BORBORIANI
BOSPHORIITS
331
greater evil of schism. This proceeding wasdispleasing to pope Innocent, who addressed aletter to them, c. 414, stating that even if sucha course had been necessary at first, that neces-sity had passed, and the evil had arisen of menwho would have been likely to be rejected bythe orthodox bishops getting ordained by Bonosus,and then presenting themselves for recognitionby the church without formal recantation oftheir errors. (Innocent. Epist . xxii. c. 5;Labbe, ii. 1273.) At this time Bonosus seems tohave been dead. Bonosus and his followerswere widely accredited with heretical viewsrespecting the conception and person of Christ.Mercator calls him an Ebionite, and a precursorof Nestorius (Dissert, i. de haeres. Nestor. § 6, ii.315). But the Bonosians were more usuallycharged with Pkotinianism. (Gennadius de Eccl.dogm. c. 52. “ Photiniani qui nunc vocantur
Bonosiaci.”) Whether these charges were wellgrounded, or were based on the general unpopu-larity of the sect, it is impossible to determine.Their baptism was pronounced valid by the 17thcanon of the second synod of Arles, a.d. 445, onthe ground that, like the Arians, they baptizedin the name of the Trinity. (Labbe, iv. 1013.)But Gregory the Great in a letter to the Irishbishops (Ep. lib. ix. 61), includes them inthose whose baptism the church rejected becausethe name of the Trinity was not invoked (cf. Gen-nadius de Eccl. dogm. u. s.). The truth probablyis that the Bonosians were an obscure and un-popular sect, of whom little was really known,and of whom it was safe to believe all that wasbad. They on their part rebaptized those whojoined them. The 3rd council of Orleans, a.d.538, ordained that they who did so should bearrested by the royal officers and punished. TheBonosians, with other heretics, are anathematizedby pope Vigilius. (Ep. xv.; Labbe, v. 333.)
[E. V.]
BORBORIANI, one of the names given tocertain Ophitic Gnostics, derived by Epiphanius(i. 85 a) from &6pfiopos, “ mire,” as expressingtheir unclean living; so also Philaster (c. 73).It is probably an accidental coincidence thatClement (Strom, ii. p. 491), as Lipsius pointsout, describes certain unworthy Nicolaitans as“sunk in a mire of vice” (eV f$op&6p<p tcaidas).In another place (i. 77 A in Dindorfs text,omitted by Petau) Epiphanius calls them Bor-boritae , and in reality the name is probably onlyBarbelitae with a different vocalisation. Epi-phanius once (92 a) has B apfi-qptio ; and con-versely one text of Nicetas ( Thes. Orth. Fid.iv. 2) ap. Oehler in Addenda to Epiph. t. iii.p. 605), who follows Epiphanius, has Bop£o-AiTtu. A law of 428 (Cod. Theod. xvi. 5. 65)forbids the Borboriani (among other heretics) tomeet for prayer. [H.]
BOSA, bishop of York. He was a pupil ofSt. Hilda at Streoneshall (Bed. H. E. iv. 23),and on Wilfrid’s exile in 678, when his greatdiocese was divided, was appointed by king Eg-frith and archbishop Theodore to the bishopricof Deira (Bed. H. E. iv. 12), with his see at York.In 686, on Wilfrid’s restoration, Bosa was ex-pelled from York (Edd. V. Wilfr. c. 43), butreturned on the second exile of Wilfrid in 691,and retained his see until his death. He is men-
tioned by Eddius as alive in 704 when popeJohn YI. directs that he shall be summoned to asynod on Wilfrid’s business (Edd. V. Wilfr. c. 52).He died, probably, in that year or the following,leaving York open to John of Beverley, whosetranslation left Hexham open to Wilfrid on hisreturn. His death is frequently placed by mis-take in 686, the year of Wilfrid’s first return,instead of that of his second. (See Raine, FastiEboracenses, i. 84.) He is highly praised byAlcuin(Gale, 718), who says that he was a monk,and organized the worship in his church on theprinciples of the monastic, or, at least, the “ com-mon ” life. Acca, afterwards bishop of Hexham,was brought up in his household (Bed. II. E. v.19). He was honoured as a confessor on the13th of March (Raine, l. c.). He probably re-presented the mediatizing school of discipline,promoted by Theodore, in opposition to the va-garies of the Irish scholars on one side, and tothose of Wilfrid, with the Gallican and Romaninfluences, on the other. [S.]
BOSEL, the first bishop of Worcester. Thatsee having been created by the division of thegreat Mercian diocese in 679 or 680, Tatfrithwas nominated bishop but died before consecra-tion. Bosel was then appointed, and governeduntil the year 691, when, his health having givenway, Oftfor was appointed to succeed him (Bed.H. E. iv. 23 ; Flor. Wig. M. H. B. 536, 538).His name is attached to a Malmesbury charterof 681 (Kemble, C. D. i. 26), and to one of 685(W. Malmesb. G. P. v. 352), both of question-able authenticity. [S.]
BOSPHORIUS, bishop of Colonia in Cappa-docia Secunda, a confidential friend and corre-spondent of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil theGreat. His episcopate was prolonged through atleast 48 years (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203), and musthave commenced in 360. From the letters ofGregory we learn that he and Bosphorius hadlived together in youth, laboured together, andgrown old together (Greg. Epist. 141, 227). Hehad great influence over the gentler nature ofGregory, whom he did not scruple to address invery strong, almost vituperative language, whenhe appeared to be shrinking through timidityfrom public duty. Gregory, however, speaks ofBosphorius in terms of the highest respect, bothfor the purity of his faith and the sanctity of hislife, as well as for his successful exertions inbringing back wanderers to the truth, acknow-ledging the benefit he had derived both as ahearer and a teacher from his instructions (Epist.164, 225). His influence was powerful withGregory at the chief crises of his life. He per-suaded him to remain at Nazianzus after hisfather’s death, and to accept the unwelcomecharge of the see of Constantinople. Gregorybitterly complained of his unscrupulous impor-tunity, but yielded (Epist. 14, 15). In 383Bosphorius was accused of unsoundness in thefaith ; a charge which greatly distressed Gregory,who wrote urgently in his behalf to Theodore ofTyana, Nectarius, and Eutropius (Ep. 225, 227,164). Basil addressed to him a letter denyingthe charge of having excommunicated his bishopDianius (Ep. Ii.). He attended the Second Oecu-menical Council at Constantinople in 381 (Labbe,ii. 956). Palladius speaks with gratitude of the