been buried "in cimiterio suo juxta cimiterium via Appia"—i.e. apparently not in "the cemetery" itself, over which Callistus had been set (supra), but in one of his own adjoining it. Lipsius supposes that the cemetery here meant was one which Zephyrinus had acquired, and that, Callistus having greatly added to it, the larger extension was afterwards called "the cemetery."
Zephyrinus is said in Catal. Felic. to have ordered that no cleric of any order should be ordained except in the presence of the clergy and faithful laity, and to have made a constitution, the purport of which, as it stands now in the texts of Cat. Fel., it is not easy to understand, but which is given in the Lib. Pontif. (Vit. S. Zephyr.) as meaning that "the ministers should carry patens of glass in the church before the priests when the bishop celebrated masses, and that the priests should stand in attendance while masses were thus celebrated." There is other conclusive evidence that anciently, and to a date considerably later than that of Zephyrinus, glass patens as well as chalices were in use (see Labbe, p. 619—nota Binii (c.) in Vit. Zephyr.).
Together with most of the early popes, St. Zephyrinus is commemorated as a martyr; "Aug. 26. Romae S. Zephyrinus Papae et martyris" (Martyr. Rom.). There is no ground for supposing him to have been one. Two spurious epistles have been assigned to him (see Labbe).
[J.B—Y.]
Zoaras (2), a turbulent Monophysite Syrian monk, a zealous adherent of Severus, associated with him and Peter of Apamea in the petitions of the orthodox clergy of Syria to the council of Constantinople under Mennas, a.d. 536, as leaders of the Monophysite heresy, and condemned with them by the synod. He became a Stylite. On being driven after several years from his pillar by the orthodox party (the "Synodites"), he started for Constantinople with ten of his monks to complain to Justinian, who hastily summoned a synod to give him audience. Zoaras uncompromisingly denounced "the accursed council of Chalcedon." This greatly irritated Justinian, who rebuked him for his presumption. Zoaras in no measured terms denounced the emperor for his support of heresy. A monastery in the suburb of Sykas was assigned as a residence to him and his followers by the emperor, where he lived quietly, exercising great liberality. The embassage of Agapetus, patriarch of Rome, with whom Zoaras held a very stormy encounter which resulted in the deposition of the patriarch Anthimus as a concealed Monophysite and the appointment of Mennas, a.d. 536, caused an outbreak of orthodox fury against Zoaras and his followers. In the various "libelli" presented to the synod under Mennas he and his heresy are denounced in no measured terms. He is described as a leader of the Acephali (Labbe, v. 108). He had been already condemned and excommunicated by Anthimus's predecessor Epiphanius (ib. 251). Mennas and his synod repeated the condemnation, and Justinian banished Zoaras from Constantinople and its vicinity, and from all the chief cities of the empire, charging him to live in solitude. According to the biography in Land, however, Justinian assigned him a monastery in Thrace, named Dokos, 30 miles away. Here Theodorus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, was living and propagating his doctrines. The length of Zoaras's residence here is uncertain. After a time he left Thrace, and after some years died, leaving as his successor his disciple the presbyter Ananias. Assem. Bibl. Or. ii. 58, 235; Land, Anecdot. Syr. ii. 12–22; Bar-heb. Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos, i. pp 206-208; Labbe, v. 108, 254, 267.
[E.V.]
Zosimus (4), bp. of Rome after Innocent I., from Mar. 18, 417, to Dec. 25, 418, under Honorius as the Western and Theodosius II. as the Eastern emperor. Coelestius, having been expelled from Constantinople by the patriarch Atticus, went to Rome, a.d. 417, hoping for the support of Zosimus, who had newly succeeded to the Roman see. Atticus had written letters about Coelestius to Asia, Carthage, and Thessalonica, but not to Rome; the churches of Rome and Constantinople not being then in full communion, owing to the name of John Chrysostom not having been restored to the diptychs of the latter church. On the other hand, Zosimus had before him, when Coelestius appealed to him, letters addressed by Pelagius to pope Innocent, but not received by him before his death. These letters had by no means satisfied St. Augustine (de Pecc. Orig. c. 17, 21; De Grat. x. 30, 31); but being expressed so as to evade the main points at issue, they may have seemed a sufficient exculpation to the pope, less sharpsighted than Augustine in detecting heresy, and apparently less ready to find fault with it in this case. Thus Zosimus was disposed to receive Coelestius with favour, while the independent action of the African bishops in the time of Innocent may have further inclined him to give the condemned persons a chance of clearing themselves. Coelestius appeared before him in the church of St. Clement, presented his defence, and was questioned as to whether he spoke sincerely and assented to what pope Innocent had written to the African bishops against the heresies imputed to him and Pelagius. This, Augustine tells us, he did, but refused to condemn the alleged errors imputed to him in the libellus of Paulinus (his original accuser at Carthage, a.d. 412), which had been sent to Rome. He further, according to Augustine, desired the pope's correction of any error of which he might through ignorance have been guilty (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 607). Zosimus thereupon took up his cause, as that of one unfairly and improperly condemned. He wrote to this effect to Aurelius and the African bishops, desiring them either to send persons to Rome to convict the accused of heresy or to hold him innocent, and inveighing against the two Gallican bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who had been the accusers of Coelestius. Zosimus wrote a second time to Aurelius and the Africans, having meanwhile received a letter in favour of Pelagius from Praylius, bp. of Jerusalem, and others from Pelagius himself. These last had entirely satisfied him of the writer's orthodoxy; they had been publicly read at Rome, and received (says Zosimus) with universal joy; and Zosimus wrote again
