union is without confusion." But now began the great Eutychian struggle. Eutyches, abbot of the principal monastery of Constantinople, denied that Christ, at His incarnation, was "perfect God and perfect man—one, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person." On November 8th, 448, a council of bishops assembled in the synod-room of Flavian's palace, at Constantinople. One of these bishops was Eusebius of DorylÆum, who begged the council to summon Eutyches, asserting that he would convict him of heresy. Flavian observed that an accusation against one so respected was simply astonishing. Could not Eusebius visit Eutyches before invoking the judgment of the council? Eusebius, who was greatly excited, declared that Eutyches had once been his friend; he had repeatedly warned him to desist from heterodox language, he could not, after these vain remonstrances, "go and hear him once again blaspheme." It was, therefore, agreed that Eutyches should be summoned; the council adjourned to the 12th, and the patriarch Flavian, having made profession of his faith in Christ as perfect God and perfect man, of one substance with the Father as to his Godhead, and with Mary as to his manhood, called on the other bishops to declare the true faith on this great doctrine. When they had done so, the council was adjourned till Nov. 15th, when the messengers who had been sent to Eutyches reported that he would not leave the monastery; that he regarded Eusebius of DorylÆum as his personal enemy; and that, as to his faith, he denied that Christ's flesh was of one substance with ours, and that, after the incarnation, there was more than one nature in Him. He also sent a brother abbot to inform the council that he was ill. Flavian answered, kindly, "We have no idea of pressing hardly upon him. We are old friends of his; we will wait till he is better, and then let him come and confess that he has erred." He added, after the sitting was broken up, that "fire itself seemed cold to Eusebius," whose vehemence he had endeavoured to calm down. A third summons was followed, on Nov.27th, by the personal attendance of Eutyches. His great influence and position was shown by the officers, soldiers, and monks who escorted him, and by an imperial order that the patrician Florentius should have a seat in the synod to see that justice was shown to the accused. The patriarch Flavian asked if Eutyches confessed an union out of two natures. He replied that he did. "My lord abbot," asked Eusebius, "do you confess two natures after the incarnation?" Eutyches attempted to fence with the question, but, when brought to the point, he denied the existence of two natures in the one Christ. Then, all the bishops rose, and Flavian, in the name of the synod, passed sentence of deposition and excommunication against Eutyches. After the council was broken up, Eutyches said, in a low voice, to Florentius, "I appeal to Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem." He at once wrote to S. Leo of Rome. Flavian also wrote, and sent a record of what had passed. On Feb.18th, before Flavian's letter, which was unaccountably delayed, had reached Rome, Leo wrote to Flavian, marvelling at his silence, and requesting him to explain the grounds on which Eutyches had been thus severely punished. Dioscorus of Alexandria was forward in espousing the quarrel of Eutyches. He at once admitted him into his communion, and worked, in conjunction with the chamberlain Chrysaphius, in support of his petition for a general council. Flavian now replied to Pope Leo's letter; he entreated Leo to give a written approval of the sentence against Eutyches, and thereby to preserve Christendom from any fresh disturbance. Before S. Leo could receive this letter, the Emperor Theodosius wrote on March 30th to Dioscorus, announcing his will that a general council should meet at Ephesus, on August 1st. S. Leo sent three legates to attend this council: Julius, bishop of Puteoli; Renatus, a priest; and Hilarus, a deacon. On the 13th of June, he wrote several letters, one of them was his famous "Tome," a doctrinal epistle addressed to S. Flavian, a clear, forcible, intelligible text-book on both aspects of the incarnation-mystery. On the 8th of August, 449, the council met in the church of S. Mary at Ephesus. About a hundred and thirty bishops were present. Dioscorus of Alexandria presided. Next to him sat the papal legate, Julius. It was evident from the first that this council was not free. The eunuch Chrysaphius was at hand to support his godfather Eutyches; veteran troops of Asia, a band of archers, were collected to obey the summons of Dioscorus. After the writ of convocation had been read in due form, Hilarus explained the reason of Leo's absence, and announced that Leo had sent a letter. "Let it be received." The letter was handed in, but, by a pre-concerted scheme, it was put aside unread, as Dioscorus dreaded its effects on the assembled fathers, in its place being read a letter of the emperor to Dioscorus. Eutyches was then introduced. The records of his trial were read, and Dioscorus still kept back the letter of Leo of Rome, promising to read it afterwards. During the reading of the trial a scene of tumult took place. One bishop exclaimed, when he heard that Christ was of two natures, "This language turns the Church upside down!" Another cried, "Let him who says that in Christ are two natures be cut in twain." "Will you endure," asked Dioscorus, "to hear of two natures after the incarnation?" His followers, among the bishops, responded, "Anathema." "I want your voices, and your hands too," said Dioscorus, "if anyone cannot shout, let him hold up his hand." In the uproar, one bishop after another yielded, and re-habilitated Eutyches. Hilarus again vainly attempted to procure a hearing of Leo's letter. Dioscorus, not content with having restored Eutyches, determined on having Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius of DorylÆum deposed and excommunicated. The scene now became really terrific. The bishops who had acquitted Eutyches against their conscience, struggled hard to escape this new degradation. Several started up, and clasped the knees of the president, Dioscorus. Onesiphorus of Iconium cried, imploringly, "By the feet of your piety, I pray you forbear; Flavian has done nothing worthy of condemnation. If he deserves rebuke, rebuke him; but do not condemn a bishop for the sake of a priest." Dioscorus rose from his throne, and, standing upon the footstool, made a signal with his hand, and exclaimed, "Look you, he that will not sign the sentence has to deal with me. If my tongue were to be cut out for it, I would say, 'Depose Flavian.' Are you making a sedition? Where are the counts?" At the signal, which had been pre-concerted, a body of soldiers, with clubs and swords, rushed in; monks followed; the trembling bishops hid themselves behind the altar, or under the benches, and as they were not inspired with a zeal of martyrdom, they successively subscribed a blank paper, which was afterwards filled with the condemnation of the patriarch of Constantinople. Flavian was instantly delivered to the wild beasts of this spiritual amphitheatre, the monks and soldiers, and the bishops even, most hostile to him, fell on him. Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, buffeted and kicked,—like a wild ass, says Zonaras,—and trampled his brother of Constantinople. Some of the bishops were locked up in the vestry of the church, and not allowed to leave till they signed the sentence. Hilarus escaped without compromising his fidelity. Nothing is known of the conduct of Julius. Renatus was not there; he had died on his way. Flavian was ordered into exile, but was so bruised by the treatment he had received in the church at Ephesus, that he died three days after, August 11th, in a village of Lydia.

So closed the assembly, which has received its name from an indignant letter of S. Leo: "It was no court of justice, but a gang of robbers." This Latrocinium, it is almost needless to say, has been rejected by the Church; its decrees were reversed by the council of Chalcedon; and S. Flavian, "that second Abel," as he was called by S. Leo, was re-vindicated with honour.

S. ANGILBERT, AB.
(A.D. 814.)

[Some French Martyrologies. Authorities:—A life by Hariulph the Monk, which is, however, much interpolated; and a later life.]

Angilbert, a man of noble birth, was much loved by Pepin the Short, son of Charles Martel, and by his sons, Charles and Carloman. He was destined to rule one of the Archiepiscopal sees. Nevertheless, he married Bertha, daughter of Charlemagne, after he was ordained priest, with the king's consent, and by her had two sons, Nithard and Harnid.[55] Charlemagne now made his son-in-law duke of the northern coast, and his office was to watch against, and resist the attacks of the Norman pirates. In his perigrinations he often stopped at Centulum, where was a monastery, and prayed with fervour at the tomb of S. Richarius (Riquier). Falling into a dangerous illness, he vowed that, should he recover, he would embrace the monastic life. On his restoration to health, he was summoned to resist the Danes, who had run their boats up the Somme, and were devastating the country on both sides. Angilbert at once went to the tomb of S. Richarius, renewed his vow, and then, buckling on his harness, fell like a thunderbolt on the pirates, and utterly defeated and exterminated them. He at once communicated his intention to his wife and to the king; neither raised any objections, and the gentle Bertha herself took the veil at the same time that her husband donned the monastic habit, in the same house of Centulum, though, probably, in a different part of the monastery.

S. Angilbert was sent on several missions to Rome. On one occasion he was charged to conduct thither Felix, bishop of Urgel, who had been condemned by a provincial council at Ratisbon, for having affirmed that Christ was merely the adopted son of God.

He died twenty-two days after Charlemagne.

[54] To a great extent taken from Canon Bright's Church History.

[55] This is stated by the author of his life, and Nithard himself (lib.4) says of his father, "He begot me, Nithard, and my brother, Harnid, of the daughter of this great king, called Bertha"; but, on the other hand, Eginhard does not mention Angilbert, and this has led Bollandus to express a doubt on the matter.