work serves to show the state of topographical tradition as it then existed; and often stands in direct contradiction to the specifications of later ages.'

During the centuries after the destruction of Jerusalem, the metropolitan see of Palestine was at Caesarea; to which the see of Jerusalem was subject like the rest.2 But when in the fourth century the holy places at Jerusalem became known, and were decorated with splendid edifices, and the Holy City began to reassume its importance in the Christian world, its bishops were not slow to bring forward its claims to a higher rank, as the original seat of the apostolic church. Even so early as at the Council of Nicea, A. D. 325, its traditional claims had been acknowledged and affirmed; saving however the dignity of the then metropolitan see.3 Cyrill as bishop of Jerusalem contended long with Acacius of Caesarea for the supremacy; though he was at last compelled to yield to the authority of the primate, by whom he was deposed. His successor, John, claimed also to be independent of Caesarea, and appealed to the Patriarch of Alexandria; for which he is censured by Jerome.5 The following bishop, Praylus, was a meek and holy man, and apparently avoided such controversies. But Juvenal, his successor, who held the chair of Jerusalem from about A. D. 420 to 458, exerted himself to the utmost to establish the authority of his see, not only as superior to Caesarea, but as independent of

1) See more above, Vol. I. p. 375. 2) So Jerome, as if addressing himself to John, bishop of Jerusalem, and referring him to the council of Nicea, exclaims: "Ni fallar, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palaestinae metropolis Caesaraea sit, et totius orientis Antiochia;" Hieron. Ep. XXXVIII, ad Pammach. Tom. IV. P. II. p. 330. ed. Mart.

3) Concil. Nic. Can. VII, Eлeiðn συνήθεια κεκράτηκε καὶ παράδοσις ἀρχαῖα ὥστε τὸν ἐν Αἰλίᾳ ἐπίσκοπον τιμᾶσθαι, ἐχέτω τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς τιμῆς, τῇ μητροπόλει σωζομένου τοῦ οἰκείου ἀξιώματος. Labb. Concil. Tom. I. p. 47.

4) Theodoret. H. E. II. 26. Sozom. IV. 25. 5) Hieron. I. c.

the patriarch of Antioch. It was not however until the Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451-3, that he was able after long efforts to effect his purpose. It was there decreed, that Jerusalem should be thenceforth an independent patriarchate, comprising the three Palestines; while Antioch should retain the two Phenicias and northern Arabia.'

Amid all the religious or rather theological controversies, which agitated the oriental churches during these centuries, it was hardly to be expected that Palestine, crowded as it was with ecclesiastics and monks, should remain in peace. On the contrary, it actually became one of the chief seats of strife and fierce contention, which were not in all cases appeased without bloodshed. In the fourth century, the Arian controversy had much to do with the repeated depositions of Cyrill from the see of Jerusalem. 415 Pelagius himself appeared before two tumultuous synods at Jerusalem and Diospolis (Lydda).3 About the same period we find in and around Jerusalem the germ of the controversy, which a century later raged with such vehemence against the Origenists.*

In A. D.

The declaration of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) in favour of the doctrine of the two distinct natures of Christ, was the signal for the outbreak of violence on the part of the Monophysites, its opposers; whose chief seat at first was in Palestine and Egypt. Theodosius, a fanatical monk, who had already excited tumults in the council, returned to Jerusalem; and having ingratiated himself with Eudocia, the widow of the late emperor Theodosius II, who resided in Palestine, he soon obtained influence throughout the

1) Concil. Chalcedon. Act. VII. Labb. Tom. IV. p. 613. See also Le Quien Oriens Christ. Tom. III. p. 110, seq.

2) Sozom. H. E. IV. 25. 3) Neander K. G. II. iii. p. 1222, seq.

4) Neander 1. c. p. 1424, seq.

convents, and raised a fierce party against the decision of the council. His partisans took possession of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, deposed the patriarch Juvenal, drove him from the country, and elected Theodosius in his stead. The orthodox bishops and moderate men were now everywhere deposed; some were slain; and their places filled by unworthy persons and even malefactors. The emperor Marcian, on hearing of these events, took measures to replace the exiled patriarch in his station, and restore things to their former order; but this could only be done after fierce conflicts; since both parties (as Evagrius expresses it) acted only according to the dictates of their rage. Theodosius retired secretly to Mount Sinai; where he was followed by a letter missive of the emperor, to which we have already alluded in another place.1

The controversy continued to rage in Egypt, accompanied with many tumults; and the successive emperors, themselves weak-minded or vacillating men, were unable to quench the flames of discord. Under Anastasius I, who began to reign in A. D. 491, and was himself opposed to the decree of the council of Chalcedon, the monophysite party acquired new strength, and gave occasion to new disturbances, under its two distinguished leaders, Xenaja or Philoxenus, and Severus.2 The tumults broke out first at Antioch; where Flavianus, the mild but orthodox patriarch, was assailed in A. D. 512 by a host of fanatic monks from the neighbourhood, who forced their way into the city, and demanded that he should anathematize the acts of the council of Chalcedon. The people of the city however sided with the patriT. II. p. 313. Evagrii Hist. Ecc. II. 5. Le Quien Oriens Christ. III. p. 166.

1) Vol. I. pp. 183, 184. For the general history of this tumult, see Vita St. Euthemii No. 73, in Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Graecae, Tom. II. p. 261; Lat. in Acta Sanctor. Jan. VOL. II.

4

2) Neander K. G. II. iii. p. 1128, seq.

arch, rose upon the monks, and slew a large number, who found their only sepulchre in the waves of the Orontes. The monks of Coele-Syria also, among whom Flavianus had lived, hastened to Antioch to tender him their services and protection. Yet he was ultimately deposed in the same year, and driven into exile at Petra. He was succeeded in his office by the monophysite leader Severus.1

The patriarchate of Jerusalem was at this time held by Elias; whose influence among the monks and clergy of Palestine, however great, was yet less than that of the celebrated anchorite, St. Sabas, the founder of several laurae and monasteries; and among them, of that which still bears his name in the desert between Jerusalem and the Dead Sea. In the very same year, A. D. 512, Severus of Antioch sent messengers to Elias, who refused to acknowledge him. The message was repeated in May, A. D. 513, accompanied by several clergy and some of the emperor's troops. This roused the indignation of Sabas in his holy retreat; he repaired with other abbots to Jerusalem; expelled the messengers of Severus from the city; and collecting a multitude of monks before Calvary, pronounced anathemas against Severus and all those of his communion, in the presence of the magistrates and of the officers and troops whom the emperor had sent. Still, the power of the state at length prevailed. The emperor sent Olympius, who then held the command in Palestine, with a body of troops to Jerusalem; and as Elias still refused to disavow allegiance to the decrees of Chalcedon, he was deposed and banished to Ailah. There he died in A. D. 518; being visited in his last moments by Sabas.2

1) Evagr. H. E. III. 32. 2) Cyrill. Scythop. Vita Sabae 56, 60; Gr. et Lat. in Cotelerii

Monum. Eccles. Graec. T. III. pp. 308-10, 324. Le Quien Oriens Christ. III. p. 181, seq.

His successor in the patriarchate, John III, who was expected to anathematize the council of Chalcedon, not only did not do this, but took at first a neutral course, and afterwards made common cause with the orthodox party. Disputes and fierce passion continued to prevail among the ecclesiastics and monks of Palestine; but they seem not to have broken forth into deeds of open violence. The accession of the orthodox emperor, Justin I, in A. D. 518, was hailed with triumph by Sabas and his disciples. The new decrees of this emperor in favour of orthodoxy were no sooner known in Jerusalem, than an infinite multitude of monks and laymen collected in that city; the holy Sabas and a council of bishops hastened to assemble; and at a festival celebrated on the 6th of August, the imperial decrees were openly promulgated.

Justinian, who ascended the throne in A. D. 527, was the still more decided and despotic friend of the orthodox faith. Sabas died about A. D. 532 in the odour of sanctity, at the great age of ninety-four years.' Not long after his decease, new troubles and dissensions broke out among his immediate disciples and flock. The unquiet spirit of oriental monachism, which had hitherto expended itself in the monophysite controversy, or been controlled by the predominance of a master spirit, or felt the influence of the imperial despotism, now began to manifest itself in a different form. The tendency and doctrines of the Origenists were again broached, especially by Nonnus in the new laura founded by Sabas near Tekoa, and in several others. The same doctrines found admission also among many of the members of the principal laura of Sabas; but the great body remained faithful to the orthodox doctrine, and expelled the others to 1) Cyrill. Scyth. Vita Sabae, in Tom. III. p. 353, seq. Le Quien Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Graec. Oriens Chr. III. p. 194, seq.