his native village, of which he became abbot. In 367 he was elected bisliop of Constaiitia (Salaniis), the metropolis of Cj'prus. Here he remained thirty-six years, busy with the duties of his episcojmte, and es- pecially busy with his pen. He devoted himself to the vindication of orthodoxy with unquestioned learn- ing, but with intemperate zeal and violence. He cher- ished a special hatred for Orisjien and his doctrines, and •wrote, preached, and travelled iu order to destroy their influence in the Church. This liatred led him into a quarrel with John, bishop of Jerusalem. " A report that Orit;en's opinions were spreading in Palestine, and sanctioned even by John, liishop of Jerusalem, ex- cited Epiphanius to such a pitch that he left Cj'prus (A.U. 394) to investigate the matter on the spot. At Jerusalem he preached so violent a sermon against any abettors of Origcn's errors, and made such evident al- lusions to the bishop, that John sent his archdeacon to beg him to stop. Afterwards, when John preached against anthropomorphism (of a tendency to which Ep- iphanius had been suspected), he was followed up to the pulpit b)' his undaunted antagonist, who announced that he agreed in John's censure of anthroponiorphites, but that it was equally necessary to condemn Origen- ists. Having excited sufficient connnotion at Jerusa- lem, Epiphanius repaired to Bethlehem, where he was all-powerful with the monks; and there he was so suc- cessful in his denunciation of heresy, that he persuaded some to renounce their connection with the bishop of Jerusalem" (Smith, i)«c^ ofiJio^. s. v.). He also in- terfered with the diocesan jurisdiction of John, by or- daining one Paulinianius in Palestine. The quarrel became very bitter, and was for many j'ears a source of great trouble and injur}- to the Church. Epiphanius formed an alliance with the violent and nnscrupulous Theophilus of Alexandria (q. v.), who had been an Origenist, but, for his own purposes, changed his pro- fessed opinions on the subject, and ordered the Nitrian monks to give up all Origen's writings. They refused, and he called a council at Alexandria, A.D. 399, w hich condemned Origen, his writings, and his followers. Soldiers were sent to drive the monks from Nitria. Some of them went to Constantinople, where Chrysos- tom ( q. v.) gave them his protection. Theophilus per- suaded Epiphanius (now over 80 j'ears old) to call a council of Cyprian bishops (A.D. 401). Here Origen was again condemned. Epiplianius wrote to Chrj-sos- tom to join in this condemnation. As Chrj'sostom did not reply, Epiphanius took it for granted that he favor- ed Origenisni, and determined to go in person to Con- stantinople to "crush Amalek," to use liis own words (in a letter to Jerome). Sozomen (Eccl. Hist, viii, 14) gives a prett}' full account of this visit, saying that, on tlie arrival of Epiphanius, Chrysostom went out with all his clerLry to meet tlie visitor and do him hon- or; "but Epiphanius declared that he would neither reside with John, nor pray with him, unless he would denounce the works of Origen, and expel Dioscorus and his companions from the city. Not considering it just to act in the manner proposed until judgment had been passed on the case, John tried to postpone tlie adoption of further measures to some future time. In the mean time his enemies met together, and arranged that on the day when the people would be assembled in the Church of the Apostles, Epiphanius should publicly pronounce condemnation on the works of Origen, and on Dioscorus and his companions as the partisans of this writer ; and also denounce the bishop of the city as the abettor of Dioscorus. By this means it was hoped that the affections of the people wmdd be alien- ated from their bishop. The following day, when Ep- iphanius was about entering the Cliurcli, in order to carry his design into execution, he was stopped by Se- rapion, at the command of John, who had reocived in- timation of the plot. Serapion proved to Epiphanius that wiiile the i)roject he had devised was unjust in it- self, it could be of no personal advantage to him, for
that, if it should excite a popular insurrection, he would be regarded as responsible for the outrages that might follow. By these arguments Epiphanius was induced to relinquish his designs." About this time the em- press Eudoxia sent for Epiphanius to pray for her son Theodosius, who was ill; Epiphanius replied that her son would recover provided she would not patronize the defenders of Origen. To this message the em- press answered that I'>piphanius had failed to save that of his own archdeacon, who had recently died. Final- ly, some of the Origenists had a conversation with Ep- ijilianius, in which they seem to have convinced him that ho had acted rashly. Soon after (Sozomen, I. c), he embarked for Cj'prus, either because he recognised the futilitv of his journej' to Constantinople, or lie- cause, as there is reason to believe, God had revealed to him his approaching death, for he died while on his voyage back to Cj'prus. It is reported that he said to the bishops who had accompanied him to the place of embarkation, '• I leave you the city, the palace, and the stage, for I shall shortl}' depart." He died at sea, on his return to Cyprus, A.D. 403. He is commemo- rated as a saint in the Church of Eome on Maj- 12.