Pierius

ON ST. PIERIUS, PRESBYTER AT ALEXANDRIA IN EGYPT,

AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

Commentary

Pierius, presbyter of Alexandria. (S.)

BY J. V. D. G.

§ I. Of the fame of St. Pierius among the ecclesiastical writers and of his true name.

[1] St. Pierius is praised by Eusebius, The memory of this not undistinguished man among the first clerics of the celebrated church of Alexandria is praised above all by Eusebius, Jerome, Philip of Side, Photius and Nicephorus Callistus. In the last chapter of the seventh book of the Ecclesiastical History, treating of the ecclesiastical men who flourished in his age, Eusebius reports this: Ἐν δὲ τοῖς μάλιστα καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς σπανιωτάτους ἴσμεν γενομένους τῶν μὲν ἐπ᾽ Ἀλεξανδρείας πρεσβυτέρων Πιέριον, Μελέτιον δὲ τῶν κατὰ Πόντον ἐκκησιῶν ἐπίσκοπον. Ἀλλ᾽ ὁ μὲν ἄκρως ἀκτήμονι βίῳ καὶ μαθήμασι φιλοσόφοις δεδοκίμαστο, ταῖς περὶ τὰ θεῖα θεωρίαις καὶ ἐξηγήσεσι, καὶ ταῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς Ἐκκλησίας διαλέξεσιν ὑπερφυῶς ἐξησκημένος. But among those who came nearest to our own times we know singular and outstanding men, Pierius, presbyter of the city of Alexandria, and Meletius, bishop of the churches of Pontus. And Pierius was distinguished by voluntary poverty and philosophical disciplines, and was exceedingly practised in the contemplation and exposition of the sacred letters and in ecclesiastical sermons In the edition of Hugo Laemmer, Schaffhausen, 1862, pp. 601 – 2..

[2] Jerome, St. Jerome, in weaving his Catalogue of illustrious men, could not fail to come upon Pierius: of whom he wrote an entire seventy-sixth chapter, which it is useful to recite here. For it will be necessary to refer the reader rather often to that text and to others of the ancient writers. Pierius, presbyter of the church of Alexandria, under the emperors Carus and Diocletian, at the time when Bishop Theonas governed that church, taught the peoples most flourishingly, and attained such elegance of speech and of various treatises, which survive to this day, that he was called Origen the younger. It is established that he was a man of wonderful ἀσκήσεως and a seeker of voluntary poverty, most learned in the art of dialectic and rhetoric, and that after the persecution he spent the whole time of his life at Rome. His is a very long treatise on the prophet Hosea, which the discourse itself shows was delivered on the vigil of Easter P. L., vol. XXII, col. 521.. Elsewhere, writing the second letter to Pammachius, Jerome brings forward this very brief fragment from a certain lucubration of Pierius on the first epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians: Origen, Dionysius, Pierius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus and Apollinaris interpreted this epistle very fully: of whom Pierius, when he was sifting and expounding the sense of the apostle, and had proposed to explain that saying, But I would that all were as myself, added: ταῦτα λέγων Παῦλος ἀντικρὺς ἀγαμίαν κηρύσσει P. L., vol. XXIII, col. 685..

[3] Philip of Side, In a fragment plucked from the Christian History, today lost, of Philip of Side, who wrote in the 5th century Cf. Fabricius, Bibl. gr., vol. VII, p. 418 – 19; vol. X, p. 691., Pierius is asserted to have governed the catechetical school of Alexandria third after Origen: μετὰ Ὠριγένην, Ἠρακλᾶου, μετὰ τοῦτον, Διονύσιος· μετὰ τοῦτον, Πιέριος, μετὰ Πιέριον, Θεόγνωστος, after Origen Heraclas, after him Dionysius, after whom Pierius, after Pierius Theognostus. This fragment is read in the Baroccian codex no. 142 of the Bodleian library Catal. cod. mss. bibl. Bodl., part I, p. 242., fol. 216v, and was first edited by Dodwell as an appendix to the Dissertations on Irenaeus [Pp. 488 – 514. Cf. de Boor, Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, vol. VI, p. 487; Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. V, p. 167.]. But Dodwell had by no means given whatever from Philip of Side pertaining to Pierius appears in this Baroccian codex. For in those excerpts pertaining to ecclesiastical history which are collected there from fol. 212 – 224, the following is had about Pierius: Πιέριος πρεσβύτερος Ἀλεξανδρείας * κατὰ τοῦτον ἤκμαζε τὸν χρόνον, ἐν δὲ Πόντῳ Μελέτιος ἐπίσκοπος, ἄνδρες εἰς παιδείαν θαυμαστοί, Pierius, presbyter of Alexandria, flourished at this time, and in Pontus Meletius the bishop, men wonderful for instruction. Thus far, certainly, the author reports the passage of Eusebius which we have adduced, but he goes on: Ὁ δὲ Πιέριος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λόγῳ τῶν εἰς τὸ πάσχα πολὺ ἐνίσταται ὅτι Παῦλος εἶχε γυναίκα καὶ ταύτην τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀνέθετο τῇ πρὸς αὐτὴν κοινωνίᾳ ἀποταξάμενος. Pierius, in the first of the sermons on Easter, insists much on this, that Paul had a wife, whom he consecrated to God for the sake of the church, having given up all fellowship with her. The same things are repeated elsewhere in the Baroccian codex in exactly the same words in another excerpt, reporting the beginning of the thirty-first chapter of the third book of the cited work of Eusebius. Then the aforesaid Philip of Side continues: ἐνέτυχον δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑτέροις σπουδάσμασι πλείοσιν ἀναγκαίοις καὶ μάλιστα τῷ περὶ τῆς θεοτόκου καὶ τῷ εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ Ὠσηέ. Θεόδωρος δέ τις συνηγορῶν ἐν

Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ γράψας δι᾽ ἐπῶν ἐν τρισκαιδεκάτῳ λόγῳ φησιν, ὅτι καὶ Πιέριος καὶ Ἰσίδωρος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ἐμαρτύρησαν καὶ ναὸν ἔχουσιν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ μέγιστον. Ἐν δὲ τῷ λόγῳ τῷ εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου αὐτὸς ὁ Πιέριος πλεῖστα ὠφέλησεν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ. I have come upon other works of his which can profit many, and especially the little book on the Mother of God and the commentary on the beginning of Hosea. Theodore, a certain advocate of Alexandria, who wrote in verse, says in the thirteenth discourse that Pierius and Isidore, his brother, underwent martyrdom, and that a most ample temple was dedicated to them at Alexandria. In the discourse on the life of St. Pamphilus, Pierius himself brings forward many things useful for the divine scripture. Finally, the same writer recites certain specimens of the interpretations of Pierius in the sacred letters. They are these: Φίλιππος· στόμα λαμπάδων. Ἡρωδιάς· ἀπατωμένη. Ἡρώδης· δερματίνη δόξα, κατὰ Πιέριον. Philip, mouth of lamps. Herodias, deceived. Herod, glory of skins, according to Pierius.

[4] Photius These various excerpts were very recently edited by the renowned C. de Boor, who conjectured, and indeed proved by arguments not to be despised, that each of them is a particle of the work of Philip of Side Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. V, p. 171 – 74., to which Photius testifies, in codex XXXV of his Bibliotheca P. G., vol. CIII, col. 68., that the title Κριστιανικὴ ἱστορία was prefixed. The same Photius in his Myriobiblon professes that he read through the works of St. Pierius, which he reviews and on which he gives his judgment, with the addition of a brief compendium of the course of his life, in codices CXVIII and CXIX Ibid., col. 398 – 402.. This passage of Photius, together with the Latin interpretation of Andreas Schott, we append here.

ΡΙΘ᾽. Πιερίου πρεσβυτέρου λόγοι διάφοροι. Ἀνεγνώσθη Πιερίου πρεσβυτέρου ὅν καὶ σὺν τῷ ἀδελφῷ Ἰσιδώρῳ τὸν ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ ἀγωνίσασθαί φασιν ἀγῶνα, Παμφίλου τε τοῦ μάρτυρος ὑφηγητὴν τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν γενέσθαι μαθημάτων καὶ τοῦ κατὰ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἡγήσασθαι παιδευτηρίου. Λόγους δὲ τὸ βιβλίον περιεῖχε ιβ᾽. Ἔστι δὲ τὴν φράσιν σαφής τε καὶ λαμπρὸς καὶ ὥσπερ ῥέων τῷ λόγῳ, μηδέν τε ἐπιμελὲς ἐνδεικνύμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοσχεδίου ὁμαλῶς τε καὶ λείως καὶ ἠρέμα φερόμενος, τοῖς δὲ ἐνθυμήμασιν, εἴπερ τις ἄλλος γονιμώτατος. Πολλὰ δὲ ἔξω τῶν νῦν ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ καθεστηκότων, ἀρχαιοτρόπως ἴσως, ἀποφαίνεται· ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ εὐσεβῶς πρεσβεύει, πλὴν ὅτι οὐσίας δύο καὶ φύσεις δύο λέγει τῷ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως ὀνόματι, ὡς δηλον ἐκ τε τῶν ἑπομένων καὶ προηγουμένων τοῦ χωρίου, ἀντὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ Ἀρείῳ προσανακείμενοι, χρώμενος. Περὶ μέντοι τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐπισφαλῶς λίαν καὶ δυσσεβῶς δογματίζει· ὑποβεβηκέναι γὰρ αὐτὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἀποφάσκει δόξης. Ἔχει δὲ χρῆσιν εἰς τὸν λόγον οὗ ἐπιγραφὴ &ldquogr;εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν&rdquogr;, δι᾽ ἦς ἔστι παριστᾷν ὅτι ἡ τῆς εἰκόνος τιμὴ καὶ ἡ ἀτιμία τοῦ πρωτοτύπου ἐστὶ τιμὴ ἢ πάλιν ἀτιμία. Ὑπαίνιττεται δὲ οὗτος, κατὰ τὸν Ὠριγένους ὕθλον, καὶ προΰπαρξιν ψυχῶν. Ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰς πάσχα καὶ τὸν Ὠσηὲ λόγῳ περί τε τῶν ποιηθέντων χερουβὶμ τῷ Μωυσεῖ καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἰακὼβ στήλης, ἐν οἷς τὴν μὲν ποίησιν αὐτῶν ὁμολογεῖ, οἰκονομίας δὲ λόγῳ συγχωρηθῆναι ματαιολογεῖ, ὡς οὐδὲν ἦσαν, ὡς ἕτερον ἦσαν, ὡς ἕτερον τὰ γεγενημένα, οὐδὲ τύπον ἄλλον ἔφερε μορφῆς, ἀλλὰ μόνον πτερύγων κενολογεῖ φέρειν αὐτὰ σχῆμα. Οὔτος ὁ Πιέριος πρεσβύτερος ἦν τῆς κατὰ Ἀλεξάνδρειαν ἐκκλησίας Θεωνᾶ τηνικαῦτα ταύτης ἀρχιερατεύοντος, ἡνίκα Κᾶρος καὶ Διοκλητιανὸς τὰ Ῥωμαίων σκῆπτρα ἔφερον. Καὶ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον δ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐλάσαι λέγουσι φιλοπονίας καὶ εὐφυΐας καὶ τῆς ἐν πλήθεσιν ὁμιλίας τέρψιν παρέχειν σὺν ὠφελείᾳ, ὥστε καὶ νέον ὀνομασθῆναι Ὠριγένην· ἦν γὰρ τότε ἐν τοῖς ἀξιολογωτάτοις Ὠριγένης. Διαλεκτικὴν δὲ καὶ ῥητορικὴν αὐτόν φασιν ἀσκηθῆναι, καὶ ἐγκρατείας δὲ καὶ ἑκουσίου πτωχείας ἐραστὴν γενέσθαι. Καὶ οἱ μὲν αὐτὸν καὶ μαρτυρίῳ τὸν βίον τελειῶσαι, οἱ δὲ μετὰ τὸν διωγμὸν τὸν ὑπόλοιπον τοῦ ζῇν χρόνον ἐν Ῥώμῃ διαγεγονέναι.

CXIX.

TWELVE BOOKS OF THE WRITINGS OF PIERIUS THE PRESBYTER.

There was read a volume of twelve books of Pierius the presbyter (who, they say, underwent the contest of martyrdom for the name of Christ together with Isidore his own brother, and was the teacher of Pamphilus the martyr in the study of the sacred letters, and the head of the school of Alexandria). His style is clear and lucid and as it were flowing of its own accord; it displays nothing far-fetched, but, poured out as if extempore, it runs on placidly and gently and gradually. In enthymemes, however, he abounds most of all, if anyone does. He also hands down very many things beyond those which obtain in the Church today, perhaps after the old manner. Concerning the Father and the Son, however, he believes piously, except that he says there are two substances and as many natures: using the name of substance and nature (so far as is gathered from what precedes and follows this passage) for hypostasis; but not in the way of those who adhere to Arius. Nevertheless concerning the Holy Spirit he teaches too dangerously and with too little piety, when he affirms that he is of a lower glory than the Father and the Son. He has likewise a certain testimony in that book which is entitled “on the Gospel of Luke,” from which it may be demonstrated that the honour and the irreverence of the image are the honour or the irreverence of the prototype. Then, more obscurely, he too, following the trifles of Origen, indicates that souls pre-exist. But in that book which he wrote on Easter and the prophet Hosea he also treats of the cherubim made by Moses and of the stone of Jacob, where he admits indeed that they were made, as he trifles that they were allowed only by reason of the divine providence: as though either they were nothing, or were something else, or at least the things that were made were something else. For neither, he says, did they bear any other trace of any form, but he fables that they bore only the appearance of wings.

This Pierius was a presbyter of the church of Alexandria when Theonas presided over it as patriarch, and Carus and Diocletian held the Roman empire. Assiduous labour and felicity of genius carried him so far, since he besides brought great pleasure, not without usefulness, in his sermons to the people, that he was surnamed a second Origen; for Origen was then among the number of those who were held in the greatest esteem. They add that he was versed in dialectic and rhetoric, and was a lover also of temperance and of voluntarily undertaken poverty. Nor are there lacking those who relate that he ended his life by martyrdom, although others prefer that he spent the rest of his life at Rome after the persecution.

As is already plain to the reader, this latter part of Photius's encomium of St. Pierius was taken almost word for word from the passage of Jerome just recited. What Photius set forth drawn from his own store in the first part we shall presently discuss, and necessity will compel us to go over them several times.

[5] and Nicephorus Callistus. Following closely in the footsteps of Eusebius and then of Jerome, Nicephorus Callistus narrates this about St. Pierius in the thirty-fifth chapter of the sixth book of the Ecclesiastical History: Ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς Ἀλεξάνδρου Πιέριος ἐπίσημος ἧν, πρεσβύτερος μὲν τὴν ἀξίαν, ἀκτησίᾳ δὲ βίου καὶ τῇ καθ᾽ Ἕλληνας παιδείᾳ καὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ δεδοκιμασμένος· ταῖς γε μὴν περὶ τὰ θεῖα σπουδαῖς, καὶ ταῖς ἐν κοινῷ διαλέξεσι καὶ ἐξηγήσεσιν, ὑπερφυῶς θαυμαζόμενος· Θεωνᾶ δὲ τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ διαπρέποντος Ἀλεξάνδρου. And at Alexandria there was renowned and celebrated Pierius, a presbyter in dignity, who both by the contempt of riches and the knowledge of philosophy and of Greek learning, and by the study and skill of the sacred Letters and by public expositions of scripture and disputations, earned the admiration of all. Theonas then administered the episcopate there P. G., vol. CXLV, col. 1199 – 1202..

[6] About whom many doubts are raised, And these, few indeed and somewhat obscure, are the only documents concerning St. Pierius which the tradition of the ancient writers has transmitted to us. It remains for us to bring to the balance the various and for the most part discrepant opinions of the many learned men who have tried from these texts to make out the fortunes of St. Pierius. For if it is agreed among all that he was a presbyter of the church of Alexandria, and that in it he was eminent in the third and fourth centuries, both for virtue in the ascetic manner of life and voluntary poverty, and for profane knowledge, as one most skilled in philosophy and Greek learning and greatly practised in speech, and for sacred learning, as one who taught the people most flourishingly and was a contemplator and exceedingly shrewd interpreter of the divine scriptures, as regards all the rest, the time at which he was born and died, the offices he discharged, the books he wrote, and even the doctrine he held and the rightness and purity of the faith he professed, all these remain in doubt, since different men have inclined in various directions.

[7] even about his very name. Already about the very name of Pierius a diversity arises, which has come down to us clothed in a double form; he is mostly called Pierius, yet not rarely he has been named Hierius. The other readings, for instance Herius, Gerius, Hiereus, Hyreus, Hyereus, and even Irenaeus, we let go, to be put down to the fault of the mere inattention of copyists. If one is to stand by the usage of the martyrologies and calendars, the name Hierius must be preferred, as having been written out in this way by almost all. For so in the little Roman Martyrology, in Bede in the additions, and also in Ado and Usuard, if however you except the edition of Molanus Louvain, 1568., in the martyrology of Fulda and of Brindisi, and even in Rufinus, Valois reported that he is called not Pierius but Hierius Annotationes in Hist. eccl. Euseb. Caesar., p. 160.. But Brother Pietro Tommaso Cacciari of Bologna notes in his edition of Rufinus Vol. I, p. 455. that, although in several manuscript codices, and indeed in the Rhenanus printings, Hierius is read, yet in certain other printed copies, as also in two Vatican copies, Pierius is expressly written: whence again the error appears to be ascribed to the copyists rather than to Rufinus. Now this reading of Rufinus having been thus purged according to the authority of the better codices, the form of writing which invaded the martyrologies reported above is accordingly to be abandoned too, since each of them drew its mention of the holy presbyter of Alexandria from Rufinus; which we shall show in its place with our Sollerius Martyrologium Usuardi, Antwerp, 1714, p. 650. when we come to investigate the origins of the cult of St. Pierius. Wherefore, abandoning the form Hierius, which Baronius in the Roman Martyrology calls corrupted, we think our saint is to be marked by the name Pierius altogether, as all learned men judge, and as Giorgio Domenico also observed in the martyrology of Ado edited by him Rome, 1744. First part, p. 563..

[8] Questions to be solved about St. Pierius. This dispute about the name of Pierius having been settled, we now approach the dispelling of the darkness by which his whole life and his deeds have been clouded. To which end

we shall solve chiefly these questions: 1° What is to be thought of the opinion which assigns to St. Pierius a place among the catechists of the celebrated school of Alexandria, and in what interval of time did he discharge this office? 2° Is it to be admitted that St. Pierius met death by martyrdom? 3° What are his literary works? 4° What judgment is to be passed on the orthodoxy of these books?

Annotation

* codex Ἀντιοχείας.

§ II. Of the catechetical mastership of St. Pierius in the school of Alexandria.

[9] The opinions on the catechetical office of St. Pierius having been reviewed, Fabricius did not hesitate to distinguish Pierius with the title both of presbyter and of catechist of Alexandria, when he treated of him in the Bibliotheca graeca 2nd ed., vol. VII, p. 301.. And that the holy man was in fact placed in charge of instructing the catechumens is judged besides by Dodwell, already cited, who brought the Sidetan fragment to light Loc. cit., p. 508., Cave Script. eccl. hist. litter., p. 94., Ceillier Histoire générale des auteurs sacrés ecclésiastiques, vol. III, p. 348., Dupin Nouvelle bibliothèque des auteurs ecclésiastiques, vol. I, p. 195., Guerike [De schola quae Alexandriae floruit cathechetica commentatio historica et theologica, part I, pp. 74, 75.], and among the more recent, the most learned men Stokes In A Dictionary of christian Biography, vol. IV, p. 396., Moehler La Patrologie, vol. II, p. 228. and Louis Duchesne Les Origines chrétiennes, 2nd edit., part II, p. 370.. But Lardner [Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelische Geschichte, part II, book 1, chapter 24, vol. III, p. 173.], Tillemont [Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique des six premiers siècles. Paris, 1701, vol. IV, p. 583.], Schroeckh Christliche Kirchengeschichte, vol. IV, p. 425. and Keil Fabricius, Bibl. graeca, 2nd edit., vol. VII, p. 301, note 53. contradict. Cacciari Ecclesiast. Hist. Euseb. Pamph. libri novem, vol. I, pp. 455, 456. and Routh Reliquiae sacrae, vol. III, pp. 207, 208. remain undecided, content to have reported the different opinions. But the writers are not so much to be counted as the reasons on which their judgment rests are to be weighed.

[10] the authority of those asserting it, especially of Photius, is investigated, Now whoever has read again the various texts brought forward at the beginning of this lucubration, to see from them what the ancient writers think of the headship of Pierius in the school of Alexandria, will surely be persuaded even at first glance that only two among them affirm this office of St. Pierius in express words, namely Philip of Side and Photius. The rest are silent, yet without openly contradicting; indeed, as we shall note in its time, they bring forward things which are not so remote from the catechetical office that those who champion the headship of St. Pierius could interpret them in favour of their opinion. But, these being omitted for the present, let us inquire what credit Philip of Side and Photius deserve. As regards Photius, it is to be noted with Keil In Fabric., Bibl. graec., vol. VII, p. 301, note 53. that on this whole matter he states his own opinion less than he hands down what he has received from the narration of others. Granted that in codex CXVIII he writes openly: ἦν δὲ Παμφίλου διδάσκαλος ὁ Πιέριος, τοῦ ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ καὶ αὐτὸς προεστηκὼς διδασκαλείου, Pierius was the teacher of Pamphilus, himself also master of the school of Alexandria P. G., vol. CIII, col. 397 – 8., yet in codex CXIX he acts as a mere reporter of traditions: φασὶν καὶ τοῦ κατ᾽ Ἀλεξάνδρείαν ἡγήσασθαι παιδευτηρίου, they say he held the headship of the school of Alexandria Ibid., col. 399, 400.. Hence, since Photius does not bring forward the testimony in his own name, it seems one must assent to Keil, who asserts, at the passage of Fabricius mentioned above Loc. cit., that the statement that Pierius presided over the school of the catechists rests on the sole testimony of Philip of Side.

[10] and of Philip of Side, about whose authority To him indeed Dodwell claimed the greatest authority Dissert. ad Iren., p. 491., carried away, namely, by that love with which all who have dug out something new from the hiding places of the codices burn for the thing they have found. He exclaimed that as the witness of so many new things he was by no means producing some fabler, or a monk of a more recent age, but a witness above all exception, who received whatever he narrates from Rhodon of Alexandria himself. Now, Dodwell continues, he could rightly know so many Alexandrian things which escaped the contemporary Jerome; indeed Rhodon is to be held more excellent in credit than Eusebius himself is to be held. Thus he. On which we wish this to be noted before all, that in the passage brought forward the words of Philip of Side himself are by no means recited, but that they were reported according to the mind of some unknown excerptor, whom the scribe of the Baroccian codex indicates to have been Nicephorus Callistus, when in the margin of folio 212r of this codex 142 he writes this note: ἀπὸ φωνῆς Νικηφόρου Καλλίστου τοῦ ξανθοπούλου, at the dictation of Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos. Moreover C. de Boor has lately shown that the title which Dodwell had prefixed to the edited text Ibid., p. 488., namely: ὥς (but not καί) φησι Φίλιππος ὁ Σίδης (not Σιδητὴς) ἐν λόγῳ κδ᾽, as Philip of Side says in chapter 24, is by no means to be placed before the list of the heads of the school of Alexandria, but is to be joined to the excerpt which precedes [Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch., vol. VI, p. 487, note 1; Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. V, p. 184.]. Yet, even with this title torn away from our passage, since in the text itself the mention of Philip is inserted four times, there is no lack of reason why the fragment handed down by Dodwell on the succession of the school of Alexandria should have flowed from him as from a source. For we read there: φησὶν ὁ Φίλιππος, … κατὰ μὲν Φίλιππον … κατὰ Φίλιππον, and especially attention must be paid to the last words of the excerpt, by which Rhodon is reported, after Didymus, in Philip's times, to have transferred the school of the catechists to Side: ὁς καὶ μετήγαγε κατὰ Φίλιππον τὴν διατριβὴν ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ πόλει τῇ Σίδῃ κατὰ τοὺς χρόνους τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοδοσίου. Τούτῳ Ῥόδωνι λέγει μαθητεῦσαι ὁ Φίλιππος ᾧτινι καὶ πλεῖστα μαρτυρεῖ περὶ εἰδήσεως λόγων, τῶν τε καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν. That is, there is no reason for suspecting that all these things were not rightly handed down to us according to the mind of Philip, although it does not appear from the documents brought forward that we have in our hands the very testimony of Philip.

[11] doubt is raised on account of the contradictions To which testimony, however, I would not attach that authority which we heard Dodwell just now requiring. Philip at any rate was well able to receive it, as one who, as we are taught from the fragment, was a disciple of Rhodon, from whose mouth he could draw knowledge of the series of the catechists, of whom Rhodon, himself also head at the end of the 4th century, could partly remember, namely the most recent, and partly, namely the rest, draw knowledge from the public monuments of his church. Therefore of itself the authority of Philip does not seem to be neglected. But many things contradict, which forbid us to trust Philip fully. The first is that in the list of the catechists, which, written in red letters in the Baroccian codex, follows immediately after the very fragment of Philip, the heads are given in a different order from that in which they succeed one another in the text. For here the series is this: Athenagoras, Clement, Pantaenus, Origen, Heraclas, Dionysius, and the others; but there it is this: Athenagoras, Pantaenus, Origen, Heraclas, Dionysius, Clement, and the rest. May one, then, trust altogether a text which is not so consistent with itself? Dodwell Loc. cit., p. 490. and Guerike [De schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica commentatio historica et theologica, part I, p. 5.] think they have removed that prejudice from the way by the fact that the subscription in question is set down in red letters, and therefore seems to be imputed to the scribe rather than either to the author or to the excerptor. But the renowned C. de Boor Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch., vol. VI, p. 287., who submitted the Baroccian text anew to a most diligent investigation, denounced this conclusion of Dodwell and Guerike as false, and says that it is by no means to be doubted that the red letters came from the hand of the excerptor himself, since it is not unusual for the scribe of the codex to write out here and there both whole lines and single words in red ink.

[12] and errors, Besides the fact that Philip contradicts himself, he erred twice in the same document, first when he asserts that Athenagoras flourished under the emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius and directed his apologetic discourse to them. For in all the codices which present it, if the Bodleian is excepted, the title testifies that the apology was dedicated to M. Aurelius Antoninus and L. Aurelius Commodus, and whatever Dodwell builds up to make Philip immune from this error Loc. cit., pp. 494, 495. is, as Guerike himself admits Op. cit., p. 6., said more boldly than is fair. Again Philip of Side ran into a manifest error where he proclaimed Pantaenus a disciple of Clement. Nor is it pleasing to go over again the long controversy which Dodwell stirs up to show that Pantaenus succeeded Clement Loc. cit., p. 501 – 6., since the unanimous consent of the ancient writers teaches the contrary, whom whoever wishes to examine more deeply the matter, to be omitted at present, will find reviewed in Guerike Loc. cit., p. 24.. Finally it is to be kept before the eyes that neither Socrates Hist. eccl., book VII, chapter 27; P. G., vol. LXVII, col. 800. nor Photius P. G., vol. CIII, col. 67. makes much of Philip, whose truthfulness indeed they do not suspect, but whom they accuse rather of inaccurate and too prolix learning. For Socrates does not hesitate to affirm that the true order of the times in which things were done was confused by him. Nevertheless the renowned de Boor, who lately found seven new fragments of Philip, of which he has discoursed far and wide Texte und Untersuchungen, vol. V, pp. 171 – 82., has professed that he detected no error in them. Wherefore, all things having been duly weighed, there must be established such a rule for the credit to be given to Philip as Guerike wisely set forth in these words Loc. cit, p. 7.: Since these things are so, I for my part, although rather often, when the rest are silent, one must have recourse to Philip and to things only likely to be true, would dare to rely securely on the authority of that fragment only then, when another author of ecclesiastical history either says the same as the fragment says, or at least renders likely what the fragment reports.

[13] not however on account of Eusebius's What if this rule is applied to Pierius? No ecclesiastical author agrees with Philip in establishing the headship of Pierius; indeed some are moved not to assent to Philip of Side above all by the fact that both Eusebius and Jerome are deeply silent about the catechetical office of St. Pierius. Assuredly, as we have seen, Eusebius numbers Pierius among the outstanding men of his time, and confers no title on him, since he calls him only one of the presbyters of Alexandria. Jerome likewise

mentions no office of his other than the presbyterate. Lardner, Cacciari and Keil are moved above all by their silence to doubt whether Pierius held the headship of the catechetical school of Alexandria, or only acted as a preacher in it. In actual fact, at first sight it may seem strange that Eusebius and Jerome, who heap up many other things for the literary and ecclesiastical praise of Pierius, are wholly silent about his catechetical office. But Dodwell very aptly suggests Loc. cit., 508 – 9. that Eusebius, although he does not speak expressly, nevertheless brings forward such words about St. Pierius as agree exceedingly well with the office of catechist. For Eusebius says that he was distinguished in philosophical disciplines and exceedingly practised in the contemplation and exposition of the sacred letters and in ecclesiastical sermons, ταῖς περὶ τὰ θεῖα θεωρίαις καὶ ἐξηγήσεσι, καὶ ταῖς ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διαλέξεσιν ὑπερφυῶς ἐξησκημένον Book VIII, chapter 32.. Now Dodwell professes that he has sufficiently shown that those ecclesiastical sermons, ἐπὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας διαλέξεις, pertain to the doctors and heads of the schools, contending that, according to the usage of speech of those times, διαλέξεις are the discourses of teachers to their disciples, and for the most part delivered by word of mouth rather than committed to writing Loc. cit.,p. 451 – 3.. This indeed can be confirmed from the very language of Eusebius, for that the word διαλέξις not rarely bears such a sense in him is drawn both from chapter 26 of book V of the Ecclesiastical History, where we are taught that Irenaeus wrote καὶ βιβλίον τι διαλέξεων διαφόρων, which word Rufinus interprets as dialogues, and from chapter 19 of book VI of the same work, where διαλέγεσθαι is to preach in church, and from chapter 36, in which the homilies of Origen on the Psalms are called διαλέξεις. Moreover, this not unreasonable explanation can be given of Eusebius's silence, namely that in the passage where he adduces Pierius he treats only of things done under Diocletian; but it is agreed among all that St. Pierius renounced his catechetical office, if indeed he held it, before Diocletian began to reign. Besides, Eusebius is not one at whom we should be moved beyond measure if he has passed over something, since he is by no means to be said to exhaust all the things treated by him; and as regards the school of Alexandria, after Dionysius he has transmitted to us the name of no other head of that catechetical institution.

[14] nor is it weakened by Jerome's silence, Likewise Jerome, although he does not expressly name Pierius a catechist of Alexandria, relates such things about him as seem rather to insinuate it, so far are they from being repugnant to such an office. For he writes that Pierius taught the peoples most flourishingly, and attained such elegance of speech that he was called Origen the younger P. L., vol. XXII, col. 521.. Which Dodwell interprets thus, that it was said for no other reason than that Pierius was Origen's successor in the same office Loc. cit., p. 509.. For that a man of that age, and the most learned at Alexandria, and called Origen the younger, should not even have taught in the Origenian school seems unlikely, as Guerike observes Loc. cit., p. 75.. A second argument can be sought from Jerome because he relates that the presbyter of Alexandria was most learned in the art of dialectic and rhetoric, since Dodwell thinks he has found that the masters of the catechetical school very frequently shone with the praises of these doctrines Loc. cit., p. 609..

[15] but it is strengthened by the testimony of Photius. We recited above the testimony of Photius, which Keil seems to make nothing of, because Photius puts it forward not in his own name but as reporting the sayings of others. But Dodwell insists greatly on the words of Photius; indeed he advises that the word φασίν which casts suspicion into Keil, is altogether to be attended to, because from it one may gather that Photius learned what he brings forward from Philip of Side rather than from Eusebius. For if Photius had relied on the testimony of Eusebius, a writer contemporary with St. Pierius, he would have handed down this headship in the same way as the other things which depended on the same testimony of Eusebius, who was writing about his own century too. But the word φασίν rather savours of a tradition recalled from the memory of the elders, and which it is not undeservedly conjectured, as was said above, that Philip of Side received from Rhodon of Alexandria, who was removed by only one generation from the death of St. Pierius, and is therefore a witness not to be despised and one able to compensate for the silence of Eusebius. Indeed the Camden lecturer thinks it is established from the order of the codices, as they stand in the Myriobiblon, that Philip's Christian History was seen by Photius before the works of St. Pierius. In actual fact, the writings of Philip are reviewed in codex XXXV, but the works of Pierius in codex CXIX, and Photius testifies that the several subjects follow one another in this order in which the same occupied his memory P. G., vol. CIII, col. 43.. Yet I would not have anyone exaggerate to himself the force and weight of the reasons brought forward so far in the two preceding numbers. It is certainly not to be denied that from them, especially if they are taken together, there arises something of an argument to persuade the headship of St. Pierius in the school of Alexandria. But, in my judgment, they by no means effect a strict demonstration.

[16] The chronological difficulty is weighed, But a weightier difficulty has come forth. Namely, in order to embrace a doubting, and indeed a denying, opinion about the headship of St. Pierius, Tillemont Loc. cit., professing that he could by no means trust the assertions of Photius, gave this reason, that neither before nor after the persecution of Diocletian could Pierius discharge this office. Not before, since Eusebius, having spoken at the same time of Pierius and of Achillas, records that only the latter exercised this office, being entirely silent about the former; nor after, since Jerome teaches that after the persecution Pierius spent the rest of the time of his life at Rome. That this question may be discussed in its entirety, we must briefly set out the state of the controversy. And first, concerning the time at which he occupied the headship of the school, Jerome teaches that Pierius, presbyter of the church of Alexandria, under the emperors Carus and Diocletian, at the time when Bishop Theonas governed the same church, taught the peoples most flourishingly P. L., vol. XXIII, col. 685.. Now Carus began to reign in the year 282, and Diocletian in the year 284; and according to Baronius, Theonas held the episcopate from the year 285 to 300 Annal. eccl., year 285, § XVI., while Pagi says that the same man ascended the throne of Alexandria already in the year 282. From which Dodwell concludes Annotationes in Eusebii eccl. hist. librum VII, p. 160. Mainz ed. 1672. that St. Pierius could have governed the catechetical school neither before the year 282 of the common era, in which Carus took the kingdom, nor after the year 300, in which Theonas died. But, these limits of time having been established, a great gap in the succession in the school of Alexandria will now have to be admitted, namely from the year 247, in which Dionysius, proclaimed bishop, gave up the care of the school, to the year 282, in which Theonas received the pastoral staff. Even if it be granted, as could have happened, that Dionysius persevered in the care of the school together with the episcopate, nevertheless it will be necessary that the school was vacant from the year 265, in which Dionysius died and Maximus succeeded, to the year 282. For it is not to be supposed that Maximus held the school and the episcopate, Eusebius and Philip being silent about the catechetical office of Maximus, who otherwise at no time, even at that in which he was not bishop, acted as catechist.

[17] [since Pierius could have exercised the catechetical office neither before the year 247 nor after 300.] Moreover, St. Pierius could certainly hardly have administered that office from the year 247, in which Dionysius was proclaimed bishop, if what Jerome relates is true, that after the persecution he spent the whole time of his life at Rome, all the more because it seems plainly to indicate that St. Pierius survived long after the persecution. Whether one should, however, side with Valois, who supposes that Pierius lived until the times of Constantine, is not clear. But it must be inquired of which persecution the discourse is in Jerome. If we grant that it is a question of the Roman one, which was the briefest of all, namely of ten years, even so St. Pierius must have survived for a longer time after the year 305, in which Maximian Herculius laid down the purple. Indeed, since that year 305 runs as the fifty-eighth from Dionysius's being made bishop of Alexandria, Pierius would have been too young when Dionysius obtained the episcopal see, and accordingly, while Dionysius held it, he would by no means have presided over the school of Alexandria. But if we understand Jerome of the end of the eastern persecution, namely of the year 312, Pierius could hardly then have passed adolescence, and so he is not to be held a master, but rather to be numbered among the disciples.

[18] But he could have received the government of the school in the year 265, How, then, is the difficulty to be solved? Dodwell unties it relying on the fragment of Philip of Side, to whom, if credit is to be given, especially since he reports the account of Rhodon, of a nearly contemporary age, two heads of the school must be judged to have succeeded St. Pierius before Peter the martyr, namely Theognostus and Serapion. That is, everything will hang together if it is said that Dionysius governed the school even as bishop, as long as he lived; and that when Dionysius died, in the year 265, St. Pierius succeeded, not in the see but in the school, as Philip of Side expressly teaches, and had as successor, in the year 282, Theognostus, in that same year of the inauguration of Carus in which Jerome believes St. Pierius began. Certainly in this way the chronology of Jerome is altogether rejected: which Dodwell notes is by no means to be dreaded, since to him Rhodon, from whom Philip of Side drew, seems in Alexandrian matters, because he was himself an Alexandrian, a witness more worthy of credit than Jerome. And this all the more because the Hieronymian chronology presents another inconvenience as well, namely because it introduces a plainly unlikely gap in the succession of the school of Alexandria, namely from the year 247, as was pointed out above, to the year 285. Guerike, however, thinks this solution of Dodwell somewhat too bold De schola quae Alexandriae floruit catechetica, p. 75., since it does not please him to accuse Jerome of so gross an error as to have exchanged Theognostus with Pierius. But undeservedly; for Jerome did not escape a similar fault elsewhere, when, treating of the same school of Alexandria De viris illustribus, chapter XXXVI, P. L., vol. XXIII, p. 651., he teaches that Pantaenus flourished under Severus and Antoninus, to whom the care of the catechetical school was committed only under Commodus.

[19] [nor does it stand in the way that he persevered in teaching the people under Diocletian,] Those who contend that Jerome did not err about Pierius propose the following interpretation. Namely, they think that his words, that Pierius taught the peoples under the emperors Carus and Diocletian at the time when Bishop Theonas governed the same church, by no means pertain to the catechetical ministry, nor is it to be read: under the emperors Carus and Diocletian … he taught the people most flourishingly, but that time is to be referred to the office of the presbyterate, so that this is the sense of the passage cited: Pierius, who was a presbyter under the rule of Carus and Diocletian and the episcopate of Theonas, taught the people most flourishingly Cave, Script. eccl. hist. litt., p. 94.. That is, according to some authors, the passage

of Jerome just brought forward admits an interpretation different from that which is usually given. For Jerome means nothing else than that Pierius instructed the peoples under Carus and Diocletian. Whether these words are to be understood of the catechetical office, or rather of the ordinary duties of preaching to the people, remains in doubt, although Cave embraces the latter opinion, since Eusebius writes that Pierius, adorned with the presbyteral honour, was renowned at Alexandria under Bishop Theonas.

[20] nor that Achillas and Arius presided over the school, There is another rather serious difficulty, namely that which arises from the fact that Eusebius numbers among the masters of the catechetical school Achillas too, who succeeded Peter the martyr in the see of Alexandria, although he held it no more than a year or two, and that at the same time at which Pierius lived: καθ᾽ ὃν ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ Πιερίῳ πρεσβυτερίου ἠξιωμένος Ἀχιλλᾶς ἐγνωρίζετο, τῆς ἱερᾶς πίστεως τὸ διδασκαλεῖον ἐγκεχειρισμένος, under whom (Theonas) Achillas, at the same time as Pierius, adorned with the honour of presbyter, was renowned at Alexandria: to whom also the instruction in the Christian faith had been committed Loc. cit., book VIII, chapter XXXII.. These words, if they are to be understood of the catechetical office, as they must altogether be understood, assign a new successor to Pierius, and accordingly these three, Theognostus, Serapion and Achillas, must be enclosed within the too narrow, namely from the year 265 to 300, legitimate limits of their headship. The succession of the school of Alexandria will be still more disturbed if it is true that Arius the heresiarch also held a place among its masters. For Patricius Ararsius, in the book which he entitled Oceanus, a fragment of which the author of the Synodicon preserved Which see in Fabricius, Bibl. graeca, 2nd edit., vol. XII, p. 369., testifies without doubt that Achillas, bishop of Alexandria, deceived by the pretences and frauds of Arius, ordained him presbyter and that he presided over the school of Alexandria.

[21] since Achillas was only an assistant, Cave professes himself unequal to solving this difficulty, nor does he even attempt any solution. Nevertheless Guerike has tried to show that the objection drawn from the catechetical ministry of Achillas does not make as much trouble as Cave imagines for himself. First, indeed, he supposes that Achillas was never a head of the school of Alexandria in the true sense of the name, but only an assistant, first of St. Pierius, then of Theognostus. Which is the reason why his name is omitted by Philip of Side in the succession of the heads. Moreover Guerike thinks that both the text of Eusebius just brought forward and the passage of Nicephorus Callistus to be brought forward at once greatly favour this interpretation, in which Eusebius is said to have expressly narrated that Achillas, under Bishop Theonas, at the same time as Pierius, undertook the instruction in the Christian faith. For Nicephorus says that together with Pierius Achillas too obtained great praise in the chair of the presbyters, set over the teaching of the sacred scriptures, κατὰ ταὐτὸν Πιερίῳ ἐν καθέδρᾳ πρεσβυτέρων καὶ Ἀχιλλᾶς γνωριζόμενος ἦν, τὴν τῆς διδασκαλίας ἔχων ἐπιτροπὴν τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐπιστήμης Eccl. hist., book VI, chapter XXXV; P. G., vol. CXLV, col. 1202.. I fear that whoever has weighed the text of Eusebius, afterwards reworked by Nicephorus, will dare to adhere to such an interpretation of it as Guerike proposed. For the obvious sense of these passages is this, namely that Achillas flourished at the same time as Pierius, but by no means that the instruction in the Christian faith was committed to both at the same period. Hence, so far is anything to be drawn from this passage from which it might be gathered that Achillas acted only as an assistant in the school of Alexandria, that it must rather be confessed that Eusebius teaches his headship in plain words.

[22] but Arius held the school after Pierius, The headship of Arius, about which Philip of Side, Socrates and Sozomen are silent, but which Patricius Ararsius testifies In Fabricius, Bibl. gr., vol. XII, p. 369. and which some writers would have Theodotus Hist. eccl., book I, chapter 1; P. G., vol. LXXXII, col. 886. insinuate, J. C. Michaelis however rightly and deservedly resisting [Exercitatio historica de scholae Alexandrinae catecheticae origine, vol. I of the Symbola litteraria Bremensia, p. 237.], whether it is admitted, as Guerike Op. cit., p. 85 – 6. and Bingham Origines sive antiquitates eccl., vol. II, book II, p. 57. would have it, or rejected, does not disturb the succession of the school of Alexandria as much as Cave contends, or at least does not stand in the way of solving the doubt about which the dispute now is, namely at what time St. Pierius governed the catechists of Alexandria. For Arius did not hold the school in the days of Pierius, nor so much does it accord with historical truth, what torments Cave, who says that three successors of Pierius must be enclosed within somewhat too narrow limits. For, as we noted before, those limits lie between the years 265 and 300. But besides, Arius could only have been placed over the school by Achillas in the year 313 [Which Achillas is to be distinguished from the one who taught together with Pierius and Theognostus. Our Sollerius wrongly thought the bishop and the catechist to be one and the same in his Tractatus historico-chronologicus de patriarchis Alexandrinis, no. 192.], and since already in the year 317 he entered upon his controversies with Bishop Alexander, from this time he seems to have cared little for his office until in the year 320 he was cast down from the priestly rank.

[23] [to whom, therefore, the catechetical office should perhaps be denied not by reason of the time, but for want of certain arguments.] Whatever has been disputed about the time at which Pierius could have governed the school of Alexandria is reduced to this, as will have been sufficiently clear to the reader, that it has been shown that there is by no means lacking in the series of heads so far known an interval which may be attributed to the headship of Pierius. But that is certainly not sufficient to prove that he in fact exercised this office, nor have we advanced further than the conclusion stated at the end of no. 15, namely that there are not lacking certain indications by which it is suggested that Pierius presided over the school of the catechists, but arguments which plainly prove the matter are not available.

§ III. Of the martyrdom of St. Pierius.

[24] The martyrdom of Pierius, which some assert, That Pierius underwent martyrdom Photius testifies twice in the Myriobiblon, namely both in codex CXVIII: μάρτυς δὲ ὁ Πιέριος ἅμα τῷ ἀδελφῷ Ἰσιδώρῳ τῶν ἀθλητικῶν ἀξιωθέντες στεφάνων, and the same Pierius, a martyr, together with his brother Isidore obtained the crown of the contest; and in codex CXIX: ὃν καὶ σὺν τῷ ἀδελφῷ Ἰσιδώρῳ ὑπὲρ Χριστοῦ ἀγωνίσασθαί φασιν ἀγῶνα who, they say, underwent the contest of martyrdom for the name of Christ together with Isidore his own brother. Besides this Photian testimony, there is brought forward to us the text recited above from the fragments of the Christian History of Philip of Side lately brought to light from the Baroccian codex by the renowned de Boor Loc. cit., p. 171.. This text runs thus: Θεόδωρος δέ τις συνηγορῶν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ γράψας δι᾽ ἐπῶν ἐν τρισκαιδεκάτῳ λόγῳ φησίν ὅτι καὶ Πιέριος καὶ Ἰσίδωρος ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ἐμαρτύρησαν καὶ ναὸν ἔχουσιν ἐν Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ μέγιστον. A certain Theodore, an advocate of Alexandria, writing in the thirteenth book of his poem, says that Pierius and Isidore his brother underwent martyrdom and that a very great temple was dedicated to them at Alexandria.

[25] is denied on account of the silence of Eusebius, How are these texts to be understood? Are they to be interpreted in the strict sense? Almost all the writers, for example Keil Fabric. Bibl. gr., vol. VII, p. 301., Andreas Schott In the scholia to cod. CXIX of Photius's Myriobiblon. Rouen, 1653, p. 300., Lardner Op. cit., vol. III, p. 173., Ceillier Op. cit., p. 94., Tillemont Op. cit., vol. IV, p. 583., Routh Reliq. sacr., vol. III, p. 208. and Guerike Op. cit., passim. resist the opinion which holds that Pierius underwent martyrdom in the proper sense. The reason for denying it is rightly sought from the fact that Eusebius kept a deep silence on this matter, and that Jerome indicates that Pierius died a dry death at Rome. That Eusebius reports nothing at all of the kind will be the more wondered at by whoever knows how curious that author was about the history of the martyrs. Indeed, in the present case, unlike in the preceding inquiry on the catechetical office of Pierius, nothing is supplied from which the silence of Eusebius may be corrected, especially since Jerome declares in express words that Pierius, after the ten-year persecution set in motion by Diocletian, spent the whole time of his life at Rome. This testimony has been received entire in the Roman martyrology.

[26] nor can what is put about concerning Pierius's brother Isidore strengthen it. Moreover, from the fact that Pierius is said to have been distinguished with the laurel of the contest together with Isidore, his brother, nothing is to be drawn. A mention, at any rate, of a certain Isidore has come down in the letter of St. Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Fabius, bishop of Antioch P. G., vol. X, col. 1304.. And although Ruinart, going over the testimony of Photius again Acta prim. mart. sinc., 2nd ed., 1713, p. 127., by no means shrinks from likening this man to the own brother of Pierius, yet Routh with better right professes that it is by no means clear to us whether he was Pierius's brother Loc. cit., p. 208.. But even if he was, the martyrdom of Pierius would not yet on that account be proved, but rather refuted. For by no means, as Photius and Philip of Side narrate, would the two brothers have met death at the same time, since Pierius survived Dionysius, who reports the martyrdom of that Isidore and died in the year 265.

[27] or concerning the churches built in his honour. Nor ought that to move us any more, by which nevertheless Cave declares himself most persuaded, namely what Photius and Philip assert about a temple and sacred buildings dedicated to Pierius and Isidore at Alexandria. For, as Routh rightly observes, some other Pierius, who was himself a martyr, could have been designated. Yet granted that, which is made more likely by the testimony of Epiphanius P. G., vol. XLII, col. 206., a church was built to St. Pierius, of whom we now treat, nothing forbids that it was called the temple of Pierius, even if he was not a martyr. For that each and every church of Alexandria was named after martyrs we are forbidden to believe by Epiphanius in the same place, who reviewed among others the churches of Dionysius and Theonas, bishops, not martyrs.

[28] Wherefore he is to be called a martyr only in a wide sense. Hence, from the texts of Philip, Photius and Jerome compared with one another, that seems to be drawn which de Boor also champions, namely that Pierius is to be declared a martyr only in the widest sense. That is, it may be believed that perhaps, held in suspicion by the tyrants on account of his too celebrated and zealous mastership, he suffered torments for that cause, and afterwards, driven into exile, came to Rome, where, on the testimony of Jerome, he met his last day. This conjecture is the only one which altogether agrees with the documents so far known.

§ IV. Of the writings of St. Pierius.

[29] St. Pierius, renowned for learning, wrote many works, The praise of the learning of St. Pierius has already more than once

indicated. But what specimens of ecclesiastical knowledge were displayed by him must now be pointed out. Of the writings of Pierius nothing has come down to us preserved, but that he composed very many and most excellent treatises Jerome, Palladius and Photius are our witnesses. Besides the passage already cited from the book on illustrious men, in which he indicates that Pierius, through the elegance of his speech and of various treatises which survive to this day, was called Origen the younger, Jerome, in his letter LXX to Magnus, orator of the city of Rome [P. L., vol. XXII, col. 667, 668. Cf. Epist. XLIX to Pammachius, P. L., vol. XXII, col. 511, 512; Proleg. comment. in Hoseam, P. L., vol. XXV, col. 819; Comment. in Matth., book IV, chapter 24, v. 36; P. L., vol. XXVI, col. 181.], reviews Pierius in the number of those who all so stuff their books with the doctrines and opinions of the philosophers that you do not know what you ought first to admire in them, the learning of the world or the knowledge of the Scriptures. In chapter XII of the Lausiac History Palladius relates that a certain Ammonius could cite from memory many things from the writings of Origen, Didymus, Stephen and Pierius P. L., vol. LXXIII, col. 1104.. Photius had read the works of Pierius in a volume which consisted of twelve books, and he praises the writer because his style is clear and lucid and as it were flowing of its own accord, displays nothing far-fetched, but, poured out as if extempore, runs on placidly and gently and gradually, ἔστι δὲ τὴν φράσιν σαφής τε καὶ λαμπρός, ὥσπερ ῥέων τῷ λόγῳ, μηδέν τε ἐπιμελὲς ἐνδεικνύμενος, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ αὐτοσχεδίου ὁμαλῶς τε καὶ λείως καὶ ἠρέμα φερόμενος. The same Photius notes that the figure of the enthymeme especially pleased Pierius in reasoning, τοῖς δὲ ἐνθυμήμασιν, εἴπερ τις ἄλλος, γονιμώτατος, but in enthymemes, if anyone, he abounds most of all.

[30] namely on the prophet Hosea, It is to be lamented that all the writings of Pierius perished long ago, of which we do not know even all the names or the full titles, but only one or another has been preserved for our memory by Jerome, Photius and Philip of Side. Known above all, however, is the Treatise on Easter and the prophet Hosea. Of this Jerome speaks twice, first in the catalogue of illustrious men, His is a very long treatise on the prophet Hosea, which the discourse itself shows was delivered on the vigil of Easter, then in the prologue of his commentary on Hosea, I have read a very long treatise of Pierius, which he poured forth on the opening of this prophet on the day of the vigils of the Lord's passion in an extempore and eloquent discourse. That is, as is known and was noted by the same Jerome P. L., vol. XXVI, col. 185. and other ecclesiastical writers [Cf. Epiphanius, Haeres., chapter LXX; Const. Clement., book V, chapter 19; Lactant., book VII, chapter 19; Isidore, Origin., book VI, chapter 17.], the Jews believing that Christ would come at midnight, from the apostles onward the custom had grown strong that on the day of the vigils of Easter it was not permitted to dismiss the peoples before midnight as they awaited the coming of Christ. And the presbyters, to keep the people occupied, held a sermon, in which, when his turn was given to Pierius, he took up the prophecy of Hosea to be unfolded. Philip of Side knew the same little work and, like Jerome, relates that Pierius interpreted only the opening of Hosea, εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ Ὠσηέ [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. V, p. 180.]. Indeed the Sidetan fragments seem to suggest that Pierius delivered a sermon on the feast of Easter several times, since it reports that this explanation of the passage of Hosea was had ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν εἰς τὸ πάσχα in the FIRST of the sermons on Easter. Routh judges not rightly that the sermon on Easter and on the opening of Hosea were two different works. For the prefixed title is altogether opposed to this opinion: ἐν τῷ εἰς τὸ πάσχα καὶ τὸν Ὠσηὲ λόγῳ, and not ἐν τοῖς λόγοις or ἐν τῷ εἰς τὸ πάσχα λόγῳ καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰς τὸν Ὠσηέ.

[31] and on the Mother of God; but whether he wrote a Life of Pamphilus Philip of Side in the Baroccian fragments also cites, alone among all the other ecclesiastical writers, two other works of Pierius, the one entitled περὶ τῆς θεοτόκου, On the Mother of God, the other λόγος εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου, Treatise on the Life of St. Pamphilus. But of the first the renowned C. de Boor rightly and deservedly doubts whether it came from the hand of Pierius under this title, because the expression θεοτόκος was scarcely in use in his times, at least not with such frequency that it would be written in the title of a book. It may have happened that Philip of Side, who wrote while the Nestorian storm was raging, changed the old title, perhaps running thus, περὶ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου Μαρίας into this other, περὶ τῆς θεοτόκου more accommodated to his own time. That this indeed was done elsewhere has lately become known from the Apology of Aristides, whose Armenian version uses a word which has the force of Deipara, θεοτόκου, while the Greek text merely says ἐκ παρθένου ἁγίας, and the Syriac [ ], from a virgin [J. Rendel Harris and J. Armitage Robinson, The Apology of Aristides, p. 2, 3, 27, 78, 79.]. As regards the Treatise on the Life of St. Pamphilus, if it is no wonder that Pierius undertook such a work, since he is said to have been the teacher of Pamphilus, it is the more wonderful that Eusebius, most friendly to Pamphilus, passed over this lucubration of Pierius in complete silence.

[32] and a commentary on First Corinthians, is doubted. That Pierius wrote a commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians is testified both by Photius and by Jerome in the letter to Pammachius, who, besides saying that Pierius interpreted this epistle very fully, also adduces a passage of this commentary: Of whom Pierius, when he was sifting and expounding the sense of the Apostle and had proposed to explain that saying: “But I would that all were as myself” (I Cor., I, 7), added ταῦτα λέγων ὁ Παῦλος ἀντικρὺς ἀγαμίαν κηρύσσει, saying these things Paul openly professes virginity. Lardner called into doubt that this commentary existed, who judges that no commentary on the epistle of Paul was written by Pierius, but that he only expounded the Pauline ῥῆσιν adduced here in a more diffuse discourse in some other work Glaubwürdigkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, vol. III, p. 175.. He brings forward as a reason for doubting that Jerome by no means teaches that such a commentary was written by Pierius, but only relates that Pierius expounded the Pauline sense in some place. Whether it was done in some homily, letter or other book, or in a particular commentary, is by no means plainly defined. But Fabricius thinks that this was not accurately established by Lardner, and says he does not doubt that that treatise on First Corinthians was among the twelve λόγοις of Pierius read by Photius Bibl. graeca, 2nd edit., vol. VII, p. 301; vol. X, p. 713.. Cave, Ceillier, Tillemont and Guerike, in the works brought forward, embrace the side of Jerome and Fabricius. Routh alone declares that this conjecture of Fabricius about the λόγοις of Pierius seems uncertain to him. This question is perhaps solved by the following text among the Baroccian fragments very recently published: καὶ Πιέριος δὲ ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ λόγῳ τῶν εἰς τὸ πάσχα πολὺ ἐνίσταται ὅτι Παῦλος εἶχε γυναῖκα καὶ ταύτην τῷ Θεῷ διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀνέθετο τῇ πρὸς αὐτὴν κοινωνίᾳ ἀποταξάντος. And Pierius, in the first of those sermons which are on Easter, insists much that Paul had a wife whom he devoted to God for the sake of the Church, appointing her to its ministry. For the renowned de Boor rightly observes Loc. cit., p. 180 that this fragment coheres most closely with that other just brought forward, ταῦτα λέγων Παῦλος ἀντικρὺς ἀγαμίαν κηρύσσει. That is, Pierius was greatly troubled on the one hand by the text of the Apostle (I Cor. VII, 7) extolling his virginity, and on the other by the tradition of some ancient Fathers who taught that St. Paul had been joined in matrimony. Pierius tries to untie this difficulty by admitting indeed that Paul had a wife, whom, soon voluntarily dismissed, he consecrated to the ministry of the church, and so had the right to profess himself ἄγαμον. However that may be, that text helps so that the controversy of Lardner with Fabricius may be reconciled, if it is granted to Fabricius that Pierius did in fact comment on the epistle to the Corinthians, and to Lardner that this commentary was undertaken among the Easter sermons. Finally, Photius relates in codex CXIX that Pierius wrote on the Gospel of Luke, εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν, That this lucubration too should be numbered among the twelve books of Pierius none of the writers whom we have consulted opposes, not even Lardner himself, who shows himself more severe than is fair towards the doctrine of our saint.

[33] He contributed not a little to hermeneutics. These five works which we have mentioned are the only ones whose name has come down to us Le Long cited only three, Biblioth. sacra, vol. II, p. 906.. But we know also that Pierius deserved well of criticism regarding the individual words of scripture, since he undertook a particular recension of it, or, what is more probable, contributed zealous work to the recension of Origen. For Jerome professes that he used the codices of Pierius, namely for the Commentary on Matthew, chapter XXIV, v. 36 P. L., vol. XXVI, col. 181.; to this verse 36, But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but the Father alone, Jerome says that there is added in certain Latin codices nor the Son, whereas in the Greek, and especially in the copies of Adamantius and Pierius, this is not found written. It is not ours to touch here the controversy about establishing the text of Matthew [See among others Ambrose, De Fide, book V, chapter 16; P. L., vol. XVI, col. 687 with the note ibid., and Liagre, Commentarius in libros historicos N. T., vol. I, p. 416, 417.]. But of how great value the codices of Pierius have been held most of the commentators on the New Testament observe. It suffices to have cited Hody De biblici textus origine, book IV, chapter 2. p. 622. and Mill Prolegomena ad Novum Testamentum, n. 727., who relates that Pamphilus, the disciple of Pierius, collected the Pierian codices, as also the Origenian and others of the best mark, with the greatest care and at enormous expense, and took care that they, together with every monument of ecclesiastical writers that he had been able to procure from all sides, should be laid up in the library of Caesarea, which he had recently built. Richard Simon also notes, in the Critical Dissertation on the manuscripts of the New Testament, which he attached as an appendix to his work, the Critical History of the commentators on the New Testament Rotterdam, 1693, p. 22., that St. Jerome in correcting his Vulgate edition used especially the codices of Pierius and Origen as the best. Already Eusebius, extolling the merit of Pierius in hermeneutical science, says that he was practised in the contemplation and exposition of the sacred letters, ταῖς περὶ

τὰ θεῖα θεωρίαις καὶ ἐξηγήσεσι Cf. above, p. 255. And in truth the word θεωρία, where the discourse is of the interpretation of the sacred books, frequently denotes among the ecclesiastical writers the investigation of the mystical sense. To establish this Guerike, whom we follow here Loc. cit., vol. II, p. 28., brings forward the authority of Isidore of Pelusium [Ep. CXVII, book IV. P. G., vol. LXXVIII, col. 1191. Ep. CCIII, book IV; P. G., vol. LXXVIII, col. 1290, 1291.] and of Suicer Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, vol. I, p. 1395, 1396.. Whence it is natural to conclude that Pierius gave his effort above all to the allegorical interpretation introduced by Origen; whose name too he bore among his contemporaries, on the testimony of Jerome. Finally the recently found Baroccian fragments have brought from Philip of Side this praise, that St. Pierius greatly profited the divine scripture: αὐτὸς ὁ Πιέριος πλεῖστα ὠφέλησεν ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, although the example adduced shows this less, but from one it is not right to learn. That is, Philip of Side, having interpreted the passage of Eusebius (11, 1) in which is related the conversion of the eunuch of Candace baptized by the deacon Philip, adds: Φίλιππος στόμα λαμπάδων Ἡρωδιὰς ἀπατωμένη· Ἡρώδης δερματίνη δόξα κατὰ Πιέριον. This commentary of Pierius seems to be referred to Matt. XIV, 3 or Mark VI, 17, in which places the three names of Philip, Herodias and Herod are cited: ὁ γὰρ Ἡρώδης κρατήσας τὸν Ἰωάννην ἔδησεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔδετο ἐν φυλακῇ διὰ Ἡρωδιάδα, τὴν γυναῖκα Φιλίππου, τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ.

§ V. The orthodoxy of St. Pierius is vindicated.

[34] That St. Pierius thought rightly of the Father and the Son they do not deny; Photius left the memory of St. Pierius tainted with a certain suspicion of heterodoxy, or at least clouded by the prejudice of lesser orthodoxy. It is pleasing to examine what is to be granted to Photius in this matter, or rather denied. Photius does not deny that Pierius thought rightly about the nature of the Father and the Son. For he says: Concerning the Father and the Son he believes piously, except that he says there are two substances and as many natures: using the name of substance and nature (so far as is gathered from what precedes and follows this passage) for hypostasis; but not in the way of those who adhere to Arius, ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ εὐσεβῶς πρεσβεύει· πλὴν ὅτι οὐσίας δύο καὶ φύσεις δύο λέγει· τῷ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ φύσεως ὀνόματι, ὡς δῆλον ἔκ τε τῶν ἑπομένων καὶ προηγουμένων τοῦ χωρίου, ἀντὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως, καὶ οὐχ ὡς Ἀρείῳ προσανακείμενοι, χρώμενος. In actual fact, as is admitted after Photius by Petau, who reports that Pierius believed about the Father and the Son in the catholic manner [De theologicis dogmatibus, vol. I, De Trinitate, book IV, chapter 2. Antwerp ed. 1700, vol. I, p. 184.], and by George Bull, declaring that Pierius held a pious doctrine about the Son of God which altogether agrees with the very theology held as catholic in his age Opera omnia, 1703, p. 159., that manner of speaking, then very usual, even though afterwards it was reprobated as one that smells of error, is by no means adverse to the faith. For all know that by the Fathers who flourished before the 5th century the words οὐσία, φύσις were used for ὑποστάσι. Thus Petau adduces Ignatius the martyr, our Pierius, Epiphanius, the synod of Antioch, Alexander bishop of Alexandria, Cyril. Indeed, not even the Arians strayed from the consensus of the Church because they asserted that there are three οὐσίας in the Trinity, but because they judged them unequal, inferior to one another.

[35] but they build up three charges of error. But Photius builds up other charges which are reduced chiefly to three heads, namely that Pierius erred about the nature of the Holy Spirit, about the essence of the angels, and about the pre-existence of souls. Concerning the Holy Spirit Photius advises that he taught this: περὶ μὲντοι τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐπισφαλῶς λίαν καὶ δυσσεβῶς δογματίζει· ὑποβεβηκέναι γὰρ αὐτὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ ἀποφάσκει δόξης. Nevertheless concerning the Holy Spirit he teaches too dangerously and with too little piety, when he affirms that he is of a lower glory than the Father and the Son. This accusation Petau champions, openly confessing that what Pierius the presbyter, interpreter of the dogmas of Pamphilus the martyr, also said in Photius is heretical and impiously used with the Arians and Macedonians, because this asserted inferior glory of the Holy Spirit can hardly be understood of procession and origin De Trinitate, book VII, chapter VI, 11; vol. I, p. 387.. Likewise Routh Reliquiae sacrae, vol. III, p. 149. is greatly moved by the assertion of Photius, and wonders that he who, whatever Pierius had taught after the manner of the ancients, found nothing to reproach in him concerning the nature of the Son, should have wished to accuse him of thinking very dangerously and impiously about the Holy Spirit, unless that Alexandrian had in fact fallen into some error, at least in words. For the rest, it would not be so much to be wondered at that he who pressed the footsteps of Origen philosophised too dangerously about the Spirit of God. This also prevented Cave and Tillemont from trying to defend Pierius against the accusation of Photius.

[36] [But what he asserts about the nature of the Holy Spirit is to be put down to the ambiguous expression of his time,] Is this cause, then, lost, or the orthodoxy of St. Pierius altogether improbable? By no means, and we do not despair that whoever has weighed the following reasons will also be persuaded. First, indeed, the authority of Photius, weighty certainly in literary matters, is not of equal moment where he undertakes to judge the opinions of writers, especially when theological questions are concerned. For Dupin Loc. cit., vol. I, p. 192. and Ceillier Loc. cit., vol. III, p. 350. have noted that Photius, as one who flourished at a time when dogmas and mysteries were already expressed in a most strict formula of speech established by the authentic definitions of the Church, was mostly wont to pass judgment on the ancient writers not according to the expression of the primitive age but according to the more exact formula of his own age. By no means, therefore, do the authors brought forward hold that St. Pierius erred in faith. They grant only this to the Photian testimony, that the Alexandrian catechist spoke less strictly. In more recent time too the most illustrious bishop and likewise learned man, the Right Rev. Ginouilhac, earnestly protested that Photius is by no means to be believed, who, more opposed to the Origenian school than was fair, is of suspect authority, and that therefore the orthodoxy of St. Pierius is to be held altogether beyond controversy. Certainly he by no means approves the very manner of speaking of Pierius about the Holy Spirit, when he teaches that the Spirit of God is of a lower glory than the Father and the Son; but he does not on that account agree with Photius; indeed he denies that there is a solid foundation underlying it for deciding that Pierius taught too dangerously and impiously. For how could that learned Alexandrian have shrunk from the consubstantiality and natural equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son? Far from it, but, like other ecclesiastical writers of that time, he used an imprudent expression Histoire du dogme catholique, vol. II, p. 149.. Wherefore the cause of Pierius was undertaken to be most vigorously defended by William Berriman in the Sacred Sermons on the history of the Trinitarian controversy, excellently written in the English language Serm. III, p. 134; in Routh, Reliquiae sacrae, vol. III, p. 213., and by George Bull in the Defence of the Nicene Faith Opera omn., p. 160., of whom the one denies that it is likely that he fell into any grave error who thought truly and rightly about the nature of the Son; the other thinks that Pierius wrote that he is less than the Father and the Son in the same sense in which the Son himself is proclaimed less by most of the ancient Fathers, namely in respect of origin and procession. For Routh himself, otherwise hostile to the orthodoxy of Pierius, confesses that his words admit a kindly interpretation and that he took his ground for supposing the Holy Spirit to be inferior in glory to the Father and the Son from the so-called economy of the incarnation. Hence, the works of Pierius from which alone the sentence of condemnation would have to be taken being lost, it does not seem fair, on the testimony of only one judge, and he, as many admit, a rather rigid one, to burden with suspicion the memory of a most holy man, most flourishing in virtues and learning.

[37] [but of the angels he spoke allegorically, and his opinion on the pre-existence of souls is not shown to be wicked.] It now remains briefly to clear St. Pierius of the other charges of which he is accused by Photius, and which concern the nature of the angels and the pre-existence of souls. Photius contends that Pierius trifles and fables much about the angels: ἔχει δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰς πάσχα καὶ τὸν Ὠσηὲ λόγῳ περί τε τῶν ποιηθέντων χερουβὶμ τῷ Μῶσει καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἰακὼβ στήλης· ἐν οἷς τὴν μὲν ποίησιν αὐτῶν ὁμολογεῖ, οἰκονομίας δὲ λόγῳ συγχωρηθῆναι ματαιολογεῖ, ὡς οὐδὲν ἦσαν, ὡς ἕτερα τὰ γεγενημένα ὡς οὐδὲ τύπον ἄλλον ἔφερε μορφῆς, ἀλλὰ μόνον πτερύγων κενολογεῖ φέρειν αὐτὰ σχῆμα. But in that book which he wrote on Easter and the prophet Hosea he also treats of the cherubim made by Moses and of the stone of Jacob, where he admits indeed that they were made, but trifles that they were allowed only by reason of the divine Providence: as though these in no respect existed in the likeness of the other things which were made, since they did not display any other likeness of form, but he fables that they bore only the appearance of wings. Before all it must be noted that the versions of this passage of Photius are not of a single interpretation, since the Greek text is not so certain. Some codices bear: ματαιολογεῖ, ὡς οὐδὲν ἦσαν, ὡς ἕτερον ἦσαν, ὡς ἕτερα τὰ γεγενημένα Cf. the note in the edition of David Hoeschel, p. 35.. Hence Andreas Schott rendered it in Latin: As though either they were nothing, or were something else, or (at least those things were) something else which were made. The version of Routh which we give pleased us more, with one or another word changed Reliquiae sacrae, vol. III, pp. 212, 215.. What is to be thought of this opinion of Pierius about the nature of the angels? Routh inveighs sharply against it Ibid., pp. 214, 215. and at the same time against all the allegorists who, otherwise great men, on account of some truly typical things in sacred Scripture, going off into trifles with which they strove to captivate the people, injured their own reputation. Indeed he does not hesitate to assert that Jerome himself was raving, who wrote in the Letter to Nepotian that the history of David and Abishag is a fiction from a mime or an Atellan farce, if you follow the letter P. L., vol. XXII, col. 528.. There was certainly no need of so great indignation; and as regards Pierius, although it is not to be denied that he indulged more than was fair in the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, he is nevertheless not to be carped at as though he had madly pursued allegories, the truth of the letter being overturned in things without doubt done. Nor does it seem to us that we should dwell longer on the third error detected by Photius in the Pierian writings, namely that then, more obscurely, he too, following the trifles of Origen, indicates that souls pre-exist, ὑπαινίττεται δὲ οὗτος κατὰ τὸν Ωριγένους ὕθλον καὶ προΰπαρξιν ψυχῶν.

It is not to be denied that this opinion is rash, and that after Origen various heretics abused it, so that it was condemned in the year 381 at the second council of Constantinople. But it is by no means proved that St. Pierius understood this doctrine in a wicked sense or in a way that would injure his orthodoxy.

§ VI. Of the cult of St. Pierius.

[38] St. Pierius is praised in the martyrologies, That we may complete this lucubration on St. Pierius, the very few things that are known about his cult must be gathered into one. Of which this is the sum, put together by Baronius Annales ecclesiastici, year 285, XVI.: Further, both Meletius and Theonas and also Pierius, because they were endowed with outstanding holiness, deserved also to be reckoned among the saints, their natal days being inscribed in the ecclesiastical tables. St. Epiphanius mentions churches existing at Alexandria which were dedicated in the name of Theonas and of Pierius. For when he reviews the churches situated at Alexandria: “There are,” he says, “many other churches (as I have said), called after Dionysius and Theonas and Pierius and Serapion Haeres., LXIX, 2. P. G., vol. XLII, col. 206..” Photius likewise reports that a temple and houses were built for Pierius by pious men. Routh conjectures that those houses were smaller sacred buildings Reliquiae sacrae, vol. III, p. 208.. By what way it came about that the natal day of St. Pierius was inscribed in the ecclesiastical fasti it will not be beside the point to inquire. Our Sollerius noted in the observations which he added to the Martyrology of Usuard P. 650. that this saint was first entered in the sacred tables by the author of the little Roman Martyrology, and is of the number of those saints whom outside the series of Usuard you would seek in vain among other martyrologists. In the codices of the Hieronymian lists so far known the name of Pierius has not yet appeared inscribed except in one of the kind of Hieronymian martyrologies which are usually called abridged, written in the tenth century, which belonged to the cenobium of Fulda and has been edited in the first volume of the Analecta Bollandiana. Now in this martyrology one reads at the 2nd day before the nones of November: At Alexandria, of St. Hierius, presbyter Analect. Bolland., vol. I, p. 44.. Yet it is not to be denied that this commemoration, since it is lacking in all the other Hieronymian ones, could have been added from the little Roman Martyrology or from Ado.

[39] according to the formula of Rufinus used by Ado, From what source these martyrologists drew is indeed clear, as Sollerius notes in the work just cited. That is, the author of the little Martyrology took the praise of St. Pierius from chapter XXIX of book VII of Rufinus. For what is recited there, as also in the Martyrology of Bede, with two words changed, Alexandria for Alexandriae, scripturis for scriptura, At Alexandria, of Hierius, presbyter, most pure in life, nobly learned in scripture, is found entire in the said Rufinus: Pierius… nobly learned in the divine scriptures, most pure in life. Ado gathered more from the Rufinian encomium, so that no part of it is now lacking: which the two texts compared show.

RUFINUS.

Pierius, keen of intellect, nobly learned in the divine scriptures, most pure in life, and for Christian philosophy stripped and wholly unencumbered, a teacher of the Church beyond compare, disputing wonderfully in private and in public.

ADO.

At Alexandria, of blessed Hierius, presbyter, a man of keen intellect, nobly learned in the divine scriptures, etc. At the end, very erroneously, and not according to Rufinus, he adds: He rested in the time of the emperor Philip, which would be between the years 244 and 249.

[40] by Usuard, and others. Usuard repeats the same formula, together with the same false chronology. The Fulda martyrology retains the Rufinian text, but omits that Pierius rested in the time of Philip. Galesini changed the formula a little in the following manner: At Alexandria, of St. Pierius, presbyter: who, very learned indeed in the divine scriptures, distinguished by singular innocence and holiness of life, departed to the Lord. Finally the Roman Martyrology joined to the first part of the praise, taken from Rufinus, a second, which is from Jerome's Catalogue of illustrious men, indicating the time in which he flourished. Peter de Natalibus placed St. Pierius in his Catalogue, book IX, chapter 50. He too repeats the Hieronymian encomium, and adds this rather strange thing: And at Alexandria he rested in peace on the 6th day before the ides of October. Among the Greeks and Orientals, even among the Copts, who venerate St. Theonas, in whose government of the church of Alexandria St. Pierius lived, it has not been granted to find any mention of him.