his life Philaster's work was written we cannot tell. The notes of time in it are confusing. He, or his transcriber, places his own date (c. 106) over 400 years after Christ, and (c. 112) about 430. In c. 83 he speaks of the Donatists, "qui Parmeniani nunc appellantur a Parmenione quodam qui eorum nuper successit erroribus et falsitati." Parmenianus became Donatist bp. of Carthage c. 368, and died in 391; and the "nuper" would lead us to think that Philaster wrote early in this episcopate. But the form Parmenio, if not a transcriber's error, seems to shew that Philaster knew little of African affairs. Lipsius suggests that Philaster mentions Praxeas and Hermogenes as African heretics (c. 54). because he got their names from Tertullian. Philaster's anonymous heresy (c. 84) seems plainly identified by Augustine (Haer. 70) with Priscillianism, the breaking out of which is dated in Prosper's Chronicle a.d. 379. But Philaster's silence as to the name Priscillian seems to indicate an earlier date.
However, the complete independence of his treatment shews that Philaster did not use the work of Epiphanius. Eager as he was to swell his list of heresies, he does not mention the Archontici, Severiani, Encratitae, Pepuziani, Adamiani, Bardesianistae, and others, with whom Epiphanius would have made him acquainted; and in the discussion of all heresies later than Hippolytus, which are common to Epiphanius and Philaster, the two agree neither in matter nor in order of arrangement. Hence Lipsius inferred that the agreements as to earlier heresies must be explained by the use of a common source. This also accounts for a striking common feature, viz. the enumeration by both of pre-Christian heresies. Hegesippus (see Eus. H. E. iv. 22) had spoken of seven Jewish sects (τῶν ἐπτὰ αἱρέσεων) and had given their names; and it would seem from the opening of the tract of Pseudo-Tertullian that Hippolytus began his treatise by declining to treat of Jewish heresies. His two successors then might easily have been tempted to improve on their original by including pre-Christian heresies.
Concerning the N.T. canon, Philaster states (c. 88) that it had been ordained by the apostles and their successors that nothing should be read in the Catholic church but the law, the prophets, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 13 Epistles of St. Paul, and the seven other epistles which are joined to the Acts of the Apostles. The omission of the Apocalypse and Hebrews seems intended only to exclude them from public church reading. In c. 60 he treats as heretical the denial that the Apocalypse is St. John's, and in c. 69 the denial that the Ep. to the Hebrews is St. Paul's. He accounts for difficulties as to the reception of the latter as arising from its speaking of our Lord as "made" (c. iii. 2), and from the apparent countenance given to Novatianism in vi. 4; x. 26. Consequently the public reading of this epistle is not universal: "[leguntur] tredecim epistolae ipsius, et ad Hebraeos interdum."
The first printed ed. of Philaster appeared at Basle in 1539; the most noteworthy subsequent edd. are by Fabricius in 1721, containing an improved text and a valuable commentary, and by Galeardus in 1738, giving from a Corbey MS. now in St. Petersburg chapters on six heresies, omitted in previous eds., but which are required to make the total of 156 mentioned by St. Augustine. This complete text has been reprinted by Oehler in his Corpus Haeresiologum, vol. i. The latest ed. is by F. Marx, in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. (Vienna, 1898). See also Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons (1890), ii. 1, p. 233.
[G.S.]
Philippus (1), of Tralles, asiarch at the time of the martyrdom of POLYCARP. The historic reality of this Philip has been confirmed by an inscription found at Olympia, and Lightfoot (Ignatius, i. 613) printed two new inscriptions relating to him, and also by means of his full name, Caius Julius Philippus, there given, has assigned to him three other previously known inscriptions. Philip is thus proved to have been a well-known man of great wealth and munificence. Lightfoot (u.s.) shews that the date of his tenure of office indicated by these inscriptions is quite reconcilable with the date, otherwise determined, of Polycarp's martyrdom, without need of recourse to the perfectly admissible supposition, that Philip held the office of asiarch more than once. Concerning the office, see Lightfoot, ii. 990, where it is shewn that the holder was "high-priest of the province of Asia" and his tenure of office to be probably four years.
[G.S.]
Philippus (5), "the Arabian," emperor, a native of Bostra in Trachonitis and a man of low birth. Having been made pretorian prefect he supplanted the younger Gordian in the affections of the soldiers, and caused him to be deposed and put to death in Mar. 244. After making peace with Sapor the Persian king, he proceeded to Rome. In 248 the games to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of Rome were celebrated with great splendour. In the summer of 249 Philip was defeated by Decius near Verona and slain. The authorities for his reign are most meagre and conflicting. The only thing that makes it important is the report that he was the first Christian emperor. The chief foundation for this is the narrative which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 34) gives without vouching for its truth, namely, that Philip being a Christian wished at Easter to join in the prayers with the congregation, but that on account of the many crimes be had committed the bishop of the place refused to admit him until he had confessed and taken his place among the penitents, and that he willingly obeyed. The name of the bishop is supplied by Leontius, bp. of Antioch c. 348 (quoted in Chron. Pasch. 270, in Migne, Patr. Gk. xcii. 668), who says it was St. Babylas of Antioch. We are also told that Origen wrote to Philip and the empress (Eus. H. E. vi. 36), but the letters are not preserved, nor do we know their contents. St. Jerome also (Chronicon and de Vir. Ill. 54) calls Philip the first of all Christian emperors, in which he is followed by Orosius; and Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii. 10) speaks of emperors before Valerian who were reputed to be Christians, but does not mention names. Against this doubtful testimony must be set the following: (1) Constantine is called by
