CAECILIANUS

CAECILIANUS

367

Pontius. All the manuscripts which Hartel hasused have Caecilianus , as Manutius also reads,and Ruinart ( Acta Mart . Sine .), though hehas Caecilius^ admits that the two (vetustissimiHartel. Praef.) codices Fossatensis and Floria-censis had Caecilianus. There can be no doubtthen that Caecilianus is correct, and Jerome’sstory falls to the ground as does also the sugges-tion (otherwise valueless though most adopted)of Don Maran, that he was the Caecilius NatalisofMinucius Felix. Baronius boldly conjecturedthat he was the tutor of Diadumenus, andagain quotes Pontius to the effect that Cyprianin giving up the world commended his wife andchildren to Caecilius; whereas what Pontius saysis that Caecilian dying commended his family tothe piety of Cyprian. He was aetate as well ashonore presbyter , and Cyprian [Cyprianus], asa deacon, probably lived with him, reverencinghim greatly “ as the father of his new life.”All that Pontius farther tells is that he wasiustus et laudabilis memoriae. He appears after-wards as venerabilis sacerdos (Bolland. Acta Sand.Jun. t. i. p. 264, § 3, Henschen), and was insertedas Sanctus Caecilius in the Roman Martyrology(June 3) by Gregory XIII. (Morcelli, Afr. Chris -tiana, vol. ii. p. 76; and see Papebroch in ActaSanct. 1. c.) [E. W. B.]

CAECILIANUS (2). First archdeacon, then(a.d. 311) bishop, of Carthage. His name isof importance in connexion with the Donatistcontroversy. [Donatism.] When archdeacon,Caecilian resolutely supported his bishop, Men-surius, in his opposition to the fanatical cravingfor martyrdom. The Christianity of NorthernAfrica exhibited an extravagance on this subjectwhich reached its height after the Diocletianpersecution. Men courted death at the handsof the Pagans, that after death they might behonoured as martyrs and confessors; some,without doubt, in a spirit which commands ourrespect, however much we may consider theenthusiasm mistaken; but others in a spiritwhich fostered the supposition that the martyr’scross would wash away for eternity the misery,the follies, the sins, and the crimes of a wholelife. It was hopeless to attempt discriminationbetween these classes, and in either case theonly sound policy seemed to be to suppresssuch extravagance; if possible, kindly, butwhere kindness failed, by stern and rigorousmeasures.

On the death of Mensurius, Caecilian wasnominated as his successor. The part he hadtaken against the would-be martyrs was thenremembered, and brought up against him. Thereligious world of Carthage was thrown into aferment, and divided itself broadly into two sec-tions, the moderate and the rigoristic parties, orthe supporters and the opponents of the prin-ciples of Caecilian. At the head of the latter wasa devout and wealthy lady named Lucilla, whohad been severely rebuked by the archdeaconon account of her superstitious veneration formartyrs’ relics. The rebuke was also a rebuketo the principles and practice of the rigoristicparty; it was accepted as such, and when thevacancy in the see occurred, this party preparedto fill it with one of their own followers. Cae-cilian’s party hastened matters to a conclusion;the election took place, and the archdeacon was

consecrated by Felix, bishop of Aptunga: whetherin the presence of any Numidian bishops or notseems uncertain.

Secundus, primate of Numidia and bishop ofTigisis, was presently invited to Carthage bythe rigoristic party. He came, attended byseventy bishops, and cited Caecilian before them.Charges personal and ecclesiastical were madeagainst the newly-consecrated bishop. Felix ofAptunga was denounced as a “ traditor ” (*. e.one who had delivered up the sacred writingsiti his possession), and consequently any ordina-tion performed by him was to be rejected, ac-cording to the principles of the North-Africanchurch, as invalid. Caecilian himself wascharged with unnecessary and heartless severityto those who had visited the confessors in prison;he was denounced as a “ tyrannus ” and a“ carnifex.” Caecilian declined to appear beforean assembly so prejudiced; but he professed hiswillingness to satisfy them on all personalmatters, and offered, if right was on their side,to lay down his episcopal office, and submit tore-ordination at their hands. Secundus and theNumidian bishops answered by excommunicatinghim and his party, and ordaining as bishop thereader Majorinus, a member of Lucilla’s house-hold. “ As weeds are mown down,” said one ofCaecilian’s opponents, “and cast away, so tra-ditors and those who are schismatically ordainedby traditors cannot remain in the church of God,except they acknowledge their error, and be-come reconciled with the church by the tearsof repentance.”

The church of North Africa now became aprey to schism. The party of Caecilian broke offrelations from the party of Majorinus, and theChristian world was scandalised by fulmina-tions, excommunications, invectives, charges, andcountercharges. Both parties confidently an-ticipated the support of the state; but Constan-tine, who was now emperor of this part of theRoman world, took the side of the Caecilianists.In his largesse to the Christians of the province,and in his edicts favourable to the church there-in established, he expressly stipulated that theparty of Majorinus should be excluded: theirviews were in his opinion the “madness” ofmen of “ unsound mind.” This imputation wasintolerable; the rigoristic party at once ap-pealed to the justice of the emperor, and courtedfull inquiry. They asked only, as a specialfavour, that the inquiry might be conducted inGaul—at a distance, that is, from the spot wherepassions and convictions were so strong and one-sided.

A council met a.d. 313 at Rome, in the La-teran. It was presided over by Melchiades(Miltiades), bishop of Rome, who had as hisassessors the bishops of Cologne, Arles, .andseventeen others. Caecilian appeared with tenbishops; Donatus, bishop of Casae Nigrae, inNumidia, headed the party of Majorinus. Thepersonal charges against Caecilian were ex-amined and dismissed, and his party proclaimedthe representatives of the orthodox Catholicchurch; Donatus himself was declared to haveviolated the laws of the church, and his fol-lowers were to be allowed to retain their dig-nity and office only on condition of re-union withCaecilian’s party. The bitterness of this deci-sion was modified by Caecilian’s friendly proposal