Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/110

 FIRMICUS

SO

FIRMILIAN

Fiimicns Maternus, Christian author of the fourth century, wrote a work "De errore profanarum reh- gionum". Nothing is known about him except what can be gleaned from this work, which is found in only one MS. (Codex Vaticano-Palatinus, Sffc. X). Some references to the Persian Wars, and the fact that the work was addressed to the two emperors, Constantius II and Constans I, have led to the conclusion that it was composed during their joint reign (337-350). The work is valualile because it gives a picture of the char- acter which the paganism of the later Roman Empire had taken, under the stress of the new spiritual needs aroused by contact with the religions of Egypt and the East. It aims, if one may judge from the mutilated introduction, at presenting from a philosophical and historical standpoint, reasons showing the superiority of Christianity over the superstitions and licentious- ness of heathenism. In a general survey of pagan creeds and beliefs the author holds up to scorn the origin and practices of the Gentile cults. All its parts are not of equal merit or importance, from the purely historical standpoint. The first portion, in which the religions of Cireece and the East are descril^ed, is merely a compilation from earlier sources, but in the latter section of the work, in which the mysteries of Eleusis, Isis, and especially Mithra are set forth in de- tail, with their system of curious passwords, formula^, and ceremonies, the author seems to speak from per- sonal experience, and thus reveals many interesting facts which are not found elsewhere. The emperors are exhorted to stamp out this network of superstition and immorality, as a sacred duty for which they will receive a reward from God Himself, and ultimately the praise and thanks of those whom they rescue "from error and corruption. The theory that the author of the Christian work was identical with Julius Firmicus Maternus Siculus, who wrote a work on astrology (De Nativitatibus sive Matheseos), assigned by Mommsen to the year 337 [" Hermes ", XXIX (1894), 468 sq.], is favourably received by some, as well because of tlie identity of names and dates, as because of similarities in style which they are satisfied the two documents exhibit. This theory of course supposes that the au- thor WTote one work before, the other after, his con- version. Critical edition by Halm (Vienna, 1S67) in "Corpus Scrip. Eccles. Lat.", II.

ZlEGLER, Firmicus Malemus, De Errore Prof. Relig. (Leipzig, 1908); MuLLER, Zur Ueberliefentng tier Apologie des Firmicus Malemus (Tubingen, 1908); additional literature, Barden- HEWER, Palrology, tr. Shahan (Freiburg im Br., St. Louis,

190S), 402. Patrick J. Healy.

Finnilian, Bishop of Cssarea in Cappadocia, died c. 269. He had among his contemporaries a repu- tation comparable to that of Dionysius or Cyprian. St. Gregory of Nyssa tells us that St. Gregory the Wonder-Worker, then a pagan, having completed his secular studies, " fell in with Firmilian, a Cappadocian of noble family, similar to himself in character and talent, as he showed in his subsequent life when he adorned the Church of Ccesarea." The two young men agreed in their desire to know more of God, and came to Origen, whose disciples they became, and by whom Gregory, at least, was baptized. Firmilian was more probably brought up as a Christian. Later, when bishop, Eusebius tells us, he had such a love for Origen that he invited him to his own country for the benefit of the Churches, at the time (232-5) when the great teacher was staving inCssareaof Palestine, on account of his bishop'.s displeasure at his having been ordained priest in that city. Firmilian also went to him subse- quently and stayed with him some time that he might advance in theology (Hist. Eccl., VII, xxviii, 1). He was an opponent of the antipope Novatian, for Diony- sius in 2.52-3 writes that Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian, and Theoctistus of Ca'.sarea in Palestine (that is, the Metropolitans of Cilicia, Cappadocia, and Palestine) had invited him to a synod at Antioch, where some

were trying to support the heresy of Novatian (Euseb., Hist. Eccl., VI, xlvi, 3). Dionysius counts Firmilian as one of "the more eminent bishops" in a letter to Pope Stephen (ibid., VII, v, 1), where his expression "Firmilian and all Cappadocia" again implies that Ca?sarea was already a metropolitan see. This ex- plains why Firmilian could invite Origen to Cappado- cia "for the benefit of the Churches".

In a letter to Pope Sixtus II (257-8), Dionysius mentions that Pope St. Stephen in the baptismal con- troversy had refused to communicate with Helenus of Tarsus, Firmilian, and all Cilicia and Cappadocia, and the neighbouring lands (Euseb., VII, v, 3-4). We learn the cause of this from the only writing of St. Firmilian 's which remains to us. When the baptismal controversy arose, St. Cyprian wished to gain support from the Churches of the East against Pope Stephen for his own decision to rebaptize all heretics who returned to the Church. At the end of the summer of 256, he sent the deacon Rogatian to Firmilian with a letter, together with the docimients on the subject — letters of the pope, of his own, and of his council at Carthage in the spring, and the treatise "De Eccl. Cath. Unitate". Firmilian's reply was received at Carthage about the middle of November. It is a long letter, even more bitter and violent than that of Cyp- rian to Pompeius. It has come down to us in a transla- tion made, no doubt, under St. Cyprian's direction, and apparently very literal, as it abounds in Gra^cisms (Ep. Ixxv among St. Cyprian's letters). St. Cyprian's arguments against St. Stephen are reiterated and rein- forced, and the treatise on Unity is laid under contri- bution. It is particularly interesting to note that the famous fourth chapter of that treatise must have been before the writer of the letter in its original form, and not in the alternative "Roman" form (c. xvi). It is the literal truth when Firmilian says: "We have re- ceived your writings as om- own, and have committed them to memory by repeated reading" (c. iv).

The reasoning against the validity of heretical bap- tism is mainly that of St. Cyprian, that those who are outside the Church and have not the Holy Spirit can- not admit others to the Church or give what they do not possess. Firmilian is fond of dilemmas: for in- stance, either the heretics do not give the Holy Ghost, in which case rebaptism is necessary, or else they do give it, in which case Stephen should not enjoin the laying on of hanils. It is important that Firmilian enables us to gather much of the drift of St. Stephen's letter. It is "ridiculous" that Stephen demanded nothing but the use of the Trinitarian formula. He had appealed to tradition from St. Peter and St. Paul: this is an insult to the Apostles, cries Firmilian, for they execrated heretics. Besides (this is from Cyprian, Ep. Ixxiv, 2)," no one could be so sUly as to believe this ' ', for the heretics are all later than the Apostles! And Rome has not preserved the Apostolic traditions un- changed, for it differs from Jerusalem as to the observ- ances at Easter and as to other mysteries. "1 am justly indignant with Stephen's obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church ; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism con- ferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized. . . . Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics" (c. xvii). " You have cut yourself off — do not mistake — since he is the true schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For in think- ing that .all can be excommimicated by you, you have cut off yourself alone from the communion of all" (c. xxiv)..