THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
for the refutation of the doctrine of hereditary sin. Death is not evil; it is natural for a creature to die. The doctrine of hereditary sin destroys also the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is pleasing to God as the sexual impulse is his work. Even Christ possessed concupiscence, and if there was no naturale peccatum in him, it is also not in our nature. At the same time Julian does not deny the importance of God's grace. Our bodily and especially our spiritual endowments are works of divine grace. He does not deny the loss of the meritum innocentiae. In baptism we receive forgiveness of sin and incitement to good works. Thus the good will of man is aided by God. The increase of divine benefactions is useful and necessary although virtue and sin remain always a matter of free will. Julian always tried to prove his position from Scripture, but he did not consider this his last and highest authority; for him reason was higher than Scripture and tradition. Scripture can never contradict what reason teaches. No one ever understood how to use the art of dialectics more cleverly than Julian, and he tried to decide all questions by logical conclusions. (N. Bonwetsch.)
Bibliography: The chief sources are: Notices in Augustine (who had known Julian's parents and took an interest in him), vols. ii. and x. of the Benedictine edition of his works and MPL, xxxiii., xliv., xlv.; cf. xlv. 1736 sqq. For further notices: Marius Mercator, MPL, xlviii. ; Vincent of Lerins; Prosper; and Gennadius. Consult A. Bruckner, Julian von Eklanum, sein Leben und seine Lehre, in TU, xv. 3, Leipsic, 1897; C. T. G. Schonemann, Bibliotheca patrum Latinorum, ii., § 18, ib. 1794 (con-
densed account, but valuable); W. Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, ii. 643-644, London, 1890; Harnack, Dogma, v. 171 sqq., 186 sqq., 203, 235, 236, vi. 303; Ceillier, Auteurs sacres, ix. 483- 538, consult Index; Neander, Christian Church, ii. 650- 655 et passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 800, 837- 838, 937; DCB, iii. 469-473; Von Schubert, in TU, xxiv. 4 (1903).
JULIAN OF HALICARNASSUS: Bishop of Halicarnassus. Little is known of Julian's life and personality. As bishop of Halicarnassus in Caria, he took part with the later patriarch of Antioch, Severus, (q.v.) in the intrigue which led to the downfall of the Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople in 511. After his banishment at the beginning of the reign of Justin I. in 518 (see Monophysites), he took up his abode in the cloister of Enaton, before the gates of Alexandria. Here he became involved with Severus, likewise in exile, in a dispute over the question whether Christ's body during his life on earth was incorruptible or corruptible (see below). At Alexandria the dispute led to a division of the Monophysite party which continued till the seventh century. Julian's later destinies are unknown; at all events, he did not return to Halicarnassus. His doctrine circulated as far as Arabia, and also found acceptance in the Armenian Church.
There are extant the following works of Julian: his correspondence with Severus, in the Syriac translation of Bishop Paul of Callinicus; ten anathemas; and a commentary on Job printed among Origen's works, and only lately recognized by Usener as a work of Julian's.
The expressions " incorruptible," " corruptible," or " imperishable," " perishable," do not correctly
reproduce the debated meaning of aphthartos phthartos, as understood by Julian and Severus. The controversy hinges not upon phthora, as indicating total dissolution of the body into so many atoms, but on the phthora existing in the natural infirmities of the body; such as hunger, thirst weariness, sweat, tears, bleeding, etc. So as Julian conceived it, the body of Christ was not subject to this manner of " corruption," which is a characteristic of human nature in consequence of Adam's sin. When Christ hungered and thirsted, he did so because he willed it, not of necessity; and he willed so, because only in that way could he free us from corruption. But Julian did not admit that, in order to redeem us, Christ must have possessed a body subjected to corruption throughout. He could not believe that one and the same being was both " corruptible " and " incorruptible." With singular inconsistency, however, he did not believe himself compelled to deny the doctrine of the like nature of Christ's body to that of ours; on the contrary, he expressly rejected the opposite doctrine, that of Eutyches. The Julian party reproached their opponents for being " corruption worshipers "; whereas these retorted with the reproach of docetism, insomuch that the epithets "s'aphthartodocetics " and " phantasiasts," or illusionists, ever afterward stayed attached to the Julianists. In this matter, the orthodox and the Severians made common cause, although there were some " aphthartodocetics " among the orthodox themselves. For the fact that Emperor Justinian himself was open to this line of argument see Justinian; and for the significance of the controverted question generally, as a phase of Monophysitism, see Monophysites. G. Kruger.
Bibliography: C. W F. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, viii. 550 sqq., 886 sqq., Leipsic, 1778; J. C. L. Gieseler, Commentatio, qua Monophysitwum . variae de Christi persona opiniones . illustrantur, 2 parts, Gottingen, 1835; J. P. N. Land, Anecdota Syriaca, iii. 263-271, Leyden, 1870; H. Usener, in H. Lietzmann, Catenen, pp. 28- 34, Freiburg, 1897; idem, in Rheinisches Museum, lv (1900), 321-340; E. Ter-Minassiantz, in TU, xxvi. 4 (1904), passim; Krumbacher, Geschichte, pp. 52-53; Ceillier, Auteurs sacres, viii. 364, xi. 109, 344; DCB, iii. 475-476.
JULIAN OF TOLEDO. See Pomerius, Juxianus.
JULIUS: The name of three popes.
Julius I: Pope 337-352. According to tradition he was the son of Rusticus, a Roman, and elected after a long interregnum Feb. 6, 337. Little is known of his pontificate, except in regard to his spiritual care for the rapidly growing Roman community— he built no less than five new churches — and to his position in the Arian controversy, which had scarcely affected Rome before his time. He took part in it only when both parties sought a decision from him. The request came first from the Eusebians, who sent three Eastern clerics in 338 to ask his approval of their deposition of Athanasius and putting Pistus in his place. Soon afterward an embassy appeared from Athanasius, who so successfully presented their case that the Eusebians themselves, so Athanasius asserts, proposed the reference of the matter to a new council. Pres-