Listed 26 sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for wider area of: "EASTERN ASIA MINOR Region TURKEY" .
KAPADOKIA (Ancient country) TURKEY
Georgius. Of Cappadocia, a man of bad character, a heretic and a persecutor, and
an intruder into the see of the orthodox Athanasius, then in banishment, and yet,
strange to tell, a saint in the Roman Calendar, and the patron saint of England.
It is possible, indeed, that his moral delinquency has been aggravated by the
party spirit of the ecclesiastical historians, and other writers to whom his Arianism
made him odious; but it is hard to believe that their invectives are without considerable
foundation. He was born, according to Ammianus, at Epiphaneia, in Cilicia, but
our other authorities speak of him as a Cappadocian. His father was a fuller.
Gregory Nazianzen, whose passionate invective is our chief authority for his early
history, says that he was of a bad family poneros to genos); but it does not appear
whether it was discreditable for anything more than its humble occupation. George
appears to have been a parasite, a hanger-on of the wealthy, "one that would
sell himself," according to Gregory, "for a cake." He obtained
an appointment connected with the supply of bacon to the army; but being detected
in some unfaithfulness, was stripped of his charge and his emoluments, and was
glad to escape without bodily punishment. According to Gregory, he afterwards
wandered from one city or province to another, till he was fixed at Alexandria,
"where he ceased to wander, and began to do mischief" It is probable,
however, that he held office as a receiver of some branch of the revenue at Constantinople,
having by bribery obtained the favour of the eunuchs who had influence at the
court of Constantius II., the then reigning emperor. Athanasius, who notices this
appointment, calls him tameiophagos, "a peculator ;" but it is not clear
whether he refers to his former official delinquency or to some new offence.
Thus far it does not appear that George had even professed to be a
Christian: we have certainly no intimation that he sustained any ecclesiastical
character before his appointment to the see of Alexandria. Athanasius says it
was reported at the time of his appointment that he had not been a Christian at
all, but rather an idolator; and there is reason to believe that Athanasius is
right in charging him with professing Christianity for interest sake. Arianism
waspatronised by Constantius, and George consequently becamea zealous Arian; and
was. after his appointment to Alexandria, concerned in assembling the Arian councils
of Seleuceia (A. D. 359) and Constantinople (A. D. 360). According to Socrates
and Sozomen, Gregory, whom the Arian party had appointed to the see of Alexandria,
vacant by the expulion of Athanasius,had becomeunpopular, through the tumults
and disasters to which his appointment had led; and was at the same time regarded
as not zealous enough in the support of Arianism. He was therefore removed, and
George was appointed by the council of Antioch (A. D. 354, or, according to Mansi,
A. D. 356;) in his place. It is probable that George was appointed from his subserviency
to the court, and his readiness to promote to any fiscal exactions, and his general
unscrupulousness; and he was induced to accept the appointment by the hope of
gain, or, as Athanasis ext presses it, "he was hired" to become bishop.
Count Heraclian was sent by Constantius to gain the support of the heathen people
of Alexandria to apud George's election; and he succeeded in his object, by giving
them hopes of obtaining toleration for their own worship; and the emperor, in
a letter preserved by Athanasius, recommended the new prelate to the support and
favour of the Alexandrians generally. But a persecution of the Trinitarian party
had commenced even before the arrival of George, which took place during Lent,
A. D. 355. They were dispossessed of the churches and Sebastian, commander of
the troops in Egypt. publicly exposed some women, who had devoted themselves to
a life of religious celibacy, naked before the flame of a large fire, to make
them renounce orthodoxy. On George's arrival, the persecution continued as fiercely
as before, or even more so. Widows and orphans were plundered of their houses
and of their bread; several men were so cruelly beaten with fresh-gathered palm
branches, with the thorns yet adhering to them, that some were long before they
recovered, and some never recovered at all; and many virgins, and thirty bishops,
were banished to the greater Oasis, or elsewhere: several of the bishops died
in the place of exile, or on the way. Athanasius, however, escaped, and remained
in concealment till George's death. George and his partisans refused at first
to give up to their friends for burial the bodies of those who died, "sitting,"
says Theodoret," like daemons about the tombs." His perse cutions led
to a revolt. The Trinitarian party rose against him, and would have killed him.
He escaped, however, and fled to the emperor; and the Trinitarians re-occupied
the churches. A notary was sent, apparently from Constantinople; the orthodox
were again expelled; the guilty were punished, and George returned, rendered more
tyrannical by this vain attempt to resist him.
While his bitter persecution of the orthodox was embittering the anger
of that numerous party, his rapacity and subserviency to the court offended all.
He suggested to Constantius to require a rent for all the buildings which had
been erected at the public cost, and ministered to the emperor's cruelty, as well
as his rapacity, by accusing many Alexandrians of disobedience to his orders.
Mindful of his own interest, he sought to obtain a monopoly of nitre and of the
marshes where the papyrus and other reeds grew, of the salterns, and of biers
for the dead and the management of funerals in Alexandria. His luxury and arrogance
tended further to increase the hatred entertained towards him. A passage in Athanasius
(De Synod. c. 12) gives some reason to think that sentence of deposition was pronounced
against him at the Council of Seleuceia (A. D. 359); but if so, it was not carried
into effect.
The immediate cause of his downfal was his persecution of the heathens.
He had excited their fears by exclaimiinlg at the view of a splendid temple, "How
long shall this sepulchre stand?" But the crowning provocation was this:
there was a spot in the city occupied by the ruins of a forsaken temple of Mithras,
or the Sun, and still regarded by the heathens as sacred, though filled with the
refuse and off-scouring of the streets. This spot Constantius had given to the
church at Alexandria; and George determined to clear it out, and build a church
upon it. The workmen, in clearing it out, found in the adytum, or sacred recess
of the old temple, statues, sacred utensils, and the skulls of human victims,
either slain in sacrifice, or that the soothsayers might examine their entrails,
and foretell future events thereby. Some zealots brought these things out, and
exposed them to the mockery and jeers of the Christians. This irritated the heathens;
and as the news had just arrived of the death of Constantius (Nov. A. D. 361),
and the accession of Julian as sole emperor, and also of the execution of Artemius,
ex-governor of Egypt, they thought their time of ascendancy was come, and rose
in insurrection. George, whose persecutions seem to have been directed against
all who differed from him, was at the time presiding in a synod, where those who
held the sentiments of Aetius were compelled to subscribe a condemnation of their
own opinions. The rioters rushed into the church where the synod was assembled,
dragged him out, and would have killed him on the spot. He was, however, rescued
by the authorities, and apparently to satisfy his enemies, committed to prison.
But not many days after, at day-break, the mob forced the prison, dragged him
out, bound him (it is doubtful whether living or dead) on a camel, and, after
parading him through the city, tore him to pieces, and burnt his mangled remains.
His murder appears to have taken place about the end of the year 361. Though described
by Athanasius as a man of coarse manners and ignorant, at least in theology, he
left a valuable library, which the emperor Julian ordered to be sent to Antioch
for his own use. He had formerly, while in Cappadocia, borrowed some books of
George. The general hatred entertained towards him was evidenced by the absence
of any attempt to rescue him. The Arians subsequently charged the Athanasian party
with instigating his murderers; but Sozomen "rather thought" it was
the spontaneous act of the Gentiles. (Amm. Marc. xxii. 1; Gregor. Naz. Oratio
XXI.; Epiphan. Adv. Haeres. ii. Haeres. 48, or 68, iii. Haeres. 56 or 76; Athanas.
Historia Arianorum ad Monachos, c. 51, 75, De Synodis, c. 12, 37, Epistola ad
Episcopos Aegypti et Lybiae, c. 7, Apolog. de Fuga sua. c. 6, 7, Ad Imp. Constantium
Apolog. c. 30, Petitio ad Imper. Jovian, apud Athanas. Opera, vol. i. 782, ed.
Benedictin.; Socrat. H. E. ii. 14. 28, iii. 2, 3, 4; Sozom. H. E. iii. 7, iv.
10, v. 7; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 14; Philostorg. H. E. (apud. Phot.) vii. 2; Vita
Athanasii, apud Phot. Bibl. Cod. 258.)
It is difficult either to trace or to account for the introduction
of the odious George among the saints of the Romish and Greek churches; and it
is to be observed that the identification of the bishop of Alexandria with the
St. George of the calendar is stoutly objected to by some Roman Catlolic and some
Anglican writers -- for instance, Papebroche and Heylyn. In A. D. 494 (or perhaps
496) his rank as a canonised saint was recognized by Pope Gelasius I. at a coancil
at Rome, but his "gesta" were rejected as Apocryphal, and written by
heretics; a probable intimation that the facts of his history had not yet been
sufficiently perverted to be received. As time proceeded, various fabulous and
absurd "Acta" were produced, which Papebroche admits to be unworthy
of credit. The Greek "Acta" are considered by him as more trustworthy;
but he does not place even them in the first class; though a Latin version of
them is given in the Acta Sanctorum, with a long Commentarius Praevius, by Papebroche.
The distortions of the history are singular. St. George still appears as a Cappadocian
and a layman, but he is made a soldier of Diocletian, under whom he is described
as suffering martyrdom. The length, variety, and intermission of his sufferings
are a probable distortion of the various inflictions of the enraged multitude
before and after his imprisonment. The magician Athanasius, successively an opponent
of Christianity, a convert, and a martyr, is his chief antagonist; and the city
of Alexandria appears as the empress Alexandra, the wife of Diocletian, and herself
a convert and a martyr. The story of the dragon appears only in later legends;
the monster, who is, we suspect, nothing else than a still more distorted representation
of the fugitive Athanasius, is described as lurking about a lake as large as a
sea (Mareotis ?), near the city of Silena (Alexandria ?), in Lybia. St. George
was known among the Greeks as tropaiophoros, or the Victorious; and he was one
of the saints who were said to assist the first Crusaders. He was reverenced in
England in the Anglo-Saxon period; during the Norman and earlier part of the Plantagenet
dynasty his reputation increased; and under Edward III., or perhaps earlier, he
came to be regarded as the patron saint of the nation. (Acta Sanctorum, 23d April;
Gibbon, Decline and Full, &c. ch. 21, 23; Heylyn, Hist. of St. George.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
St. Alexander, who died in chains after cruel torments in the persecution
of Decius, was first Bishop of Cappadocia,
and was afterwards associated as coadjutor with the Bishop of Jerusalem,
who was then 116 years old. This association came about as follows: Alexander
had been imprisoned for his faith in the time of Alexander Severus and on being
released came to Jerusalem,
where he was compelled by the aged bishop to remain, and assist him in the government
of that see. This arrangement, however, was entered into with the consent of all
the bishops of Palestine.
It was Alexander who permitted Origen, although only a layman, to
speak in the churches. For this concession he was taken to task, but he defended
himself by examples of other permissions of the same kind given even to Origen
himself elsewhere, although then quite young. Butler says that they had studied
together on the great Christian school of Alexandria. Alexander ordained him a
priest. Especial praise is given to Alexander for the library he built at Jerusalem.
Finally, in spite of his years, he, with several other bishops, was
carried off a prisoner to Caesarea, and as the historians say, “the glory
of his white hairs and great sanctity formed a double crown for him in captivity”.
He suffered many tortures, but survived them all. When the wild beasts were brought
to devour him, some licked his feet, and others their impress on the sand of the
arena. Worn out by his sufferings he died in prison. This was in the year 251.
His feast is kept by the Latins on 18 March, by the Greeks, 22 December.
T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Alexander (Alexandros), at first bishop in Cappadocia, flourished A. D. 212. On
the death of Severus, A. D. 211, he visited Jerusalem, and was made coadjutor
of the aged Narcissus, bishop of that city, whom he afterwards succeeded. He founded
an ecclesiastical library at Jerusalem, of which Eusebius made great use in writing
his History. After suffering under Severus and Caracalla, he was at last thrown
into prison at Caesarea, and, after witnessing a good confession, died A. D. 250.
Eusebius has preserved fragments of a letter written by him to the Antinoites;
of another to the Antiochenes (Hist. Eccl. vi. 11); of a third to Origen (vi.
14); and of another, written in conjunction with Theoctistus of Caesarea, to Demetrius
of Alexandria. (vi. 19.)
Feastday: May 8
d. unknown, feastday: September 6
d. 303, feastday: May 23
d.c. 320, feastday: December 15
d. 529, feastday: January 11
d. 270, feastday: August 31
d. 4th century, feastday: April 19
Meletius of Antioch. Bishop, b. in Melitene, Lesser Armenia; d. at Antioch, 381.
Before occupying the see of Antioch he had been Bishop of Sebaste, capital of
Armenia Prima. Socrates supposes a transfer from Sebaste to Ber?a and thence to
Antioch; his elevation to Sebaste may date from the year 358 or 359. His sojourn
in that city was short and not free from vexations owing to popular attachment
to his predecessor Eustathius. Asia Minor and Syria were troubled at the time
by theological disputes of an Arian, or semi-Arian character. Under Eustathius
(324-330) Antioch had been one of the centres of Nicene orthodoxy. This great
man was set aside, and his first successors, Paulinus and Eulalius held the see
just a short time (330-332). Others followed, most of them unequal to their task,
and the Church of Antioch was rent in twain by schism. The Eustathians remained
an ardent and ungovernable minority in the orthodox camp, but details of this
division escape us until the election of Leonatius (344-358). His sympathy for
the Arian heresy was open, and his disciple ?tius preached pure Arianism which
did not hinder his being ordained deacon. This was too much for the patience of
the orthodox under the leadership of Flavius and Diodorus. ?tius had to be removed.
On the death of Leontius, Eudoxius of Germanicia, one of the most influential
Arians, speedily repaired to Antioch, and by intrigue secured his appointment
to the vacant see. He held it only a short time, was banished to Armenia, and
in 359 the Council of Seleucia appointed a successor named Annanius, who was scarcely
installed when he was exiled. Eudoxius was restored to favour in 360, and made
Bishop of Constantinople, whereby the Antiochene episcopal succession was re-opened.
From all sides tbishops assembled for the election. The Acacians were the dominant
party. Nevertheless the choice seems to have been a compromise. Meletius, who
had resigned his see of Sebaste and who was a personal friend of Acacius, was
elected. The choice was generally satisfactory, for Meletius had made promises
to both parties so that orthodox and Arians thought him to be on their side.
Meletius doubtless believed that truth lay in delicate distinctions,
but his formula was so indefinite that even to-day, it is difficult to seize it
with precision. He was neither a thorough Nicene nor a decided Arian. Meanwhile
he passed alternately for an Anomean, an Homoiousian, an Homoian, or a Neo-Nicene,
seeking always to remain outside any inflexible classification. It is possible
that he was yet uncertain and that he expected from the contemporary theological
ferment some new and ingenious doctrinal combination, satisfactory to himself,
but above all non-committal. Fortune had favoured him thus far; he was absent
from Antioch when elected, and had not been even sounded concerning his doctrinal
leanings. Men were weary of interminable discussion, and the kindly, gentle temper
of Meletius seemed to promise the much- desired peace. He was no Athanasius, nor
did unheroic Antioch wish for a man of that stamp. The qualities of Meletius were
genuine; a simple life, pure morals, sincere piety and affable manners. He had
no transcendent merit, unless the even harmonious balance of his Christian virtues
might appear transcendent. The new bishop held the affection of the large and
turbulent population he governed, and was esteemed by such men as St. John Chrysostom,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, and even his adversary
St. Epiphanius. St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that he was a very pious man, simple
and without guile, full of godliness; peace shone on his countenance, and those
who saw him trusted and respected him. He was what he was called, and his Greek
name revealed it, for there was honey in his disposition as well as his name.
On his arrival at Antioch he was greeted by an immense concourse of Christians
and Jews; every one wondered for which faction he would proclaim himself, and
already the report was spread abroad that he was simply a partisan of the Necene
Creed. Meletius took his own time. He began by reforming certain notorious abuses
and instructing his people, in which latter work he might have aroused enmity
had he not avoided all questions in dispute. Emperor Constans, a militant Arian,
called a conference calculated to force from Meletius his inmost thought. The
emperor invited several bishops then at Antioch to speak upon the chief test in
the Arian controversy. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way" (Prov.,
viii, 22).
In the beginning Meletius was somewhat long and tedious, but exhibited
a great Scriptural knowledge. He cautiously declared that Scripture does not contradict
itself, that all language is adequate when it is a question of explaining the
nature of God's only begotten Son. One does not get beyond an approximation which
permits us to understand to a certain extent, and which brings us gently and progressively
from visible things to hidden ones. Now, to believe in Christ is to believe that
the Son is like unto the Father, His image, Who is in everything, creator of all;
and not an imperfect but an adequate image, even as the effect corresponds to
the cause. The generation of the only begotten Son, anterior to all time, carries
with it the concepts of subsistence, stability, and exclusivism. Meletius then
turned to moral considerations, but he had satisfied his hearers, chiefly by refraining
from technical language and vain discussion. The orthodoxy of the bishop was fully
established, and his profession of faith was a severe blow for the Arian party.
St. Basil wrote the hesitating St. Epiphanius that "Meletius was the first to
speak freely in favour of the truth and to fight the good fight in the reign of
Constans". As Meletius ended his discourse his audience asked him for a summary
of his teaching. He extended three fingers towards the people, then closed two
and said, "Three Persons are conceived in the mind but it as though we addressed
one only". This gesture remained famous and became a rallying sign. The Arians
were not slow to avenge themselves. On vague pretexts the emperor banished Meletius
to his native Armenia. He had occupied his see less than a month.
This exile was the immediate cuase of a long and deplorable schism
between the Catholics of Antioch, henceforth divided into Meletians and Eustathians.
The churches remaining in the hands of the Arians, Paulinus governed the Eustathians,
while Flavius and Diodorus were the chiefs of the Meletian flock. In every family
one child bore the name of Meletius, whose portrait was engraved on rings, reliefs,
cups, and the walls of apartments. Meletius went into exile in the early part
of the year 361. A few months later Emperor Constans died suddenly, and one of
the first measures of his successor Julian was to revoke his predecessor's decrees
of banishment. Meletius quite probably returned at once to Antioch, but his position
was a difficult one in presence of the Eustathians. The Council of Alexandria
(362) tried to re-establish harmony and put an end to the schism, but failed.
Both parties were steadfast in their claims, while the vehemence and injudiciousness
of the orthodox mediator increased the dissension, and ruined all prospects of
peace. Though the election of Meletius was beyond contestation, the hot-headed
Lucifer Cagliari yielded to the solicitations of the opposing faction, and instead
of temporizing and awaiting Meletius's approaching return from exile, assisted
by two confessors he hastily consecrated as Bishop of Antioch the Eustathian leader,
Paulinus. This unwise measure was a great calamity, for it definitively established
the schism. Meletius and his adherents were not responsible, and it is a peculiar
injustice of history that this division should be known as the Meletian schism
when the Eustathians or Paulinians were alone answerable for it. Meletius's return
soon followed, also the arrival of Eusebius of Vercelli, but he could accomplish
nothing under the circumstances. The persecution of Emperor Julian, whose chief
residence was Antioch, brought new vexations. Both factions of the orthodox party
were equally harassed and tormented, and both bore bravely their trials.
An unexpected incident made the Meletians prominent. An anti-Christian
writing of Julian was answered by the aforesaid Meletian Diodorus, whom the emperor
had coarsely reviled. "For many years", said the imperial apologist of Hellenism,
"his chest has been sunken, his limbs withered, his cheeks flabby, his countenance
livid". So intent was Julian upon describing the morbid symptoms of Diodorus that
he seemed to forget Bishop Meletius. The latter doubtless had no desire to draw
attention and persecution upon himself, aware that his flock was more likely to
lose than to gain by it. He and two of his chorepiscopi, we are told, accompanied
to the place of martyrdom two officers, Bonosus and Maximilian. Meletius also
is said to have sent a convert from Antioch to Jerusalem. This, and a mention
of the flight of all Antiochene ecclesiastics, led to the arbitrary supposition
that the second banishment of Meletius came during Julian's reign. Be that as
it may, the sudden end of the persecuting emperor and Jovian's accession must
have greatly shortened the exile of Meletius. Jovian met Meletius at Antioch and
showed him great respect. Just then St. Athanasius came to Antioch by order of
the emperor, and expresed to Meletius his wish of entering into communion with
him. Meletius, ill-advised, delayed answering him, and St. Athanasius went away
leaving with Paulinus, whom he had not yet recognized as bishop, the declaration
that he admitted him to his communion. Such blundering resulted in sad consequences
for the Meletian cause. The moderation constantly shown by Athanasius, who thoroughly
believed in Meletius's orthodoxy, was not found in his successor, Peter of Alexandria,
who did not conceal his belief that Meletius was an heretic. For a long time the
position of Meletius was contested by the very ones who, it seemed, should have
established it more firmly. A council of 26 bishops at Antioch presided over by
Meletius was of more consequence, but a pamphlet ascribed to Paulinus again raised
doubts as to the orthodoxy of Meletius. Moreover, new and unsuspected difficulties
soon arose.
Jovian's death made Arianism again triumphant and a violent persecution
broke out under Emperor Valens. At the same time the quiet but persistent rivalry
between Alexandria and Antioch helped the cause of Meletius. However illustrious
an Egyptian patriarch might be, the Christian episcopate of Syria and Asia Minor
was too national or racial, too self-centered, to seek or accept his leadership.
Athanasius, indeed, remained an authoritative power in the East, but only a bishop
of Antioch could unite all three who were now ready to frankly accept the Nicene
Creed. In this way the role of Meletius became daily more prominent. While in
his own city a minority contested his right to the see and questioned his orthodoxy,
his influence was spreading in the East, and from various parts of the empire
bishops accepted his leadership. Chalcedon, Ancyra, Melitene, Pergama, C?sarea
of Cappadocia, Bostra, parts of Syria and Palestine, looked to him for direction,
and this movement grew rapidly. In 363 Meletius could count on 26 bishops, in
379 more than 150 rallied around him. Theological unity was at least restored
in Syria and Asia Minor. Meletius and his disciples, however, had not been spared
by the Arians. While Paulinus and his party were seemingly neglected by them,
Meletius was again exiled (May, 365) to Armenia. His followers expelled from the
churches, sought meeting places for worship wherever they could. This new exile,
owing to a lull in the persecution, was of short duration, and probably in 367
Meletius took up again the government of his see. It was then that John, the future
Chrysostom, entered the ranks of the clergy. The lull was soon over. In 371 persecution
raged anew in Antioch, where Valens resided almost to the time of his death. At
this time St. Basil occupied the see of C?sarea (370) and was a strong supporter
of Meletius. With rare insight Basil thoroughly understood the situation, which
made impossible the restoration of religious peace in the East. It was clear that
the antagonism between Athanasius and Meletius protracted endlessly the conflict.
Meletius, the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch, was the only acceptable one for
the East; unfortunately he was going into exile for the third time. In these circumstances
Basil began negotiations with Meletius and Athanasius for the pacification of
the East.
Aside from the inherent difficulties of the situation, the slowness
of communication was an added hindrance. Not only did Basil's representative have
to travel from C?sarea to Armenia, and from Armenia to Alexandria, he also had
to go to Rome to obtain the sanction of Pope Damasus and the acquiescence of the
West. Notwithstanding the blunder committed at Antioch in 363, the generous spirit
of Athanasius gave hope of success, his sudden death, however (May, 373), caused
all efforts to be abandoned. Even at Rome and in the West, Basil and Meletius
were to meet with disappointement. While they wrought persistently to restore
peace, a new Antiochene community, declaring itself connected with Rome and Athanasius,
increased the number of dissidents, aggravated the rivalry, and renewed the disputes.
There were now three Antiochene churches that formally adopted the Nicene Creed.
The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had ended unfortunately,
and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation,
once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to
the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any
declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus,
recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate
in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which
in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus,
encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil.
Though disheartened, the latter did not entirely give up hope of bringing the
West, especially the pope, to a fuller understanding of the situation of the Antiochene
Church. But the West did not grasp the complex interests and personal issues,
nor appreciate the violence of the persecution against which the orthodox parties
were struggling. In order to enlighten these well-intentioned men, closer relations
were needed and deputies of more heroic character; but the difficulties were great
and the "statu quo" remained.
After many disheartening failures, there was finally a glimpse of
hope. Two legates sent to Rome, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, returned in the spring
of 377, bringing with them cordial declarations which St. Basil instantly proceeded
to publish everywhere. These declarations pronounced anathemas against Arius and
the heresy of Apollinaris then spreading at Antioch, condemnations all the more
timely, as theological excitement was then at its highest in Antioch, and was
gradually reaching Palestine. St. Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without
having a thorough knowledge of the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and
Paulinus, he made a direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but
which the pope did not answer. Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch, let himself
be ordained presbyter by Paulinus, and became the echo of Paulinist imputations
against Meletius and his following. In 378 Dorotheus and Sanctissimus returned
from Rome, bearers of a formal condemnation of the errors pointed out by the Orientals;
this decree definitively united the two halves of the Christian world. It seemed
as though St. Basil was but waiting for this object of all his efforts, for he
died 1 Jan., 379. The cause he had served so well seemed won, and Emperor Valens's
death five months earlier warranted a hopeful outlook. One of the first measures
of the new emperor, Gratian, was the restoration of peace in the Church and the
recall of the banished bishops. Meletius therefore was reinstated (end of 378),
and his flock probably met for worship in the "Palaia" or old church. It was a
heavy task for the aged bishop to re-establish the shattered fortunes of the orthodox
party. The most urgent step was the ordination of bishops for the sees which had
become vacant during the persecution. In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops
in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession
of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382).
The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the
Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult
move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor
to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution
Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals
were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement.
Meanwhile, a great council of Eastern bishops was convoked at Constantinople to
appoint a bishop for the imperial city and to settle other ecclesiastical affairs.
In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully
fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked
deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality
of president of the assembly. It began by electing Gregory of Nazianzus Bishop
of Constantinople, and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it was Meletius
who enthroned him. The Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith,
but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end
was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and
peaced. The death of one whose firmness and gentleness had kindled great expectations
caused universal sorrow. The obsequies, at which Emperor Theodosius was present,
took place in the church of the Apostles. The funeral panegyrics were touching
and magnificent. His death blasted many hopes and justified grave forebodings.
The body was transferred from Constantinople to Antioch, where, after a second
and solemn funeral service, the body of the aged bishop was laid beside his predecessor
St. Babylas. But his name was to live after him, and long remained for the Eastern
faithful a rallying sign and a synonym of orthodoxy.
H. Lecrercq, ed.
Transcribed by: WGKofron
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Acacius Reader at (A. D. 390), then the Bishop of Melitene (A. D. 431). He wrote A. D. 431, against Nestorius. His zeal led him to use expressions, apparently savouring of the contrary heresy, which, for a time, prejudiced the emperor Theodosius II. against St. Cyril. He was present at the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus A. D. 431, and constantly maintained its authority. There remain of his productions a Homily (in Greek) delivered at the Council, and a letter written after it to St. Cyril, which we have in a Latin translation.
KAPADOKIA (Ancient country) TURKEY
Chrysippus (Chrusippos), a native of Cappadocia, was a celebrated ecclesiastical writer, who lived during the middle of the fifth century of the Christian aera. Chrysippus had two brothers, Cosmas and Gabriel, all of whom received a learned education in Syria, and were afterwards intrusted to the care of the abbot Euthymius at Jerusalem. There Chrysippus took orders, and became Oeconomus in the "Monasterium Laurae", praefect of the church of the Holy Resurrection, and custos of the church of the Holy Cross, an office which he held during ten years. He wrote many works on ecclesiastical matters, and his style is at once elegant and concise; but his productions are lost except a treatise entitled "Homilia de Sancta Deipara", which is contained with a Latin translation in the second volume of "Auctuarius Duceanus", and some fragments of a small work entitled "Encomium Theodori Martyris", which are extant in Eustathius Constantinopolitanus "Liber de Statu Vitae Functorum". (Cave, Hist. Liter.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
