cil of Chalcedon in 451; Theodore was at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553; Macrobius at the Sixth Council and the Council in Trullo in 692. Three others are mentioned in "The Sixth Book of the Select Letters of Severus" (ed. Brooks, passim). Several Latin titulars are also known after 1345 (Eubel, "Hierarchia catholica medii ævi", I, 468). Seleucia was captured by the Seljuks in the eleventh century, and later by the Armenians of the Kingdom of Cilicia. At the beginning of the thirteenth century it was in the possession of the Hospitallers, as was also its stronghold. The Caramanian Turks captured it in the second half of the thirteenth century and then the Osmanlis, who still possess it. As Liman-Iskelessi, or Selefke-Iskelessi, it is now a caza in the sandjak of Itch-Il and the vilayet of Adana. It has about 3000 inhabitants, half of whom are Greek schismatics. Ruins of the theatre and some temples are to be seen. The stronghold which crowns the mountain is of Armenian origin.

SMITH, Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Geog., s. v.; TEXIER, Asie Mineure (Paris, 1862), 724; LANGLOIS, Voyage dans la Cilicie (Paris, 1861), 180-92; WADDINGTON, Voyage archéologique en Asie Mineure, 339-41; DUCHESNE in Bulletin de correspondance hellénique, IV, 195-202; CUINET, La Turquie d'Asie, II, 67-9; ALISHAN, Sissouan (Venice, 1899), 328–35.

S. VAILHÉ.

Seleucids, the name given to the Macedonian dynasty, which was founded by Seleucus, a general under Ålexander the Great, and ruled over Syria from 312 B. C. In 321 Seleucus received the satrapy of Babylonia from Antipater, administrator of Alexander's empire. After being temporarily supplanted by Antigonus, he returned to Babylonia after the battle of Gaza (312), from which his rule is dated (the first year of the Seleucid era). SELEUCUS I NICATOR (312281 B. C.) assumed the title of king in 306. He first subdued Upper Asia as far as the Indus and Jaxartes. The battle of Ipsus brought Syria under his dominion, although he had to recognize the supremacy of Egypt over Phoenicia and Palestine. By a victory over Lysimachus he conquered the greater part of Asia Minor (281), but a little later, when he encroached on European territory, he was murdered by Ptolemy Ceraunus. Besides various other cities, Seleucus founded the magnificent residential towns of Seleucia on the Tigris and Antiochia on the Orontes. He was succeeded by his son, ANTIOCHUS I SOTER (281-61), who, through fear of the Parthians, transferred his residence to Antiochia. Under Soter's son, ANTIOCHUS II THEOS (261-46), began the wars with the Ptolemies for the possession of Phoenicia and Palestine. The marriage of Antiochus II to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, brought about a temporary cessation of the struggle; but on Ptolemy's death, Laodice, the first and disowned wife of Antiochus, was recalled and avenged herself by having Antiochus, Berenice, and their child put to death. The son of Antiochus and Laodice, SELEUCUS II CALLINICUS (246-26), succeeded. To avenge the death of his sister and to assure his possession of Syria, King Ptolemy III Euergetes made a successful campaign against Seleucus, advancing victoriously as far as the Euphrates. The eastern provinces passed gradually into the hands of the Parthians, and portions of the western were lost to Attalus II of Pergamum. While in flight after a battle in which he had suffered defeat at the hands of Attalus, Seleucus was killed by a fall from his horse. SELEUCUS III CERAUNUS (226-24), the elder son of Seleucus, succeeded, and on his assassination the younger son ANTIOCHUS III THE GREAT (224-187). To secure possession of Cole-Syria and Palestine this monarch began a war with Ptolemy V; although defeated at Raphia (217), the battle of Paneas (198) resulted in his favour, Palestine thenceforth belonging to the Syrian Empire. Interference in the affairs of the

west led to a war with Rome. After the battle of Magnesia (189) the king had to accept harsh conditions and surrender his possessions in Asia Minor north of the Taurus. Antiochus was unable to conquer Parthia, which his father had lost. During an attempt to plunder a temple in Elam, he was slain by the natives. He was succeeded by his elder son, SELECCUS IV PHILOPATOR (187–75). Seleucus secured the return of his younger brother Antiochus, who lived as a hostage in Rome, by sending his own son Demetrius thither instead. Before Antiochus arrived home, Seleucus had been murdered by his minister Heliodorus; the former was thus able to take possession of the Throne, which really belonged to his nephew Demetrius.

ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES (175-64) was an ambitious prince, of a truly despotic nature and fond of display. Entanglements with Egypt gave him the occasion to make repeated successful inroads into that country, and in 168 he might have succeeded in securing possession of it, had not the Romans compelled him to withdraw (embassy of Popilius Lænas). His hostile measures against the Jews, whom he tried to hellenize by sheer force, resulted in the Machabean rising (see MACHABEES, THE). He died at Tabæ in Persia, while on a campaign against the Parthians. His son ANTIOCHUS V EUPATOR (164-62) was a minor, and simply a tool in the hands of the imperial administrator Lysias. Both were removed by the son of Seleucus IV, DEMETRIUS I SOTER (162–15), who had previously lived as a hostage at Rome. Alexander Balas, who claimed to be a son of Antiochus IV, rebelled in 151, and Demetrius fell in battle. His son Demetrius continued the war against Alexander Balas (150-45) in union with the Egyptian king Ptolemy VI. Conquered by the latter near Antiochia, Alexander fled to Arabia, and was there treacherously murdered. DEMETRIUS II NICATOR (145–38 and 129-25) found his right to the throne contested by Diodotus (surnamed Tryphon), a general of Balas, in favour of the latter's son Antiochus VI, a minor. Later (141), setting aside his ward, Tryphon strove to secure the throne for himself. When Demetrius II was captured during an expedition against the Parthians and cast into prison, his brother Antiochus continued the war against Tryphon, who, being finally overcome, committed suicide (138). ANTIOCHUS VII SIDETES (138-29) was killed during a campaign against the Parthians. Demetrius II, who had been released from captivity during the war, now became king for the second time (129-25). An anti-king in the person of Alexander Zabinas, a supposed son of Alexander Balas, was set up in 128 by the Egyptian king, Ptolemy VII Physcon. Conquered near Damascus, Demetrius had to flee, and was murdered when he attempted to land in Tyre. He was followed by his elder son SELEUCUS V, who, at the instigation of his own mother, was removed shortly after his accession. His younger brother, ANTIOCHUS VIII GRYPUS (125– 113) conquered Alexander Zabinas and had him executed (125), but he himself was driven from his throne by his maternal half-brother ANTIOCHUS IX CYZICENUS (113-95), the youngest son of Antiochus VII. Returning, however, after two years, Grypus succeeded in winning for himself a large part of Syria, the kingdom being thus divided.

On the death of Antiochus VIII (96) his domains and claims were inherited by his elder son SELEUCUS VI. Defeated by Seleucus near Antiochia in 95, Antiochus IX committed suicide to escape imprisonment. However, his son ANTIOCHUS X defeated Seleucus in the same year, and the latter had to flee to Cilicia, where he died. His two brothers ANTIOCHUS XI and Philip continued the war, but were defeated, and during the flight Antiochus XI met death in the waves of the Orontes. PHILIP continued the war, and succeeded in securing possession of at least a portion of

Syria, while the fourth son of Antiochus VIII, DEMETRIUS III EUCERUS, was elevated to the rank of king in Damascus by Ptolemy Soter II of Egypt. Antiochus X was finally overcome by the brothers, Philip and Demetrius. Concerning his death we have conflicting reports. According to Appian he was first completely ousted by Tigranes (see below), although he seems to have asserted himself in a portion of Syria. Failing in his design of reconquering Judea, Demetrius endeavoured to supplant his brother Philip, besieging him in Bercea, but was surrounded by the Parthians whom Philip had summoned to his aid, and forced to surrender. He died at the Court of the Parthian king. Philip now marched on Antiochia, secured possession of the city, and thenceforth held sway over Syria (about 88). In Cole-Syria and Damascus, however, appeared a new pretender in his youngest brother, ANTIOCHUS XII DIONYSUS, who made himself king of these parts, but later fell in a campaign against the Nabatæans (about 84). Meanwhile, King Tigranes of Armenia appeared from the north, and in 83 succeeded in possessing himself of the kingdom. After overcoming Tigranes in 69, Lucullus granted the realm to the son of Antiochus X, ANTIOCHUS XIII ASIATICUS, the last of the Seleucids. In 64 Pompey made Syria a Roman province, and Antiochus XIII was murdered a short time afterwards.

FLATHE, Gesch. Macedoniens, II (Leipzig, 1834): HOLM, Griechenlands Gesch., IV (Berlin, 1894); NIESE Gesch. der griech. u. maced. Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Charonca (3 parts, Gotha, 1893-1903); KUHN, Beiträge zur Gesch. der Seleuciden (programme of Altkirch in Alsace, 1891); BEVAN, The House of Seleucus (2 vols., London, 1902). Concerning the relations of the Seleucids with the Jews, cf. SCHÜRER, Gesch. des jüd. Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, I (3rd ed., Leipzig, 1903), 166 sqq. FRANZ SCHÜHLEIN.

Self-Defence.-Ethically the subject of selfdefence regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their appli ation regarding the right of self-defence. The teaching may be summarized as follows:

I. DEFENCE OF LIFE AND PERSON.-Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor: For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed, however, that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended

for some future time or occasion. Generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposes the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them. II. DEFENCE OF PROPERTY.-It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the aggressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive our neighbour of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means: if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defence.

III. HONOUR.-Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defence of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defence of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honour or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we believe he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. This proceeding would not be defence of our honour or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honour and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.

NOLDIN, Summa Theologia Moralis, II (Innsbruck, 1908), 352-6; De occisione injusti aggressoris; LEHMKUHL, Theologia Moralis, I (St. Louis, 1910), iii, tr. 2; ZIGLIARA, Summa Philosophica, III, I, iii; ST. THOMAS, Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. xvii, a. 7; BILLUART, Cursus Theologiæ: in II-II St. Thoma, d. X, a. V. JAMES J. Fox.

Selgas y Carrasco, José, poet and novelist, b. at Lorca, Murcia, Spain, 1824; d. at Madrid, 5 Feb., 1882, he received his early training at the Seminary of San Fulgencio; his family being in straitened circumstances, he was obliged to cut short his studies in order to contribute to its support. Going to Madrid, he there occupied minor Government positions, and engaged in journalism. As a staunch Conservative he assailed the Liberals in the articles which he wrote for the periodical “El Padre Cobos" and other newspapers. He acted as secretary for Martínez Campos when the latter was Prime Minister. The Spanish Academy made him

one of its members. Selgas belongs among the minor writers. His repute depends upon his lyrics and his. short tales rather than upon his more ambitious novels. The best of his verse, which is generally marked by a gentle melancholy, will be found in the two collections, "La Primavera" and "El Estio", both put forth in 1850. After his death there appeared the volume of poems entitled "Flores y Espinas". Of his longer novels there may be mentioned the "Dos Rivales" and "Una Madre", both rather tedious compositions. In his short tales he is most successful when he indulges in the sentimental; he is less attractive when he gives utterance to his pessimistic feeling. At times his sentimentalism and pessimism become even morbid. A number of his journalistic articles have been brought together in several of the volumes of his collected works, as "Hojas sueltas" "Estudios sociales", etc. They illustrate his ultra-Conservativism in politics. Obras completas, ed. DUBRULL (15 vols., Madrid, 1887); GARCIA, La Literatura española en el siglo XIX, pt. I, ii. J. D. M. FORD.

Selge, a titular see in Pamphylia Prima, suffragan of Side. Situated in a fertile plain on the south slope of the Taurus, it boasted that it was founded by the diviner Calchas, but in reality was probably a Lacedæmonian colony. Although difficult of access, it became the most populous and powerful of the cities of Pisidia. Its army of 2000 soldiers was in constant strife with the neighbouring cities. Greek grammarians connect its name with ἀσελγής, which means "licentious"; some think the first letter of the word a negative particle, but others find in it a meaning of reinforcement. When Alexander passed through Pisidia, Selge sought his friendship. In 208 B.C. it was besieged by Achæus, ally of its rival city of Pednelissus, and forced to pay a heavy war tax. Its coins show it to have flourished under Trajan, but in the fifth century it was only a small city, still capable, however, of repulsing an of repulsing an attack of the Goths. After the new division of the empire it was included in Pamphylia; in the fifth century it was connected, at least ecclesiastically, with Side, metropolis of Pamphylia Prima. In the ninth century it had become an autocephalous archdiocese. Subsequent "Notitia episcopatuum" do not mention it. Le Quien ("Oriens Christ.", I, 1011) names four of its bishops: Uranion, who must have assisted at the Council of Nicæa in 325, but whose name does not occur in the lists of the Fathers of that council; Nunechius, at the Council of Ephesus in 431; Marcianus at Constantinople in 869; Gregory at the Photian Council of Constantinople in 879. The ruins of Selge are located at the village of Sürk in the sandjak of Adalia and the vilayet of Koniah; they include temples, an aqueduct, a portico, a stadium, a theatre, a church, etc.

SMITH, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Geog., s. v.; LANCKORÓNSKI, Les villes de la Pamphylie et de la Pisidie, II (Paris, 1893), 182-195. S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Selinus, a titular see in Isauria, near the Gulf of Adalia. Selinus, mentioned by Ptolemy, V, 8, 2, Pliny, V, 22, and other ancient geographies, was a port on the east side of Cilicia at the mouth of a river of the same name. Its situation on a steep rock, whence its Greek name, rendered it almost impregnable. The only known fact of its history is that Trajan died there in 117. Then it took the name of Trajanopolis, but the old one prevailed, as is shown by coins and other documents. Later Selinus was joined to Isauria. In 198 Longinus of Selinus, a rebel leader, was taken by Count Driscus and sent to Constantinople. Basil of Seleucia (Vita S. Theclae, II, 17) said that the city, which was formerly of much importance, lost it from his time to the fifth century. Constantine Porphyrogenitus,

in the tenth century, called it a small town. To-day it is the little village of Selinci in the vilayet of Adana; there are ruins of a theatre, aqueduct, market-place, bath, etc. Selinus was suffragan of Seleucia Trachea. Le Quien (Oriens christianus, 11, 1019) names four bishops: Neon, present at the council of Constantinople, 381; Alypius, at Ephesus, 431; Elianus, at Chalcedon, 451; Gheon, signer of the letter of the bishops of the province to Emperor Leo, 458. The see is in the Greek Notitia Episcopatuum" of the Patriarchate of Antioch from the fifth to the tenth century (Vailhé in "Echos d'Orient", X, 95, 145). It was also perhaps an Armenian bishopric until the tenth century (Alishan, Sissouan, Venice, 1899, p. 60). Eubel (Hierarchia catholica medii ævi, 1, 468) names a Latin bishop in 1345.

BEAUFORT, Karamania, 186 seq.; SMITH, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Mittelalter, 57.

Gog., s. v.; TOMASCHEK, Zur histor, topogr. von Kleinasien im S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Selvaggio, GIULIO LORENZO, canonist and archæologist, b. at Naples, 10 August, 1728; d. there, November, 1772. He entered the seminary of Naples in 1744, and was ordained priest in 1752. He subsequently devoted himself to the study of history, philosophy, and the Oriental languages. He became censor of books and synodal examiner for the Diocese of Naples, and wrote the notes for the Italian edition of the ecclesiastical history of the Lutheran historian, Mosheim. Appointed professor of canon law in 1764, he published "Institutionum canonicarum libri tres" (Padua, 1770) and conferences in civil law, interesting from the standpoint of contemporary Neapolitan law. Mamachi's work on Christian antiquities being unfinished, Selvaggio resolved to treat the same subject in a smaller work, but he died before finishing it. His friend, Canon Kalephati, continued the publication of the "Antiquitatum ecclesiasticarum institutiones" (6 vols., Naples, 1772-6), prefacing them with a biography "Commentarius de vita et scriptis of the author: J. L. Selvagii".

HURTER, Nomenclator, III (Innsbruck, 1895), 172-4.

R. MAERE.

Selymbria, a titular see in Thracia Prima, suffragan of Heraclea. Selymbria, or Selybria, the city of Selys on the Propontis, was a colony of the Megarians founded before Byzantium. It was the native place of Prodicus, a disciple of Hippocrates; there Xenophon met Medosades, the envoy of Seuthes, whose army later encamped near by. In 410 B.C. Alcibiades, who commanded in the Propontis for the Athenians, was not allowed to enter the town, but the inhabitants paid him a sum of money; somewhat later he captured it by treason and left a garrison there. In 351 B.C., Šelymbria was an ally of the Athenians and in 343 was perhaps attacked by Philip. In honour of Eudoxia, wife of the Emperor Arcadius, it was called Eudoxiopolis, still its official name in the seventh century, doubtless together with the older one which finally survived. In 805 it was pillaged by the Bulgarian king, Kroum. Michael III constructed a fortress the ruins of which are still existing there. The town is often mentioned by the Byzantine historians; in 1096 Godfrey of Bouillon ravaged the country. Cantacuzenus celebrated the marriage of his daughter Theodora and the sultan Orkhan with great pomp at Selymbria. The Turks captured the town in 1453. It is now Silivri, chief town of a caza in the vilayet of Adrianopolis, containing 8000 inhabitants, Turks and Greeks, mostly farmers or fishermen.

In the tenth century it became an autocephalous archbishopric and under Marcus Comnenus a metropolis without suffragan sees. It would be easy, therefore, to add to the list of its bishops given by Le Quien

in "Oriens christianus", I, 1137. The oldest known is Theophilus transferred from Apamea (Socrates, "Hist. eccl.", VII, xxxvi). We may mention before the Schism: Romanus, 448, 451; Sergius, 80; George, 692; Epiphanius, author of a lost work against the Iconoclasts. Simeon assisted in 879 at the Council of Constantinople which re-established Photius. Under Michael Palæologus, the Metropolitan of Selymbria, whose name is unknown, was one of the prelates who signed a letter to the pope on the union of the Churches. In 1347 Methodius was one of the signatories at the Council of Constantinople which deposed the patriarch John Calecas, the adversary of the Palamites. The date of Ignatius, who wrote a "Life of Constantine and Helena" is unknown, perhaps about 1431. Among the bishops omitted by Le Quien must be mentioned Philotheus, who lived about 1365, the author of the panegyric on St. Agathonicus, a martyr of Nicomedia who suffered at Selymbria under Maximian, and of the panegyric on Saint (?) Macarius, a monk of Constantinople towards the end of the thirteenth century (Krumbacher, "Gesch. der byzant. Litteratur", Munich, 1897, 205).

SMITH, Dict. Gr. and Rom. Geog., s. v.; BOUTYRAS, Dict. of Hist. and Geog. (Greek), VII, 509; TOMASCHEK, Zur Kunde der HämusHalbinsel (Vienna, 1887), 23.

S. PÉTRIDÈS.

Sem (,"name", "fame", "renown"; in Septuagint, nu; A. V., Shem), son of Noe; according to Gen., x, 21, the eldest. His birth and generations are recorded in Gen., v, 31; xi, 10 sqq. (cf. I Par., i, 4, 17 sq.; Luke, iii, 36). He lived to be six hundred years of age. An incident, narrated Gen., ix, 18 sqq., discloses his filial reverence. His reward was a blessing of great import (cf. Ecclus., xlix, 19). Noe's prophetic words (according to Massor. Text), "Blessed be Yahweh, the God of Sem" (for the glory of a nation is its God), designate, in a special manner, Yahweh as the God of Sem and, consequently, Sem as the bearer of the Messianic promises. Having enumerated the Semitic nations, whose habitat extended over the central portions of the then known world (Gen., x, 21-31), the Sacred Writer resumes (xi, 10 sqq.) the genealogy of the descendants of Arphaxad, the direct ancestor of Abraham, David, and Christ.

HUMMELAUER, Comment. in Genesim (Paris. 1895), loc. cit., and HAGEN, Lex. Bibl. (Paris, 1905-11), both in Cursus Scripturæ Sacra; STRACK, Genesis (Munich, 1894), loc. cit. in Kurzgef. Kommentar z. d. hl. Schriften Alt. u. N. Test.; HOBERG, Die Genesis (Freiburg, 1908), loc. cit.; MAAS, Christ in Type and Prophecy, I (New York), 212 sq.

THOMAS PLASSMANN.

Semiarians and Semiarianism, a name frequently given to the conservative majority in the East in the fourth century as opposed to the strict Arians. More accurately it is reserved (as by St. Epiphanius, "Hær.", lxxiii) for the party of reaction headed by Basil of Ancyra in 358. The greater number of the Eastern bishops, who agreed to the deposition of St. Athanasius at Tyre in 335 and received the Arians to communion at Jerusalem on their repentance, were not Arians, yet they were far from being all orthodox. The dedication Council of Antioch in 341 put forth a creed which was unexceptionable but for its omission of the Nicene "of One Substance". Even disciples of Arius, such as George, Bishop of Laodicea (335-47), and Eustathius of Sebaste (c. 356-80), joined the moderate party, and after the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, the leaders of the court faction, Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, were not tied to any formula, for Constantius himself hated Arianism, though he disliked Athanasius yet more. When Marcellus of Ancyra was deposed in 336, he was succeeded by Basil. Marcellus was reinstated by the Council of Sardica and the pope in 343, but Basil was restored

in 350 by Constantius, over whom he gained considerable influence. He was the leader of a council at Sirmium in 351 held against Photinus who had been a deacon at Ancyra, and the canons of this synod begin by condemning Arianism, though they do not quite come up to the Nicene standard. Basil had afterwards a disputation with the Arian Aëtius. After the defeat of Magnentius at Mursa ih 351, Valens, bishop of that city, became the spiritual director of Constantius. In 355 Valens and Ursacius obtained the exile of the Western confessors Eusebius, Lucifer, Liberius, and that of Hilary followed. In 357 they issued the second Creed of Sirmium, or "formula of Hosius", in which homoousios and homoiousios were both rejected. Eudoxius, a violent Arian, seized the See of Antioch, and supported Aëtius and his disciple Eunomius.

In the Lent of 358 Basil with many bishops was holding the dedicatory feast of a new church he had built at Ancyra, when he received a letter from George of Laodicea relating how Eudoxius had approved of Aëtius, and begging Macedonius of Constantinople, Basil, and the rest of the assembled bishops to decree the expulsion of Eudoxius and his followers from Antioch, else that great see were lost. In consequence the Synod of Ancyra published a long reply addressed to George and the other bishops of Phoenicia, in which they recite the Creed of Antioch (341), adding explanations against the "unlikeness" of the Son to the Father taught by the Arians (Anomoans, from dvouoios), and showing that the very name of father implies a son of like substance (ouοlovσios, or ὅμοιος κατ ̓ οὐσίαν) Anathematisms are appended, in which Anomanism is explicitly condemned and the teaching of "likeness of substance" enforced. The nineteenth of these canons forbids the use also of ouoovσios and TaυTOOÚσios; this may be an afterthought due to the instance of Macedonius, as Basil does not seem to have insisted on it later. Legates were dispatched to the Court at Sirmium-Basil, Eustathius of Sebaste, an ascetic of no dogmatic principles, Eleusius of Cyzicus, a follower of Macedonius, and Leontius, a priest who was one of the emperor's chaplains. They arrived just in time, for the emperor had been lending his ear to an Eudoxian; but he now veered round, and issued a letter (Sozomen, IV, xiv) declaring the Son to be "like in substance" to the Father, and condemning the Arians of Antioch.

According to Sozomen it was at this point that Liberius was released from exile on his signing three formulæ combined by Basil; against this story see LIBERIUS, POPE. Basil persuaded Constantius to summon a general council, Ancyra being proposed, then Nicomedia; but the latter city was destroyed by an earthquake. Basil, therefore, was again at Sirmium in 359, where the Arianizers had meanwhile regained their footing With Germinius of Sirmium, George of Alexandria, Ursacius and Valens, and Marcus of Arethusa, he held a conference which lasted until night. A confession of faith, ridiculed under the name of the "dated creed", was drawn up by Marcus on 22 May (Hilary, "Fragment. xv"). Arianism was of course rejected, but the ὅμοιος κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν was not admitted, and the expression xarà Távra uolos, "like in all things", was substituted. Basil was disappointed, and added to his signature the explanation that the words "in all things" mean not only in will, but in existence and being (karà Thy waρživ xal karà rò elva). Not content with this, Basil, George of Laodicea, and others published a joint explanation (Epiph., lxxiii, 12-22) that "in all things" must include "in substance".

The court party arranged that two councils should be held, at Rimini and Seleucia respectively. At Seleucia (359) the Semiarians were in a majority, being supported by such men as St. Cyril of Jeru

salem, his friend Silvanus of Tarsus, and even St. Hilary, but they were unable to obtain their ends. Basil, Silvanus, and Eleusius, therefore, went as envoys to Constantinople, where a council was held (360) which followed Rimini in condemning duotoúotos together with oμooúσios, and allowed duotos alone, without addition. This new phrase was the invention of Acacius of Cæsarea, who now deserted the extremer Arians and became leader of the new "Homoan" party. He procured the exile of Macedonius, Eleusius, Basil, Eustathius, Silvanus, Cyril, and others.

Constantius died at the end of 361. Under Julian the exiles returned. Basil was probably dead. Macedonius organized a party which confessed the Son to be κarà Távтa oμotos, while it declared the Holy Ghost to be the minister and servant of the Father, and a creature. Eleusius joined him, and so did Eustathius for a time. This remnant of the Semiarian party held synods at Zele and elsewhere. The accession of Jovian, who was orthodox, induced the versatile Acacius, with Meletius of Antioch and twenty-five bishops, to accept the Nicene formula, adding an explanation that the Nicene Fathers meant by duoovolos merely duotos Kar' ovolav. Thus Acacius had taken up the original formula of the Semiarians. In 365 the Macedonians assembled at Lampsacus under the presidency of Eleusius, and condemned the Councils of Ariminum and Antioch (360), asserting again the likeness in substance. But the threats of the Arian emperor Valens caused Eleusius to sign an Arian creed at Nicomedia in 366. He returned to his diocese full of remorse, and begged for the election of another bishop; but his diocesans refused to let him resign. The West was at peace under Valentinian, so the Semiarians sent envoys to that emperor and to the pope to get help. Liberius refused to see them until they presented him with a confession of faith which included the Nicene formula. He seems to have been unaware that the party now rejected the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; but this was perhaps not true of the envoys Eustathius and Silvanus. On the return of the legates, the documents they brought were received with great joy by a synod at Tyana, which embraced the Nicene faith. But another synod in Caria still refused the homoousion. For the rest of the history of the sect, who are now to be called Macedonians, see

PNEUMATOMACHI.

Seminary, ECCLESIASTICAL.-I. TERMINOLOGY.The word seminary (Fr. séminaire, Ger. Seminar) is sometimes used, especially in Germany, to designate a group of university students devoted to a special line of work. The same word is often applied in England and the United States to young ladies' academies, Protestant or Catholic. When qualified by the word ecclesiastical, it is reserved to schools instituted, in accordance with a decree of the Council of Trent, for the training of the Catholic diocesan clergy. It differs therefore from the novitiate and the scholasticate where members of religious orders receive their spiritual and intellectual formation. In the ecclesiastical seminary both go together. Hence, a faculty of theology in a university is not a seminary; neither is the word to be applied to the German Konvictus, where ecclesiastical students live together while attending lectures of the faculty of theology in the State universities.

An ecclesiastical seminary is diocesan, interdiocesan, provincial, or pontifical, according as it is under the control of the bishop of the diocese, of several bishops who send there their students, of all the bishops of an ecclesiastical province, or of the Holy See. A seminary which receives students from several provinces or from dioceses in various parts of the country is called a central, or a national, seminary.

A theological seminary (grand séminaire) provides courses in Holy Scripture, philosophy, theology etc., and gives young men immediate preparation for ordination. A preparatory seminary (petit séminaire) gives only a collegiate course as a preparation for entrance into the theological seminary. The word seminary when used alone designates either a theological seminary or a seminary including both the collegiate and the theological courses.

In this connexion it should be noted that the name "college" is sometimes given to institutions which offer no collegiate courses in the usual sense of the term, but receive only ecclesiastics who intend to study philosophy and theology. Such are All Hallows College, Drumcondra, Ireland, the Irish colleges on the Continent, and the various national colleges in Rome (see respective articles). These are in reality seminaries as regards both instruction and discipline. On the other hand there are seminaries which provide undergraduate courses as preparatory to philosophy and theology, thus combining in one institution the work of the petit séminaire and that of the grand séminaire.

II. PURPOSE OF SEMINARY EDUCATION.-A seminary is a school in which priests are trained. A priest is the representative of Christ among men: his mission is to carry on Christ's work for the salvation of souls; in Christ's name and by His power, he teaches men what they ought to believe and what they ought to do: he forgives sins, and offers in sacrifice the Body and Blood of Christ. He is another Christ (sacerdos alter Christus). His training, therefore, must be in harmony with this high office and consequently different in many ways from the preparation for secular professions. He must possess not only a liberal education, but also professional knowledge, and moreover, like an army or navy officer, he needs to acquire the manners and personal habits becoming his calling. To teach candidates for the priesthood what a priest ought to know and to make them what a priest ought to be is the purpose of seminary education; to chis twofold end everything in the form of studies and discipline must be directed.

III. LIFE IN THE SEMINARY.-When a boy of intelligence and piety shows an inclination to become a priest, he is sent after graduation from the grammar or high school to pursue a classical course, either in a preparatory seminary or in a Catholic mixed college where lay as well as ecclesiastical students receive a classical education. This course, successfully completed, prepares him for admission into the theological seminary. The year opens with a retreat of eight or ten days, during which by meditations, conferences, visits to the Blessed Sacrament, recitation of the office, consultations with his spiritual director, his mind and heart are brought under the influence of the great truths of religion, so as to make him realize and feel the importance of his seminary training. Then begins the ordinary routine of the seminary, interrupted only by a short recess, usually at the end of the first term, and by the retreats which precede the Christmas and Trinity ordinations. The receptions of Holy orders are the greatest and the most joyful events of the year, for they keep before the mind of the student the goal of all his efforts, the priesthood. During the scholastic year, a day of each week is set apart for a holiday: the morning is devoted to recreation, or to some favourite study; in the afternoon there is usually a walk, and at times the students visit hos