Listed 49 sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for destination: "ANTIOCHIA Ancient city TURKEY".
Chrysostomus (Chrusostomos) (St. John). An eminent Father of the Church,
born of a noble family at Antioch, A.D. 347. His father's name was Secundus, and
the surname of Chrysostom, or "golden mouth," obtained by the son, was
given to him on account of his eloquence. He was bred to the bar, but quitted
it for an ascetic life: first, with a monk on a mountain near Antioch, and then
in a cave by himself. He remained in this retirement six years, when he returned
to Antioch, and, being ordained, became so celebrated for his talents as a preacher
that, on the death of Nectarius, patriarch of Constantinople, he was chosen to
supply his place. On obtaining this preferment, which he very unwillingly accepted,
he acted with great vigour and austerity in the reform of abuses, and exhibited
all the mistaken notions of the day in regard to celibacy and the monastic life.
He also persecuted the pagans and heretics with great zeal, and sought to extend
his episcopal power with such unremitting ardour that he involved himself in a
quarrel with Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who enjoyed the patronage of the
empress Eudoxia; which quarrel ended in his formal deposition by a synod held
at Chalcedon, A.D. 403. He was, however, so popular in Constantinople that a formidable
insurrection ensued, and the empress herself interfered for his return. Towards
the end of the same year, owing to his zeal relative to a statue of Eudoxia, placed
near the great church, and causing a disturbance of public worship, all his troubles
were renewed. If true, that in one of his sermons the empress was compared by
him to Herodias, who asked the head of John in a charger, the anger of Eudoxia
was not altogether unjustifiable. The consequence of her resentment was the assembling
of another synod, and in A.D. 404 the patriarch was again deposed and sent into
exile. The place of his banishment was Cucusus, a lonely town among the ridges
of Mount Taurus, on the confines of Cappadocia and Cilicia. He sustained himself
with much fortitude; but having, by means of his great influence and many adherents,
procured the intercession of the Western emperor, Honorius, with his brother Arcadius,
he was ordered to be removed still farther from the capital, and died on the journey
at Comana in Pontus, A.D. 407, at the age of sixty. Opinion was much divided in
regard to his merits for some time after his death, but at length his partisans
prevailed, and thirty years from his decease he was removed from his place of
interment as a saint, and his remains were met in procession by the emperor Theodosius
II., on their removal from the place of his original interment to Constantinople.
The Roman Church celebrates St. Chrysostom on the 27th of January; the Greek Church,
on the 13th of November.
Chrysostom was a voluminous writer, but more eloquent than
either learned or acute. Although falling short of Attic purity, his style is
free, copious, and unaffected, and his diction often glowing and elevated. The
numerous treatises or sermons by which he chiefly gained his reputation are very
curious for the information they contain on the customs and manners of the times,
as elicited by his declamation against prevailing vices and follies.
This text is from: Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Cited Nov 2002 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Chrysostomus, Joannes (Chrusostomos, golden-mouthed, so surnamed from the power
of his eloquence), was born at Antioch, most probably A. D. 347, though the dates
344 and 354 have also been given. His father Secundus was a general in the imperial
army, and his mother Anthusa was left a widow soon after his birth. From her he
received his first religious impressions, so that she was to him what Monica was
to Augustin, though, unlike Augustin, Chrysostom from his earliest childhood was
continually advancing in seriousness and earnestness of mind, and underwent no
violent inward struggle before he embraced Christianity. To this circumstance,
Neander attributes the peculiar form of his doctrine, his strong feeling that
the choice of belief or unbelief rests with ourselves, and that God's grace is
given in proportion to our own wish to receive it. Libanius taught him eloquence,
and said, that he should have desired to see him his successor in his school,
if the Christians had not stolen him. Before his ordination, he retired first
to a monastery near Antioch, and afterwards to a solitary cavern, where he committed
the whole of the Bible to memory. In this cavern he so injured his health that
he was obliged to return to Antioch, where he was ordained deacon by the bishop
Meletius, A. D. 381, who had previously baptized him, and afterwards presbyter
by Flavianus, successor to Meletius, A. D. 386. At Antioch his success as a preacher
was so great, that on the death of Nectarius, archbishop of Constantinople, he
was chosen to succeed him by Eutropius, minister to the emperor Arcadius, and
the selection was readily ratified by the clergy and people of the imperial city,
A. D. 397. The minister who appointed him was a eunuch of infamous profligacy,
and Chrysostom was very soon obliged to extend to him the protection of the church.
Tribigild, the Ostrogoth, aided by the treachery of Gainas, the imperial general,
who hated and despised Eutropius, threatened Constantinople itself by his armies,
and demanded as a condition of peace the head of Eutropius, who fled to the sanctuary
of the cathedral. While he was grovelling in terror at the altar, Chrysostom ascended
the pulpit, and by his eloquence saved his life for the time, though it was afterwards
sacrificed to the hatred of his enemies.
The sermons of the archbishop soon gave great offence at Constantinople.
The tone of his theology was always rather of a practical than a doctrinal kind,
and his strong sense of the power of the human will increased his indignation
at the immorality of the capital. He was undoubtedly rash and violent in his proceedings,
and the declamatory character of his preaching was exactly adapted to express
the stern morality of his thoughts. He was also disliked for the simplicity of
his mode of living, and the manner in which he diverted the revenues of his see
from the luxuries in which his predecessors had consumed them, to humane and charitable
objects. Many of the worldly-minded monks and clergy, as well as the ministers
and ladies of the court, became his enemies, and at their head appeared the empress
Eudoxia herself, who held her husband's weak mind in absolute subjection. His
unpopularity was spread still more widely in consequence of a visitation which
he held in Asia Minor, two years after his consecration, in which he accused several
bishops of simony and other gross crimes, and deposed thirteen of them. Meanwhile,
a contest had arisen in Egypt between Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, and
certain monks of Nitria, who followed the opinions of Origen. At their head were
four of one family, known as the Tall Brothers (adelphoi makpoi), against whom
Theophilus seems to have been prejudiced by a strictly private quarrel. He excommunicated
them, and they fled to Constantinople, where they sought the protection of Chrysostom
and of the empress. A long dispute followed, in the course of which Theophilus,
by artfully working on the simplicity of Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, and other
prelates hostile to the opinions of Origen, prejudiced them against Chrysostom
as implicated in the charge of heresy with which those views had recently been
branded by a synod. Eudoxia, who had summoned Theophilus to Constantinople to
answer the charge of persecuting the Nitrian monks, became his warm friend when
she saw in him her instrument for the destruction of Chrysostom; and he arrived
at the capital of the East not as an accused person, but as the judge of its archbishop.
But the same causes which had brought on Chrysostom the hatred of the higher orders
had made him the idol of the people; and as it was thought unsafe to hold a synod
against him within the city, it was summoned to meet on an estate at Chalcedon,
called the oak, whence it is known by the name of su/nodos pro\s th\n dru/n. The
accusations against him were various; his inhospitality was especially put forward
(hoti ten philoxenian athetei, monositian epitedeuon, hoti monos esthiei, asotos
xon Kuklopon Bion, Phot. Cod. 59), and the charge of Origenism was used to blind
the better part of the assembly. Before this council Chrysostom steadily refused
to appear, until four bishops, notoriously his enemies, were removed from it,
who are called by Isidore of Pelusium (i. 152) sunerloi e uallon sunapostatai
with Theophilus. He was therefore deposed for contumacy, forty-five bishops subscribing
his sentence, to which was added a hint to the emperor, that his sermons against
Eudoxia subjected him to the penalties of treason. At first he refused to desert
the flock which God had entrusted to him; but, on hearing that there was a danger
of an insurrection in his favour, he retired from Constantinople, to which he
was recalled in a few days by a hasty message from the empress, whose superstitious
fears were alarmed by an earthquake, which the enraged people considered as a
proof of the divine anger at his banishment. But in two months after his return
he was again an exile. The festivities attending the dedication of a silver statue
of Eudoxia near the cathedral had disturbed the worshippers, and provoked an angry
sermon from the archbishop, who, on hearing that this had excited anew the enmity
of the empress, began another sermon with this exordium: "Herodias again rages,
once more she dances, she again requires the head of John". This offence Eudoxia
could not forgive. A new synod of Eastern bishops, guided by the advice of Theophilus,
condemned Chrysostom for resuming his functions before his previous sentence had
been legally reversed, and he was hastily conveyed to the desolate town of Cucusus,
on the borders of Isauria, Cilicia, and Armenia.
Chrysostom's character shone even more brightly in adversity than
it had done in power. In spite of the inclement climate to which he was banished,
and continual danger from the neighbourhood of Isaurian robbers, he sent letters
full of encouragement and Christian faith to his friends at Constantinople, and
began to construct a scheme for spreading the gospel among the Persians and Goths.
He met with much sympathy from other churches, especially the Roman, whose bishop,
Innocent, declared himself his warm friend and supporter. All this excited jealousy
at Constantinople, and in the summer of A. D. 407 an order came for his removal
to Pityus, in Pontus, at the very extremity of the East-Roman empire. But the
fatigues of his journey, which was performed on foot under a burning sun, were
too much for him, and he died at Comana in Pontus, in the 60th year of his age.
His last words were those of Job,-- doxa to Theo panton heeken, and formed a worthy
conclusion of a life spent in God's service. His exile nearly caused a schism
at Constantinople, where a party, named after him Johannists, separated from the
church, and refused to acknowledge his successors. They did not return to the
general communion till A. D. 438, when the archbishop Proclus prevailed on the
emperor Theodosius II. to bring back the bones of Chrysostom to Constantinople,
where they were received with the highest honours, the emperor himself publicly
imploring the forgiveness of heaven for the crime of his parents, Arcadius and
Eudoxia. Chrysostom, as we learn from his biographers, was short, with a large
bald head, high forehead, hollow cheeks, and sunken eyes. The Greek church celebrates
his festival Nov. 13, the Latin, Jan. 27.
The works of Chrysostom are most voluminous. They consist of: 1. Homilies
on different parts of Scripture and points of doctrine and practice. 2. Commentaries,
by which, as we learn from Suidas, he had illustrated the whole of the Bible,
though some of them afterwards perished in a fire at Constantinople. 3. Epistles
addressed to a great number of different persons. 4. Treatises on various subjects,
e. g. the Priesthood (six books), Providence (three books), &c. 5. Liturgies.
Of the homilies, those on St. Paul are superior to anything in ancient theology,
and Thomas Aquinas said, that he would not accept the whole city of Paris for
those on St. Matthew, delivered at Antioch, A. D. 390-397. The letters written
in exile have been compared to those of Cicero composed under similar circumstances;
but in freedom from vanity and selfishness, and in calmness and resignation, Chrysostom's
epistles are infinitely superior to Cicero's. Among the collection of letters
is one from the emperor Hlonorius to his brother Arcadius in defence of Chrysostom,
found in the Vatican, and published by Baronius and afterwards by Montfaucon.
The merits of Chrysostom as an expositor of Scripture are very great.
Rejecting the allegorical interpretations which his predecessors had put upon
it, he investigates the meaning of the text grammatically, and adds an ethical
or doctrinal application to a perspicuous explanation of the sense. The first
example of grammatical interpretation had indeed been set by Origen, many of whose
critical remarks are of great merit; but Chrysostom is free from his mystical
fancies, and quite as well acquainted with the language of the New Testament.
The Greek expositors who followed him have done little more than copy his explanations.
The commentary of Theodoret is a faithful compendium of Chrysostom's homilies,
and so also are the works of Theophylact and Oecumenius, so much so that to those
who wish to gain a knowledge of the results of his critical labours, the study
of the two latter may be reconmmended as perfectly correct compilers from their
more prolix predecessor.
Of Chrysostom's powers as a preacher the best evidence is contained
in the history of his life; there is no doubt that his eloquence produced the
deepest impression on his hearers, and while we dissent from those who have ranked
him with Demosthenes and Cicero, we cannot fail to admire the power of his language
in expressing moral indignation, and to sympathise with the ardent love of all
that is good and noble, the fervent piety, and absorbing faith in the Christian
revelation, which pervade his writings. His faults are too great diffuseness and
a love of metaphor and ornament. He often repelled with indignation the applause
with which his sermons were greeted, exclaiming, "The place where you are is no
theatre, nor are you now sitting to gaze upon actors" (Hom. xvii. Matt. vii.).
There are many respects in which he shews the superiority of his understanding
to the general feelings of the age. We may cite as one example the fact, that
although he had been a monk, he was far from exalting monachism above the active
duties of the Christian life (See Hom. vii. in Heb. iv.; Hom. vii. in Ephes. iv.).
"How shall we conquer our enemiies", he asks in one place, "if some do not busy
themselves about goodness at all, while those wvho do withdraw from the battle"?
(Hom. vi. in 1 Cor. iv.). Again, he was quite free from the view of inspiration
which prevailed at Alexandria, and which considered the Bible in such a sense
the word of God, as to overlook altogether the human element in its composition,
and the difference of mind and character in its authors. Variations in trifles
he speaks of as proofs of truth (Hom. i. in Matth.); so that he united the principal
intellectual with the principal moral element necessary for an interpretator of
Scripture, a critical habit of mind with a real depth of Christian feeing. At
the -amie time he was not always free from the tendencies of the time, speaking
often of miracles wrought by the relics of martyrs, consecrated oil, and the sign
of the cross, and of the efficacy of exorcism, nor does he always express himself
on some of the points already noticed with the same distinctness as in the examples
cited above. His works are historically valuable as illustrating the manners of
the 4th and 5th centuries of the Christian aera, the social state of the people,
and the luxurious licence which disgraced the capital.
The most elaborate among the ancient authorities for Chrysostom's
life are the following:
1. Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis, whose work (a dialogue) was published in
a Latin translation at Venice A. D. 1533, and in the original text at Paris in
1680. It is to be found in Montfaucon's edition of Chrysostom's works, vol. xiii.
2. Tile Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates (lib. vi.), Sozomenus (lib. viii.),
Theodoret (v. 27).
3. The works of Suidas (Ioannes), and Isidore of Pelusium (ii. Epist. 42), besides
several others, some published and some in MS.,of which a list will be fund in
Fabricius (Bibl. Graec.).
Among the more modern writers it will suffice to mention Erasmus (vol.
iii. Ep. 1150., ed. Lugd. Bat.), J. Frederic Meyer (Chrysostomus Lutheranus, Jena,
1680), with Hack's reply (S. J. Chrysostomus a Lutheranismo vindicatus, 1683),
Cave (Script. Eccl. list. Litter.), Lardner (Credibility of the Gospel Hist.),
Tillemont (Memoires Eccle/siastiques), and Montfaucon, his principal editor. Gibbon's
account (Decline and Fall, xxxii.) is compiled from Palladius, Socrates, Sozomen,
Theodoret, Tillemont, Erasmus, and Montfaucon. But the best of all will be found
in Neander (Kirchengesch.), who has also published a separate life of Chrysostom.
Chrysostom's works were first published in Latin at Venice in 1503,
Comment. impensa et studio Bernardini Slaynini Tridinenisis et Gregorii de Gregoriis.
Several editions followed at Basle, also in Latin, and in 1523 the Homilies on
Genesis were translated there by Oecolampadius (Hauschein). In 1536 his works
were published at Paris, but the most famous edition which appeared in that city
was cura Frontonis Ducaei, 1613, whose translation is much commended by Montfaucon.
In Greek were first published at Verona, 1529, the Homilies on St. Paul's Epistles,
edited by Gilbert Bishop of Verona, with a preface by Donatus, addressed to Pope
Clement VII. In 1610-13, the most complete collection of Chrysostom's works which
had yet appeared was published at Eton by Norton, the king's printer, under the
superintendence of Henry Savil, in 8 vols.: this edition contained notes by Casaubon
and others. In 1609, at Paris, F. Morell began to publish the Greek text with
the version of Ducaeus, a task which was completed by Charles Morell in 1633.
Of this edition the text is compiled from that of Savil, and that of an edition
of the Commentaries on the New Testament, published at Heidelberg by Commelin,
1591-1603. In 1718-38 appeared, also at Paris, the editio optima by Bernard de
Montfaucon, in 13 vols. folio. He has endeavoured to ascertain the date of the
different works, has prefixed to most of them a short dissertation on the circumstances
under which it was written, with an inquiry into its authenticity, and has added
very much hitherto unpublished, together with the principal ancient lives of Chrysostom.
Montfaucon was a Benedictine monk, and was assisted by others of his order. Of
separate works of Chrysostom the editions and translations are almost innumerable.
Erasmus translated some of the homilies and commentaries; and the edition of two
homilies (those on 1 Cor. and 1 Thess. iv.) "Gr. Lat. interprete Joanne Cheko,
Cantabrigiensi, Londini, ap. Reyner Vnolfuin. 1543" is interesting as the first
book printed with Greek types in England. Some of the homilies are translated
in the Library of the Fathers now publishing at Oxford, and those on St. Matthew
have been recently edited by the Rev. F. Field, Fellow of Trin. Coll. Cambridge.
The number of MSS. of Chrysostom is also immense: the principal of these are in
the royal library at Paris, the imperial library at Vienna (to which collection
two of great value were added by Maria Theresa), and that of St. Mark at Venice.
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
The name of several saints. The old Syrian martyrology gives the feast
of a St. Pelagia of Antioch (in Antiochia Pelagiae) under the date of 8 October.
Further information concerning this martyr, undoubtedly an historical person,
is given in a homily of St. John Chrysostom [P. G., L, 479 sqq.; Ruinart, "Acta
mart. sincera" (ed. Ratisbon), 540 sqq.]. Pelagia was a Christian virgin fifteen
years of age. Soldiers came in search of her, evidently during the Diocletian
persecution, in order to force her to offer publicly a heathen sacrifice. She
was alone in the house, no one being there to aid her. She came out to the soldiers
sent after her and when she learned the order they had to execute, she requested
permission to go again into the house in order to put on other clothing. This
was granted to her. The virgin who probably knew what was before her was not willing
to expose herself to the danger of being dishonoured. She therefore went up to
the roof of the house and threw herself into the sea. Thus she died, as St. Chrysostom
says, as virgin and martyr, and was honoured as such by the Antiochene Church.
St. Ambrose also mentions this Pelagia of Antioch ("De virginibus", III, vii;
Epist. XXVII, "Ad Simplicianum", xxxviii).
There is a later legend of a Pelagia who is said to have led the life
of a prostitute at Antioch and to have been converted by a bishop named Nonnus.
According to the story she went to Jerusalem where disguised as a man and under
the name of Pelagius she led a life of self-mortification in a grotto on the Mount
of Olives. The author of this legend who calls himself the Deacon Jacob has drawn
the essential part of his narrative from the forty-eighth homily of St. Chrysostom
on the Gospel of St. Matthew. In this homily the preacher relates the conversion
of a celebrated actress of Antioch whose name he does not give. As no old authority
makes any mention of a Pelagia in Jerusalem, no doubt the alleged converted woman
is a purely legendary recasting of the historical Pelagia. In the East the feast
of this second Pelagia is observed on the same day (8 October); in the present
Roman martyrology the feast of the martyr is observed on 9 June, that of the penitent
on 8 October.
On the latter date the Greek Church also celebrates as virgin and martyr still another Pelagia of Tarsus. The Roman martyrology places the feast of this Pelagia on 4 May. There is a legend of later date concerning her. As Tarsus was near Antioch St. Pelagia of Tarsus should probably be identified with the Antiochene martyr, whose feast was also observed in Tarsus and who was afterwards turned into a martyr of Tarsus. Usener's opinion that all these different saints are only a Christian reconstitution of Aphrodite has been completely disproved by Delehaye.
In addition to St. Pelagia of Antioch, taken from the Syrian martyrology, the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum" also mentions on 11 July a martyr Pelagia, the companion in martyrdom of a Januarius, naming Nicopolis in Armenia as the place of martyrdom, and giving a brief account of this saint. She is plainly a different person from the martyr of Antioch. Her name was included by Bede in his martyrology and was adopted from this into the present Roman list of saints.
J.P. Kirsch, ed.
Transcribed by: Elizabeth T. Knuth
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
More information at Side in Pamphylia, where was born c. 270
The name Lucas (Luke) is probably an abbreviation from Lucanus, like
Annas from Ananus, Apollos from Apollonius, Artemas from Artemidorus, Demas from
Demetrius, etc. (Schanz, "Evang. des heiligen Lucas", 1, 2; Lightfoot on "Col.",
iv, 14; Plummer, "St. Luke", introd.) The word Lucas seems to have been unknown
before the Christian Era; but Lucanus is common in inscriptions, and is found
at the beginning and end of the Gospel in some Old Latin manuscripts (ibid.).
It is generally held that <b>St. Luke was a native of Antioch</b>.
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. III, iv, 6) has: Loukas de to men genos on ton ap Antiocheias,
ten episteuen iatros, ta pleista suggegonos to Paulo, kai rots laipois de ou parergos
ton apostolon homilnkos--"Lucas vero domo Antiochenus, arte medicus, qui et cum
Paulo diu conjunctissime vixit, et cum reliquis Apostolis studiose versatus est."
Eusebius has a clearer statement in his "Quaestiones Evangelic?", IV, i, 270:
ho de Loukas to men genos apo tes Boomenes Antiocheias en--"Luke was by birth
a native of the renowned Antioch" (Schmiedel, "Encyc. Bib."). Spitta, Schmiedel,
and Harnack think this is a quotation from Julius Africanus (first half of the
third century). In Codex Bez? (D) Luke is introduced by a "we" as early as Acts,
xi, 28; and, though this is not a correct reading, it represents a very ancient
tradition. The writer of Acts took a special interest in Antioch and was well
acquainted with it (Acts, xi, 19-27; xiii, 1; xiv, 18-21, 25, xv, 22, 23, 30,
35; xviii, 22). We are told the locality of only one deacon, "Nicolas, a proselyte
of Antioch", vi, 5; and it has been pointed out by Plummer that, out of eight
writers who describe the Russian campaign of 1812, only two, who were Scottish,
mention that the Russian general, Barclay de Tolly, was of Scottish extraction.
These considerations seem to exclude the conjecture of Renan and Ramsay that St.
Luke was a native of Philippi.
St. Luke was not a Jew. He is separated by St. Paul from those of
the circumcision (Col. iv, 14), and his style proves that he was a Greek. Hence
he cannot be identified with Lucius the prophet of Acts, xiii, 1, nor with Lucius
of Rom., xvi, 21, who was cognatus of St. Paul. From this and the prologue of
the Gospel it follows that Epiphanius errs when he calls him one of the Seventy
Disciples; nor was he the companion of Cleophas in the journey to Emmaus after
the Resurrection (as stated by Theophylact and the Greek Menol.). St. Luke had
a great knowledge of the Septuagint and of things Jewish, which he acquired either
as a Jewish proselyte (St. Jerome) or after he became a Christian, through his
close intercourse with the Apostles and disciples. Besides Greek, he had many
opportunities of acquiring Aramaic in his native Antioch, the capital of Syria.
He was a physician by profession, and St. Paul calls him "the most dear physician"
(Col., iv, 14). This avocation implied a liberal education, and his medical training
is evidenced by his choice of medical language. Plummer suggests that he may have
studied medicine at the famous school of Tarsus, the rival of Alexandria and Athens,
and possibly met St. Paul there. From his intimate knowledge of the eastern Mediterranean,
it has been conjectured that he had lengthened experience as a doctor on board
ship. He travailed a good deal, and sends greetings to the Colossians, which seems
to indicate that he had visited them.
St. Luke first appears in the Acts at Troas (xvi, 8 sqq.), where he
meets St. Paul, and, after the vision, crossed over with him to Europe as an Evangelist,
landing at Neapolis and going on to Philippi, "being assured that God had called
us to preach the Gospel to them" (note especially the transition into first person
plural at verse 10). He was, therefore, already an Evangelist. He was present
at the conversion of Lydia and her companions, and lodged in her house. He, together
with St. Paul and his companions, was recognized by the pythonical spirit: "This
same following Paul and us, cried out, saying: These men are the servants of the
most high God, who preach unto you the way of salvation" (verse 17). He beheld
Paul and Silas arrested, dragged before the Roman magistrates, charged with disturbing
the city, "being Jews", beaten with rods and thrown into prison. Luke and Timothy
escaped, probably because they did not look like Jews (Timothy's father was a
gentile). When Paul departed from Philippi, Luke was left behind, in all probability
to carry on the work of Evangelist. At Thessalonica the Apostle received highly
appreciated pecuniary aid from Philippi (Phil., iv, 15, 16), doubtless through
the good offices of St. Luke. It is not unlikely that the latter remained at Philippi
all the time that St. Paul was preaching at Athens and Corinth, and while he was
travelling to Jerusalem and back to Ephesus, and during the three years that the
Apostle was engaged at Ephesus. When St. Paul revisited Macedonia, he again met
St. Luke at Philippi, and there wrote his Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
St. Jerome thinks it is most likely that St. Luke is "the brother,
whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches" (II Cor. viii, 18), and
that he was one of the bearers of the letter to Corinth. Shortly afterwards, when
St. Paul returned from Greece, St. Luke accompanied him from Philippi to Troas,
and with him made the long coasting voyage described in Acts, xx. He went up to
Jerusalem, was present at the uproar, saw the attack on the Apostle, and heard
him speaking "in the Hebrew tongue" from the steps outside the fortress Antonia
to the silenced crowd. Then he witnessed the infuriated Jews, in their impotent
rage, rending their garments, yelling, and flinging dust into the air. We may
be sure that he was a constant visitor to St. Paul during the two years of the
latter's imprisonment at Caearea. In that period he might well become acquainted
with the circumstances of the death of Herod Agrippa I, who had died there eaten
up by worms" (skolekobrotos), and he was likely to be better informed on the subject
than Josephus. Ample opportunities were given him, 'having diligently attained
to all things from the beginning", concerning the Gospel and early Acts, to write
in order what had been delivered by those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses
and ministers of the word" (Luke, i, 2, 3). It is held by many writers that the
Gospel was written during this time, Ramsay is of opinion that the Epistle to
the Hebrews was then composed, and that St. Luke had a considerable share in it.
When Paul appealed to Caesar, Luke and Aristarchus accompanied him from Caesarea,
and were with him during the stormy voyage from Crete to Malta. Thence they went
on to Rome, where, during the two years that St. Paul was kept in prison, St.
Luke was frequently at his side, though not continuously, as he is not mentioned
in the greetings of the Epistle to the Philippians (Lightfoot, "Phil.", 35). He
was present when the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon were written,
and is mentioned in the salutations given in two of them: "Luke the most dear
physician, saluteth you" (Col., iv, 14); "There salute thee . . . Mark, Aristarchus,
Demas, and Luke my fellow labourers" (Philem., 24). St. Jerome holds that it was
during these two years Acts was written.
We have no information about St. Luke during the interval between
St. Paul's two Roman imprisonments, but he must have met several of the Apostles
and disciples during his various journeys. He stood beside St. Paul in his last
imprisonment; for the Apostle, writing for the last time to Timothy, says: "I
have fought a good fight, I have finished my course. . . . Make haste to come
to me quickly. For Demas hath left me, loving this world. . . . Only Luke is with
me" (II Tim., iv, 7-11). It is worthy of note that, in the three places where
he is mentioned in the Epistles (Col., iv, 14; Philem., 24; II Tim., iv, 11) he
is named with St. Mark (cf. Col., iv, 10), the other Evangelist who was not an
Apostle (Plummer), and it is clear from his Gospel that he was well acquainted
with the Gospel according to St. Mark; and in the Acts he knows all the details
of St. Peter's delivery--what happened at the house of St. Mark's mother, and
the name of the girl who ran to the outer door when St. Peter knocked. He must
have frequently met St. Peter, and may have assisted him to draw up his First
Epistle in Greek, which affords many reminiscences of Luke's style. After St.
Paul's martyrdom practically all that is known about him is contained in the ancient
"Prefatio vel Argumentum Luc?", dating back to Julius Africanus, who was born
about A.D. 165. This states that he was unmarried, that he wrote the Gospel, in
Achaia, and that he died at the age of seventy-four in Bithynia (probably a copyist's
error for Boeotia), filled with the Holy Ghost. Epiphanius has it that he preached
in Dalmatia (where there is a tradition to that effect), Gallia (Galatia?), Italy,
and Macedonia. As an Evangelist, he must have suffered much for the Faith, but
it is controverted whether he actually died a martyr's death. St. Jerome writes
of him (De Vir. III., vii). "Sepultus est Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vigesimo
Constantii anno, ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andre? Apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia?]."
St. Luke its always represented by the calf or ox, the sacrificial animal, because
his Gospel begins with the account of Zachary, the priest, the father of John
the Baptist. He is called a painter by Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth century),
and by the Menology of Basil II, A.D. 980. A picture of the Virgin in S. Maria
Maggiore, Rome, is ascribed to him, and can be traced to A.D. 847 It is probably
a copy of that mentioned by Theodore Lector, in the sixth century. This writer
states that the Empress Eudoxia found a picture of the Mother of God at Jerusalem,
which she sent to Constantinople (see "Acta SS.", 18 Oct.). As Plummer observes.
it is certain that St. Luke was an artist, at least to the extent that his graphic
descriptions of the Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity, Shepherds. Presentation,
the Shepherd and lost sheep, etc., have become the inspiring and favourite themes
of Christian painters.
St. Luke is one of the most extensive writers of the New Testament.
His Gospel is considerably longer than St. Matthew's, his two books are about
as long as St. Paul's fourteen Epistles: and Acts exceeds in length the Seven
Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse. The style of the Gospel is superior to any
N. T. writing except Hebrews. Renan says (Les Evangiles, xiii) that it is the
most literary of the Gospels. St. Luke is a painter in words. "The author of the
Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most versatile of all New Testament writers.
He can be as Hebraistic as the Septuagint, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch.
. . He is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society and Greek when describing Greek
society" (Plummer, introd.). His great command of Greek is shown by the richness
of his vocabulary and the freedom of his constructions.
C. Aherene, ed.
Transcribed by: Ernie Stefanik
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Bishop and Martyr. He was the successor of Zebinus as Bishop of Antioch in the reign of the Emperor Gordianus (238-244), being the twelfth bishop of this Oriental metropolis. During the Decian persecution (260) he made an unwavering confession of faith and was thrown into prison where he died from his sufferings. He was, therefore, venerated as a martyr. St. John Chrysostom and the "Acts of the Martyrs" relate further concerning him, that Babylas once refused an emperor, on account of his wrongdoing, permission to enter the church and had ordered him to take his place among the penitents. Chrysostom does not give the name of the emperor; the Acts mention Numerianus. It is more probably Philip the Arabian (244-249) of whom Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VI, xxxiv) reports that a bishop would not let him enter the gathering of Christians at the Easter vigil. The burial-place of St. Babylas became very celebrated. The Caesar Gallus built a new church in honor of the holy martyr at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, and the bones of the saint were transferred to it. When after this Julian the Apostate consulted the oracle of Apollo at the temple to his god which was near by, he received no answer because of the proximity of the saint. He therefore, had the sarcophagus of the martyr taken back to its original place of burial. In the middle ages the bones of Babylas were carried to Cremona. The Latin Church keeps his feast on January 24th, the Greek Church on September 4th.
J.P. Kirsch, ed.
Transcribed by: Dick Meissner
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 559, distinguished for his learning and austerity of life, excited the enmity of the Emperor Justinian by opposing certain imperial doctrines about the Body of Christ. He was to he deposed from his see and exiled, when Justinian died; but Justin II carried out his uncles purpose five years later, and another bishop, named Gregory, was put in his place; on the death of that prelate in 593, Anastasius was restored to his see. This was chiefly due to Pope Gregory the Great, who interceded with the Emperor Maurice and his son Theodosius, asking that Anastasius be sent to Rome, if not reinstated at Antioch. From some letters sent to him by Gregory, it is thought that he was not sufficiently vigorous in denouncing the claims of the Patriarch of Constantinople to be universal bishop. He died in 598, and another bishop of the same name is said to have succeeded him in 599, to whom the translation Gregory's "Regula Pastoralis" is attributed, and who is recorded as having been put to death in an insurrection of the Jews. Nicephorus (Hist. Eccl., XVIII, xliv) (declares that these two are one and the same person. The same difficulty occurs with regard to certain Sermons de orthodoxa fide, some ascribing them to the latter Anastasius; others claiming that there was but one bishop of that name.
T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: W.S. French, Jr.
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
One of the first great martyrs of the church. He was made Bishop of Ravenna by St. Peter himself. The miracles he wrought there soon attracted official attention, for they and his preaching won many converts to the Faith, while at the same time bringing upon him the fury of the idolaters, who beat him cruelly and drove him from the city. He was found half dead on the seashore, and kept in concealment by the Christians, but was captured again and compelled to walk on burning coals and a second time expelled. But he remained in the vicinity, and continued his work of evangelization. We find him then journeying in the province of Aemilia. A third time he returned to Ravenna. Again he was captured, hacked with knives, had scalding water poured over his wounds, was beaten in the mouth with stones because he persisted in preaching, and then, loaded with chains, was flung into a horrible dungeon to starve to death; but after four days he was put on board ship and sent to Greece. There the same course of preachings, and miracles, and sufferings continued; and when his very presence caused the oracles to be silent, he was, after a cruel beating, sent back to Italy. All this continued for three years, and a fourth time he returned to Ravenna. By this time Vespasian was Emperor, and he, in answer to the complaints of the pagans, issued a decree of banishment against the Christians. Apollinaris was kept concealed for some time, but as he was passing out of the gates of the city, was set upon and savagely beaten, probably at Classis, a suburb, but he lived for seven days, foretelling meantime that the persecutions would increase, but that the Church would ultimately triumph. It is not certain what was his native place, though it was probably Antioch. Nor is it sure that he was one of the seventy-two disciples of Christ, as has been suggested. The precise date of his consecration cannot be ascertained, but he was Bishop of Ravenna for twenty-six years.
d. 5th century, feastday: December 31 (Catholic). Confessor and counselor to the Roman Empress Galla Placidia. A priest of Antioch, Turkey, he went to Rome where the empress sought his council. She built a monastery for him at Ravenna.
d. unknown, feastday: November 27
d. unknown, feastday: October 19
Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt, and a friend of Pope St. Gregory I the Great. Eulogius was a Syrian monk at Antioch named as abbot of Mother of God Monastery. In 579 , he became patriarch of Alexandria and met the future pontiff Gregory the Great. He wrote many treatises against the heresies of his era.
Feastday: November 18. Roman soldier. Suddenly moved to proclaim his faith, he threw off his military belt and announced himself a Christian. He was promptly martyred, drowned in the River Orontes c.303
Theodoret. Bishop of Cyrus and theologian, born at Antioch in Syria about 393;
died about 457.
He says himself that his birth was an answer to the prayers of the
monk Macedonius ("Hist. rel.", IX; Epist. lxxi). On account of a vow made by his
mother he was dedicated from birth to the service of God and was brought up and
educated by the monks Macedonius and Peter. At a very early age he was ordained
lector. In theology he studied chiefly the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus, St.
John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Theodoret was also well trained in
philosophy and literature. He understood Syriac as well as Greek, but was not
acquainted with either Hebrew or Latin. When he was twenty-three years old and
both parents were dead, he divided his fortune among the poor (Epist. cxiii; P.
G., LXXXIII, 1316) and became a monk in the monastery of Nicerte not far from
Apamea, when he lived for seven years, devoting himself to prayer and study.
Much against his will about 423 he was made Bishop of Cyrus. His diocese
included nearly 800 parishes and was suffragan of Hierapolis. A large number of
monasteries and hermitages also belonged to it, yet, notwithstanding all this,
there were many heathen and heretics within its borders. Theodoret brought many
of these into the Church, among others more than a thousand Marcionites. He also
destroyed not less than two hundred copies of the "Diatessaron" of Tatian, which
were in use in that district ("H?ret. fab.", I, xix; P. G., LXXXIII, 372). He
often ran great risks in his apostolic journeys and labours; more than once he
suffered ill-usage from the heathen and was even in danger of losing his life.
His fame as a preacher was widespread and his services as a speaker were much
sought for outside of his diocese; he went to Antioch twenty-six times. Theodoret
also exerted himself for the material welfare of the inhabitants of his diocese.
Without accepting donations (Epist. lxxxi) he was able to build many churches,
bridges, porticos, aqueducts, etc. (Epist. lxxxi, lxxviii, cxxxviii).
Towards the end of 430 Theodoret became involved in the Nestorian
controversy. In conjunction with John of Antioch he begged Nestorius not to reject
the expression Theotokos as heretical (Mansi, IV, 1067). Yet he held firmly with
the other Antiochenes to Nestorius and to the last refused to recognize that Nestorius
taught the doctrine of two persons in Christ. Until the Council of Chalcedon in
451 he was the literary champion of the Antiochene party. In 436 he published
his ?Anatrope (Confutation) of the Anathemas of Cyril to which the latter replied
with an Apology (P. G., LXXVI, 392 sqq.). At the Council of Ephesus (431) Theodoret
sided with John of Antioch and Nestorius, and pronounced with them the deposition
of Cyril and the anathema against him. He was also a member of the delegation
of "Orientals", which was to lay the cause of Nestorius before the emperor but
was not admitted to the imperial presence a second time (Hefele-Leclerq, "Hist.
des Conc.", II, i, 362 sqq.). The same year he attended the synods of Tarsus and
Antioch, at both of which Cyril was again deposed and anathematized. Theodoret
after his return to Cyrus continued to oppose Cyril by speech and writing. The
symbol (Creed) that formed the basis of the reconciliation (c. 433) of John of
Antioch and others with Cyril was apparently drawn up by Theodoret (P. G., LXXXIV,
209 sqq.), who, however, did not enter into the agreement himself because he was
not willing to condemn Nestorius as Cyril demanded. It was not until about 435
that Theodoret seems to have become reconciled with John of Antioch, without,
however, being obliged to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius (Synod. cxlvii
and cli; Epist. clxxvi). The dispute with Cyril broke out again when in 437 the
latter called Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia the real originators
of the Nestorian heresy. Theodore entered the lists in their defence. The bitterness
with which these polemics were carried on is shown both by the letter and the
speech of Theodoret when he learned of the death in 444 of the Patriarch of Alexandria
(Epist. clxxx).
The episcopate of Dioscurus, the successor of Cyril, was a period
of much trouble for Theodoret. Dioscurus, by the mediation of Eutyches and the
influential Chrysaphius, obtained an imperial edict which forbade Theodoret to
leave his diocese (Epist. lxxix-lxxxii). In addition Theodoret was accused of
Nestorianism (Epist. lxxxiii-lxxxvi); in answer to this attack he wrote his most
important polemical work, called "Eranistes". Theodoret was also considered the
prime mover of the condemnation of Eutyches by the Patriarch Flavian. In return
Dioscurus obtained an imperial decree in 449 whereby Theodoret was forbidden to
take any part in the synod of Ephesus (Robber Council of Ephesus). At the third
session of this synod Theodoret was deposed by the efforts of Dioscurus and ordered
by the emperor to re-enter his former monastery near Apamea. Better times, however,
came before long. Theodoret appealed to Pope Leo who declared his deposition invalid,
and, as the Emperor Theodosius II died the following year (450), he was allowed
to re-enter his diocese. In the next year, notwithstanding the violent opposition
of the Alexandrine party, Theodoret was admitted as a regular member to the sessions
of the Council of Chalcedon, but refrained from voting. At the eighth session
(26 Oct., 451), he was admitted to full membership after he had agreed to the
anathema against Nestorius; probably he meant this agreement only in the sense:
in case Nestorius had really taught the heresy imputed to him (Mansi, VII, 190).
It is not certain whether Theodoret spent the last years of his life in the city
of Cyrus, or in the monastery where he had formerly lived. There still exists
a letter written by Pope Leo in the period after the Council of Chalcedon in which
he encourages Theodoret to co- operate without wavering in the victory of Chalcedon
(P. G., LXXXIII, 1319 sqq.). The writings of Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria
were anathematized during the troubles that arose in connexion with the war of
the Three Chapters.
Chrys Baur, ed.
Transcribed by: WGKofron
This extract is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Bishop of Antioch. Eusebius in his "Chronicle" places the name of Theophilus against that of Pope Soter (169-77), and that of Maximinus, Theophilus's successor, against the name of Eleutherus (177-93). This does not mean that Maximinus succeeded Theophilus in 177, but only that Theophilus and Maximinus flourished respectively in the times of Soter and Eleutherus. Lightfoot and Hort showed that Eusebius, having no such precise chronological data for the bishops of Antioch as he had for those of Rome and Alexandria, placed the names of the Antiochene bishops against those of contemporary Roman bishops (Lightfoot, "St. Ignatius", etc., II, 468 sq., and St. Clement", etc., I, 224 sqq.). When therefore we find in the third book of Theophilus, "Ad Autolychum", that the writer was alive after the death (180) of Marcus Aurelius, it does not follow, as even writers like Harnack and Bardenhewer suppose, that Eusebius made a chronological blunder.
The "Ad Autolychum", the only extant writing of Theophilus, is an apology for Christianity. It consists of three books, really separate works written at different times, and corresponds exactly to the description given of it by Eusebius as "three elementary works" (Hist. eccl., IV, xxiv). The author speaks of himself as a convert from heathenism. He treats of such subjects as the Christian idea of God, the Scripture accounts of the origin of man and the world as compared with pagan myths. On several occasions he refers (in connection with the early chapters of Genesis) to an historical work composed by himself. Eusebius (op. cit.) speaks of refutations of Marcion and Hermogenes, and "catechetical books". To these St. Jerome (De vir. illust., xxv) adds commentaries on Proverbs and the Gospels. He speaks of the latter in the prologue to his own commentary on the Gospels, and also in his epistle "Ad Algasiam", where we learn that Theophilus commented upon a Diatessaron or Gospel Harmony composed by himself ("Theophilus . . . quattuor Evangelistarum in unum opus compingens"). A long quotation in the same epistle is all that survives of this commentary, for Zahn's attempt to identify it with a Latin commentary ascribed in some manuscripts to Theophilus has found no supporters.
F.J. Bacchus, ed.
Transcribed by: Herman F. Holbrook
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
A martyr, probably of the third century. Although St. Christopher is one of the most popular saints in the East and in the West, almost nothing certain is known about his life or death. The legend says: A heathen king (in Canaan or Arabia), through the prayers of his wife to the Blessed Virgin, had a son, whom he called Offerus (Offro, Adokimus, or Reprebus) and dedicated to the gods Machmet and Apollo. Acquiring in time extraordinary size and strength, Offerus resolved to serve only the strongest and the bravest. He bound himself successively to a mighty king and to Satan, but he found both lacking in courage, the former dreading even the name of the devil, and the latter frightened by the sight of a cross at the roadside. For a time his search for a new master was in vain, but at last he found a hermit (Babylas?) who told him to offer his allegiance to Christ, instructed him in the Faith, and baptized him. Christopher, as he was now called, would not promise to do any fasting or praying, but willingly accepted the task of carrying people, for God's sake, across a raging stream. One day he was carrying a child who continually grew heavier, so that it seemed to him as if he had the whole world on his shoulders. The child, on inquiry, made himself known as the Creator and Redeemer of the world. To prove his statement the child ordered Christopher to fix his staff in the ground. The next morning it had grown into a palm-tree bearing fruit. The miracle converted many. This excited the rage of the king (prefect) of that region (Dagnus of Samos in Lycia?). Christopher was put into prison and, after many cruel torments, beheaded.
The Greek legend may belong to the sixth century; about the middle of the ninth, we find it spread through France. Originally, St. Christopher was only a martyr, and as such is recorded in the old martyrologies. The simple form of the Greek and Latin passio soon gave way to more elaborate legends. We have the Latin edition in prose and verse of 983 by the subdeacon Walter of Speyer, "Thesaurus anecdotorum novissimus" (Augsburg, 1721-23), II, 27-142, and Harster, "Walter von Speyer" (1878). An edition of the eleventh century is found in the Acta SS., and another in the "Golden Legend" of Jacob de Voragine. The idea conveyed in the name, at first understood in the spiritual sense of bearing Christ in the heart, was in the twelfth or thirteenth century taken in the realistic meaning and became the characteristic of the saint. The fact that he was frequently called a great martyr may have given rise to the story of his enormous size. The stream and the weight of the child may have been intended to denote the trials and struggles of a soul taking upon itself the yoke of Christ in this world.
The existence of a martyr St. Christopher cannot be denied, as was sufficiently shown by the Jesuit Nicholas Serarius, in his treatise on litanies, "Litaneutici" (Cologne, 1609), and by Molanus in his history of sacred pictures, "De picturis et imaginibus sacris" (Louvain, 1570). In a small church dedicated to the martyr St. Christopher, the body of St. Remigius of Reims was buried, 532 (Acta SS., 1 Oct., 161). St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) speaks of a monastery of St. Christopher (Epp., x., 33). The Mozarabic Breviary and Missal, ascribed to St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636), contains a special office in his honour. In 1386 a brotherhood was founded under the patronage of St. Christopher in Tyrol and Vorarlberg, to guide travellers over the Arlberg. In 1517, a St. Christopher temperance society existed in Carinthia, Styria, in Saxony, and at Munich. Great veneration was shown to the saint in Venice, along the shores of the Danube, the Rhine, and other rivers where floods or ice-jams caused frequent damage. The oldest picture of the saint, in the monastery on the Mount Sinai dates from the time of Justinian (527-65). Coins with his image were cast at Wurzburg, in Wurtermberg, and in Bohemia. His statues were placed at the entrances of churches and dwellings, and frequently at bridges; these statues and his pictures often bore the inscription: "Whoever shall behold the image of St. Christopher shall not faint or fall on that day." The saint, who is one of the fourteen holy helpers, has been chosen as patron by Baden, by Brunswick, and by Mecklenburg, and several other cities, as well as by bookbinders, gardeners, mariners, etc. He is invoked against lightning, storms, epilepsy, pestilence, etc. His feast is kept on 25 July; among the Greeks, on 9 March; and his emblems are the tree, the Christ Child, and a staff. St. Christopher's Island (commonly called St. Kitts), lies 46 miles west of Antigua in the Lesser Antilles.
Francis Mershman, ed.
Transcribed by: Chris Angel
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Bishop of Antioch (190-211). Known principally through his theological writings. Of these Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, 19) mentions a private letter addressed to Caricus and Pontius against the Montanist heresy; a treatise addressed to a certain Domninus, who in time of persecution abandoned Christianity for the error of "Jewish will-worship" (Hist. eccl., VI, 12); a work on the Docetic Gospel attributed to St. Peter, in which the Christian community of Rhossus in Syria is warned of the erroneous character of this Gospel. These were the only works of Serapion with which Eusebius was acquainted, but he says it is probable that others were extant in his time. He gives two short extracts from the first and third.
Patrick J. Healy, ed.
Transcribed by: Herman F. Holbrook
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
One of the defenders of the Faith of Chalcedon (451) against the Monophysites, b. at Amida in Mesopotamia; d. in 545. He was Count of the East (Comes Orientis) under Justinian I. In 527 he succeeded Euphrasius as Patriarch of Antioch. Most of his many works are lost. We know the titles of them, however, from Anastasius Sinaita (c. 700), St. John Damascene (d. about 754) or whoever was the author of the "Sacra Parallela", and especially Photius (d. 891). Anastasius (P.G., LXXXXIX, 1185-1188) quotes passages from a work of Ephraim against Severus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (512-519). The "Sacra Parallela" give a short passage from "St. Ephraim, Archbishop of Antioch", taken from a work "On John the Grammarian and the Synod" (Tit. lxi, cf. P.G., LXXXVI, 2, 2104-2109). Photius (P.G., CIII, 957-1024) speaks of four books by Ephraim. The first consisted of sermons and letters, the second, and third contained a treatise against Severus in three parts and an answer to five questions about Genesis addressed to the author by a monk named Anatolius. The fragments quoted by Photius represent practically all that is left of Ephraim's writings. Cardinal Mai was able to add a few more from a manuscript Catena in the Vatican library (P.G., LXXXVI, loc. cit.). Krumbacher (Byz. Litt., loc. cit.) mentions a few other fragments in the Paris library, etc., and considers that Ephraim would deserve the same reputation as Leontius Byzantinus if more of his work had been preserved. He had extensive knowledge of Greek Fathers and follows chiefly St. Cyril of Alexandria in his Christology.
Adrian Fortescue, ed.
Transcribed by: Thomas M. Barrett
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Ephraem. Ephraimius (Ephraimios), or, as Theophanes writes the name, Euphraimius
(Euphraimios), patriarch of Antioch, or, as it was then called, Theopolis. If
the designation given him by Theophanes (ho Amidios) indicates the place of his
birth, he was a native of Amida in Armenia, near the source of the Tigris. His
first employment were civil : and in the reign of the emperor Justin I. he attained
to the high dignity of Count of the East. While in this office he received, according
to a curious story, recorded in the Leimonarios, or Pratum Spirituale, written
by Joannes Moschus, but erroneously ascribed, by ancient as well as modern writers,
to Sophronius patriarch of Jerusalem, an intimation of the ecclesiastical dignity
to which he was destined to attain. In the years 525 and 526, Antioch was nearly
destroyed by successive shocks of an earthquake, and by a fire which had been
occasioned by the overthrow of the buildings. Among the suf ferers was Euphrasius
the patriarch, who was buried in the ruins of the falling edifices; and the people,
grateful for the compassionate care which Ephraimius manifested for them in their
distress, chose him successor to the deceased prelate. His elevation to the patriarchate
is generally placed in the year 526, but perhaps did not take place till the year
following. His conduct as patriarch is highly eulogized by ecclesiastical writers,
who speak especially of his charity to the poor, and of the zeal and firmness
with which he opposed heresy. His zeal against heretics was manifested in a curious
encounter with an heretical stylite, or pillar-saint, in which the heretic is
said to have been converted by the miraculous passing of the patriarch's robes,
unconsumed, through the ordeal of fire. He condemned, in a synod at Autioch, those
who attempted to revive the obnoxious sentiments of Origen; and wrote various
treatises against the Nestorians, Eutychians, Severians, and Acephali, and in
defence of the Council of Chalcedon. But, toward the close of his life, he was
obliged by the Emperor Justinian, under a threat of deposition, to subscribe the
condemnation of three of the decrees of the Council of Chalcedon, which he had
hitherto so earnestly supported. Facundus of Hermia, the strenuous advocate of
the condemned decrees, reproaches Ephraimius on this occasion, and with justice,
as more solicitous for the preservation of his office than for the interests of
what e deemed divine and important truth. Ephraimius died soon after this transaction,
A. D. 546, or perhaps 545, after a patriarchate, according to Theophanes, of eighteen
years, or, according to other calculations, of twenty years.
The works of Ephraimius are known to us only by the account of them
preserved in the Bibliotheca of Photius, who says that three volumes written in
defence of the dogmas of the Church, and especially of the decrees of the Council
of Chalcedon, had come down to his day : but he gives an account only of two.
The first comprehended, 1. An epistle to Zenobius, a scholasticus or advocate
of Emesa, and one of the sect of the Acephali ; 2. Some epistles to the emperor
Justinian ; 3. Epistles to Anthimus, bishop of Trapezus, Dometianus Syncleticus,
metropolitan of Tarsus, Brazes the Persian, and others ; 4. An act of a synod
(sunodike praxis) held by Ephraimius respecting certain unorthodox books; and,
5, Panegyrical and other discourses. The second volume contained a treatise in
four books, in which were defences of Cyril of Alexandria and the synod of Chalcedon
against the Nestorians and Eutychians; and answers to some theological questions
of his correspondent the advocate Anatolius. (Phot. Bibl. Codd. 228, 229; Facundus,
iv. 4; Evagrius, Eccles. Hist. iv. 5, 6 ; Joannes Moschus (commonly cited as Sophronius)
Pratum Spirituale, c. 36, 37 in Biblioth. Patrum, vol. xiii. ed. Paris, 1654;
Theophanes, Chronograph. ad Ann. 519 (Alex. Era=526 Common Era) and table ad Ann.
537, 538; Baronius, Annales ; Cave, Hist. Liter. vol. i. , ed. 1740-3; Fabric.
Bibl. Graec. vol. x.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Christians of Antioch who suffered martyrdom during the persecution of Diocletian at Nicomedia, 26 September, 304, the date in September being afterwards made the day of their feast. Cyprian was a heathen magician of Antioch who had dealing with demons. By their aid he sought to bring St. Justina, a Christian virgin, to ruin; but she foiled the threefold attacks of the devils by the sign of the cross. Brought to despair Cyprian made the sign of the cross himself and in this way was freed from the toils of Satan. He was received into the Church, was made pre-eminent by miraculous gifts, and became in succession deacon, priest, and finally bishop, while Justina became the head of a convent. During the Diocletian persecution both were seized and taken to Damascus where they were shockingly tortured. As their faith never wavered they were brought before Diocletian at Nicomedia, where at his command they were beheaded on the bank of the river Gallus. The same fate befell a Christian, Theoctistus, who had come to Cyprian and had embraced him. After the bodies of the saints had lain unburied for six days they were taken by Christian sailors to Rome where they were interred on the estate of a noble lady named Rufina and later were entombed in Constantine's basilica. This is the outline of the legend or allegory which is found, adorned with diffuse descriptions and dialogues, in the unreliable "Symeon Metaphrastes", and was made the subject of a poem by the Empress Eudocia II. The story, however, must have arisen as early as the fourth century, for it is mentioned both by St. Gregory Nazianzen and Prudentius; both, nevertheless, have confounded our Cyprian with St. Cyprian of Carthage, a mistake often repeated. It is certain that no Bishop of Antioch bore the name of Cyprian. The attempt has been made to find in Cyprian a mystical prototype of the Faust legend: Calderon took the story as the basis of a drama: "El magico prodigioso". The legend is given in Greek and Latin in Acta SS. September, VII. Ancient Syriac and Ethiopic versions of it have been published within the last few years.
Gabriel Meier, ed.
Transcribed by: Michael T. Barrett
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
The first Bishop of Antioch after St. Peter. Eusebius mentions him thus in his
"History": "And Evodius having been established the first [bishop] of the Antiochians,
Ignatius flourished at this time" (III, 22). The time referred to is that of Clement
of Rome and Trajan, of whom Eusebius has just spoken. Harnack has shown (after
discarding an earlier theory of his own) Eusebius possessed a list of the bishops
of Antioch which did not give their dates, and that he was obliged to synchronize
them roughly with the popes. It seems certain that he took the three episcopal
lists of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch from the "Chronography" which Julius Africanus
published in 221. The "Chronicle of Eusebius" is lost; but in Jerome's translation
of it we find in three successive years the three entries:
- that Peter, having founded the Church of Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he
perseveres as bishop for 25 years;
- that Mark, the interpreter of Peter, preaches Christ in Egypt and Alexandria;
and
- that Evodius is ordained first Bishop of Antioch.
This last year is given as Claudius III by the Codex Freherianus,
but by the fifth-century Bodleian Codex (not used in Schoene's edition) and the
rest as Claudius IV (A.D. 44). The Armenian translation has Claudius II. We have
no mention of Evodius earlier than that by Africanus; but the latter is confirmed
by his contemporary, Origen, who calls Ignatius the second bishop after Peter
(Hom. IV, in Luc., III, 938A). It is curious that the ordination of Evodius should
not have been given in the "Chronography" in the same year as the founding of
the Antiochian Church by Peter, and Hort supposed that the three entries must
have belonged to a single year in Eusebius. But the evidence is not in favour
of this simplification. The year of the accession of Ignatius, that is of the
death of Evodius, was unknown to Eusebius, for he merely places it in the "Chronicle"
together with the death of Peter and the accession of Linus at Rome (Nero 14-68),
while in the "History" he mentions it at the beginning of Trajan's reign.
The fame of Ignatius has caused later writers, such as Athanasius
and Chrysostom, to speak of him as though he were the immediate successor of the
Apostles. Jerome (De viris ill., 16) and Socrates (H.E. VI, 8) call him the "third"
bishop after St. Peter, but this is only because they illogically include Peter
among his own successors. Theodoret and Pseudo-Ignatius represent Ignatius as
consecrated by Peter. The difficulty which thus arose about Evodius was solved
in the Apostolic Constitutions by stating that Evodius was ordained by Peter and
Ignatius by Paul. The Byzantine chronographer, John Malalas (X, 252), relates
that as Peter went to Rome, and passed through the great city of Antioch, it happened
that Evodus (sic), the bishop and patriarch, died, and Ignatius succeeded him,
he attributes to Evodius the invention of the name Christian. Salmon does not
seem to be justified in supposing that Malalas ascribes any of this information
to Theophilus, the second century Bishop of Antioch. We may be sure that Evodius
is an historical personage, and really the predecessor of St. Ignatius. But the
dates of his ordination and death are quite uncertain. No early witness makes
him a martyr.
The Greeks commemorate together "Evodus" and Onesiphorus (II Tim.,
i, 16) as of the seventy disciples and as martyrs on 29 April, and also on 7 September.
Evodius was unknown to the earlier Western martyrologies the Hieronymian, and
those of Bede and Florus; but Ado introduced him into the so-called "Martyrologium
Romanum parvum" (which he forged not long before 860) and into his own work, on
6 May. His source was Pseudo-Ignatius, whom he quotes in the "Libellus de fest.
Apost.", prefixed to the martyrology proper. From him the notice came to Usuard
and the rest, and to the present Roman Martyrology.
John Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Native of Melitene , Lesser Armenia (part of ancient Cappadocia)
Anastatius I., made patriarch of Antioch A. D. 559 or 561, took a prominent part in the controversy with the Aphthartodocetae, who thought that the body of Christ before the resurrection was incorruptible. He opposed the edict which Justinian issued in favour of this opinion, and was afterwards banished by the younger Justin. (570.) In 593 he was restored to his bishopric at Antioch, and died in 599.
Anastatius II., succeeded Anastasius I. in the bishopric of Antioch, A. D. 599. He translated into Greek the work of Gregory the Great, "de Cura Pastorali," and was killed by the Jews in a tumult, 609 A. D.
Macedonius of Antioch, a Monothelite, was patriarch of Antioch from A. D. 639 or 640, till 655 or later. He was appointed to the patriarchate by the influence, if not by the nomination, of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, by whom also he was consecrated. The year of his death is not certain. Macarius, who was his successor (though perhaps not immediately), stated in his Expositio Fidei, read at the sixth general council, A. D. 681, that Macedonius was present at a synod held while Peter was patriarch of Constantinople, i e. some time from A. D. 655 to 666, which shows he could not have died before 655. Macedonius appears to have spent the whole of his patriarchate at Constantinople, Antioch being in the power of the Saracens. (Le Quien, Oriens Christian. vol. ii. col. 740, 741; Bolland. Acta Sanctor. Julii, vol. iv. Tractat. Praelim. p. 109.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Macarius of Antioch. Macarius was patriarch of Antioch in the seventh century. He held the doctrine of the Monothelites; and having attended the sixth general or third Constantinopolitan council (A. D. 680, 681), and there boldly avowed his heresy, affirming that Christ's will was " that of a God-man" (Deandriken,); and having further boldly declared that he would rather be torn limb from limb than renounce his opinions, his was deposed [p. 876] and banished. His Ekthesis etoi homologia pisteos, Expositio sive Confessio Fidei; and some passages from his Prosphonetikos pros basilea logs, Hortatorius ad Imperatorem Sermo; his Logos apostaleis Loukai presbuteroi kai monachoi toi en Aphrikei, Liber ad Lucam Presbyterumn et Monachum in Africa missus; and from one or two other of his pieces, are given in the Concilia, vol. vi. col. 743, 902, &c., ed. Labbe; vol. iii. col. 1168, 1300, &c., ed. Hardouin; vol. xi. col. 349, 512, &c., ed. Mansi. (Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 680; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. 368.) This heretical Macarius of Antioch is not to be confounded with a saint of later date, but of the same name, " archbishop of Antioch in Armenia," who died an exile at Ghent in Flanders, in the early part of the eleventh century, and of whom an account is given by the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum, a. d. 10 Aprilis. Of what Antioch this later Macarius was archbishop is not determined. There is no episcopal city of Antioch in Armenia properly so called.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Acacius, a Syrian by birth, lived in a monastery near Antioch, and, for his active defence of the Church against Arianism, was made Bishop of Berrhoea, A. D. 378, by St. Eusebius of Samosata. While a priest, he (with Paul, another priest) wrote to St. Epiphanius a letter, in consequence of which the latter composed his Panarium. (A. D. 374-6). This letter is prefixed to the work. In A. D. 377-8, he was sent to Rome to confute Apollinaris before Pope St. Damasus. He was present at the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople A. D. 381, and on the death of St. Meletius took part in Flavian's ordination to the See of Antioch, by whom he was afterwards sent to the Pope in order to heal the schism between the churches of the West and Antioch. Afterwards, he took part in the persecution against St. Chrysostom (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. vi. 18), and again compromised himself by ordaining as successor to Flavian, Porphyrius, a man unworthy of the episcopate. He defended the heretic Nestorius against St. Cyril, though not himself present at the Council of Ephesus. At a great age, he laboured to reconcile St. Cyril and the Eastern Bishops at a Synod held at Berrhoea, A. D. 432. He died A. D. 437, at the age of 116 years. Three of his letters remain in the original Greek, one to St. Cyril, (extant in the Collection of Councils by Mansi, vol. iv. p. 1056,) and two to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Evagrius, of Antioch, was a native of Antioch, the son of a citizen of that place,
named Pompeianus, and a presbyter apparently of the church of Antioch. lie travelled
into the west of Europe, and was acquainted with Jerome, who describes him as
a man "acris ac ferventis ingenii." During the schism in the patriarchate
of Antioch, he was chosen by one of the parties (A. D. 388 or 389) successor to
their deceased patriarch Paulinus, in opposition to Flavianus, the patriarch of
the other party. According to Theodoret, the manner of his election and ordination
was altogether contrary to ecclesiastical rule. The historians Socrates and Sozomen
state that Evagrius survived his elevation only a short time; but this expression
must not be too strictly interpreted, as it appears from Jerome that he was living
in A. D. 392. He was perhaps the Evagrius who instructed Chrysostom in monastic
discipline, though it is to be observed that Chrysostom was ordained a presbyter
by Flavianus, the rival of Evagrius in the see of Antioch. Evagrius had no successor
in his see, and ultimately Flavianus succeeded in healing the division.
Evagrius wrote treatises on various subjects (diversarum hypotheseon
traclatus). Jerome says the author had read them to him, but had not yet published
them. They are not extant. Evagrius also translated the life of St. Anthony by
Athanasius from Greek into Latin. The very free version printed in the Benedictine
edition of Athanasius (vol. i. pars ii.) and in the Acta Sanctorum (Januar. vol.
ii.), professes to be that of Evagrius, and is addressed to his son Innocentius,
who is perhaps the Innocentius whose death, A. D. 369 or 370, is mentioned by
Jerome. (Epist. 41 ad Rufinum.) Tillemont receives it, and Bollandus (Acta Sanct.
l c.) and the Benedictine editors of Athanasius (l. c.) vindicate its genuineness;
but Cave affirms that "there is more than one reason for doubting its genuineness
;" and Oudin decidedly denies the genuineness both of the Greek text and
the version. In the library of Worcester Cathedral is a MS. described as containing
the life of St. Antony, written by Evagrius and translated by Jerome: there is
probably an error, either in the MS. itself, or in the description of it. (Catal.
MSS. Angliae et Hib. vol. ii.)
Tillemont has collected various particulars of the life of Evagrius
of Antioch. Trithemius confounds him with Evagrius of Pontus. (Socrates, Hist.
Eccles. v. 15; Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. vii. 15 ; Theodoretus, Hist. Eccles. v.
23; Hieronymus (Jerome) de Viris Illust. 25; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. xii.; Cave,
Hist. Lit. vol. i., ed. Ox. 1740-43; Oudin, de Scriptor. et Scriptis Eccles. vol.
i. col. 882; Trithemius, de Scriptor. Eccles. c. 85; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol.
vii., vol. x.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Flavianus, of Antioch. According to Evagrius he was originally a monk of Tilmognon,
in Coele-Syria ; and, as appears from Theophanes, afterwards became a presbyter
and apocrisiarius of the church at Antioch. He was promoted to the see of Antioch
by the emperor Anastasius I. on the death of Palladius, in the year 496, or 497,
or 498, according to calculations or statements of Baronius, Victor Tununensis,
and Pagi respectively : the last date, which is also given by Tillemont, is probably
correct. The church throughout the whole Byzantine empire was divided by the Nestorian
and Eutychian controversies and the dispute as to the authority of the Council
of Chalcedon : and the impression that Flavian rejected the authority of that
council may perhaps have conduced to his elevation, as the emperor countenanced
the Eutychian party in rejecting it. But if Flavian was ever opposed to the council,
he gave up his former views after his elevation to the bishopric.
His period of office was a scene of trouble, through the dissensions
of the church, aggravated by the personal enmity of Xenaias or Philoxenus, bishop
of Hierapolis, in Syria, who raised the cry against him of favouring Nestorianism.
Flavian endeavoured to refute this charge by anathematizing Nestorius and his
doctrine; but Xenaias, not satisfied, required him to anathematize a number of
persons now dead (including Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret
of Cyrus, and others), who were suspected, justly or not, of Nestorianism, declaring
that if he refused to anathematize them, he must remain subject to the imputation
of being a Nestorian himself. Flavian refused for a time to comply; but pressed
by the enmity of Xenaias and his supporters, and anxious to satisfy the emperor,
who supported his opponents. he subscribed the Henoticon or Edict of Union of
the late emperor Zeno; and having assembled the bishops of his province, he drew
up a synodal letter, and sent it to the emperor, owning the authority of the three
councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and silently passing over that
of Chalcedon, and pronouncing the required anathema against the prelates enumerated
by Xenaias. He also sent to the emperor a private assurance of his readiness to
comply with his wishes. (A. D. 508 or 509.) Victor Tununensis states that Flavian
and Xenaias presided over a council at Constantinopie A. D. 499, when the obnoxious
prelates and the Council of Chalcedon itself were anathematized : but his account
seenis hardly trustworthy.
The ememies of Flavian were not, however, satisfied. They required
him distinctly to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, and all who held the
doctrine of the two natures. This he refused to do, and in a confession of faith
which he drew up, supported the authority of the council in the repudiation both
of Nestorius and Eutyches, but not in its definition of the true faith. The cry
of Nestorianism was again raised against him; and new disturbances were excited;
and the Isaurian, and apparently some other Asiatic churches, broke off from communiion
with Flavian. A synod was held A. D. 510 at Sidon, to condemn the Council of Chalcedon
and depose its leading supporters; but Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem managed
to prevent its effecting anything. Flavian still hoped to appease his opponents,
and wrote to the emperor, expressing his readiness to acknowledge the first three
councils, and pass over that of Chalcedon in silence; but his efforts were in
vain; a tumultuous body of monks of the province of Syria Prima assembled at Antioch,
and frightened Flavian into pronouncing an open anathema against the Council of
Chalcedon, and against Theodore of Mopsuestia and the other bishops whom Xenaias
had already obliged him to condemn. The citizens were not equally compliant; they
rose against the monks, and killed many of them : and the confusion was renewed
by the monks of Coele-Syria, who embraced the side of Flavian, and hasted to Antioch
to defend him. These disturbances, or some transactions connected with the Council
of Sidon, gave the emperor a ground or pretext for deposing Flavian (A. D. 511)
and putting Severus in his place. Victor Tununensis places the deposition of Flavian
as early as the consulship of Cethegus, A. D. 504. Flavian was banished to Petra
in Arabia, where he died. His death is assigned by Tillemoint, on the authority
of Joannes Moschus, to A. D. 518. In Vitalian's rebellion (A. D. 513 or 514) his
restoration to his see was one of the demands of that rebel. Flavian is (at least
was) honoured in the Greek Church as a confessor, and was recognised as such by
the Romish Church, after long opposition. (Evagr. Hist. Ecc. iii. 23, 30, 31,
32; Theophan. Chronog., ed. Bonn; Marcellin, Chron. (Paul. et Musc. Cass.); Vict.
Tun. Chiron. (ab Anast. Aug. Cos. ad Cet/heg. Cos.); Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad
Ann. 496 et 512; Pagi, Critice in Baron. ; Tillemont, Mem. vol. xvi.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Gregorius, of Antioch, was originally a monk in one of the convents of Constantinople,
or in a convent called the convent of the Byzantines, which Valesius supposes
to have been somewhere in Syria. Here he became eminent as an ascetic at an early
age, and was chosen abbot of the convent. From Constantinople, he was removed
by the emperor Justin II. to the abbacy of the convent of Mount Sinai. Here he
was endangered by the Scenite (or Bedouin) Arabs, who besieged the monastery;
but he succeeded in bringing them into peaceable relations to its inmates. On
the deposition of Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, about A. D. 570 or 571 (Baronius
erroneously places it in 573), he was appointed his successor; and in that see,
according to Evagrius, he acquired, by his charity to the poor and his fearlessness
of the secular power, the respect both of the Byzantine emperor and the Persian
king. When Chosroes I., or Khosru, invaded the Roman empire (A. D. 572), he sent
the intelligence of his inroad to the emperor.
Anatolius, an intimate friend of Gregory, having been detected in the practice
of magic, in sacrificing to heathen deities, and in other crimes, the populace
of Antioch regarded the patriarch as the sharer of his guilt, and violently assailed
him. The attention of the emperor Tiberius II. was drawn to the matter, and he
ordered Anatolius to be sent to Constantinople, where he was put to the torture:
but the culprit did not accuse Gregory of any participation in his crimes, and
was,after being tortured, put to death, being thrown to the wild beasts of the
amphitheatre, and his body impaled or crucified.
Though delivered from this danger, Gregory soon incurred another.
He quarrelled with Asterius, count of the East; and the nobles and populace of
Antioch took part against him, every one declaring that he had suffered some injury
from him. He was insulted by the mob; and though Asterius was removed, his successor,
Joannes or John, was scarcely less hostile. Being ordered to inquire into the
disputes which had taken place, he invited any who had any charge against the
bishop to prefer it; and Gregory was in consequence accused of incest with his
own sister, a married woman, and with being the author of the disturbances in
the city of Antioch. To the latter charge he expressed his willingness to plead
before the tribunal of count John, but with respect to the charge of incest, he
appealed to the judgment of the emperor, and of an ecclesiastical council. In
pursuance of this appeal he went to Constantinople, taking Evagrius, the ecclesiastical
historian, with him as his advocate. This was about A. D. 589. A council of the
leading prelates was convened; and Gregory, after a severe struggle with those
opposed to him, obtained an acquittal, and returned to Antioch, the same year.
When the mutinous soldiers of the army on the Persian frontier had driven away
their general Priscus, and refused to receive and acknowledge Philippicus, whom
the emperor Maurice had sent to succeed him, Gregory was sent, on account of his
popularity with the troops, to bring them back to their duty: his address, which
is preserved by Evagrius, was effectual, and the mutineers agreed to receive Philippicus,
who was sent to them. When Chosroes II. of Persia was compelled to seek refuge
in the Byzantine empire (A. D. 590 or 591), Gregory was sent by the emperor to
meet him. Gregory died of gout A. D. 593 or 594, having, there is reason to believe,
previously resigned his see into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anastasius.
He was an opponent of the Acephali, or disciples of Severus of Antioch, who were
becoming numerous in the Syrian desert, and whom he either expelled or obliged
to renounce their opinions. The extant works of Gregory are, 1. Demogoria pros
ton Straton, Oratio ad Exercitum, preserved, as noticed above, by Evagrius, and
given in substance by Nicephorus Callisti. 2. Logos eis tas Murophorous Oratio
in Mulieres Unguentiferas, preserved in the Greek Menaeu, and given in the Novum
Auctarium of Combefis, Paris, 1648, vol. i. Both these pieces are in the twelfth
vol. of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Gallandius. Various memorials, drawn up by Evagrius
in the name of Gregory, were contained in the lost volume of documents collected
by Evagrius. (Evagr. H. E. v. 6, 9, 18, vi. 4-7, 11-13, 18, 24; Niceph. Callist.
H. E. xvii. 36, xviii. 4, 12-16, 23, 26; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. ; Cave, Hist.
Litt. vol. i., &c.; Galland. Bibl. Patr. vol. xii. Proleg. cxiii.)
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
Diodorus. Of Antioch, an ecclesiastical writer who lived during the latter part
of the fourth century after Christ, and belonged to a noble family. During the
time that he was a presbyter and archimandrita at Antioch, he exerted himself
much in introducing a better discipline among the monks, and also wrote several
works, which shewed that he was a man of extensive acquirements. When Meletius,
the bishop of Antioch, was sent into exile in the reign of the emperor Valens,
Diodorus too had to suffer for a time; but he continued to exert himself in what
he thought the good cause, and frequently preached to his flock in the open fields
in the neighbourhood of Antioch. In A. D. 378 Meletius was allowed to return to
his see, and one of his first acts was to make Diodorus bishop of Tarsus. In A.
D. 381 Diodorus attended the council of Constantinople, at which the general superintendence
of the Eastern churches was entrusted to him and Pelagius of Laodiceia. (Socrat.
v. 8.) How long he held his bishopric, and in what year he died, are questions
which cannot be answered with certainty, though his death appears to have occurred
previous to A. D. 394, in which year his successor, Phalereus, was present at
a council at Constantinople. Diodorus was a man of great learning (Facund. iv.
2); but some of his writings were not considered quite orthodox, and are said
to have favoured the views which were afterwards promulgated by his disciple,
Nestorius. His style is praised by Photius (Bibl. Cod. 223, where he is called
Theodorus) for its purity and simplicity. Respecting his life, see Tillemont,
Hist. des Emp. viii., ed. Paris.
Diodorus was the author of a numerous series of works, all of which
are now lost, at least in their original language, for many are said to be still
extant in Syriac versions. The following deserve to be noticed : 1. Kata heimarmenes
in 8 books or 53 chapters, was written against the theories of the astrologers,
heretics, Bardesanes, and others. The whole work is said to be still extant in
Syriac, and considerable Excerpta from it are preserved in Photius. (l. c.) 2.
A work against Photinus, Malchion, Sabellius, Marcellus, and Ancyranus. (Theodoret.
de Haeret. Fab. ii. in fin.) 3. A work against the Pagans and their idols (Facund.
iv. 2), which is perhaps the same as the Kata Platonos peri Deou kai Deon. (Hieronym.
Catal. 119.) 4. Chronikon diorthoumenon to sphalma Eusebiou tou Pamphilon peri
ton chronon, that is, on chronological errors committed by Eusebius. (Suid. s.
v. Diodoros.) 5. Peri tou heis Theos en Triadi, was directed against the Arians
or Eunomians, and is said to be still extant in Syriac. 6. Pros Gratianon kephalaia.
(Facund. iv. 2.) 7. Peri tes Hipparchou sphairas. This Hipparchus is the Bithynian
of whom Pliny (H. N. ii. 26) speaks. 8. Peri pronoias, or on Providence, is said
to exist still in Syriac. 9. Pros Euphronion philosophon, in the form of a dialogue.
(Basil. Epist. 167 ; Facund. iv. 2.) 10. Kata Manichaion, in 24 books, of which
some account is given by Photius. (Bibl. Cod. 85; comp. Theodoret. i. in fin.)
The work is believed to be extant in Syriac. 11. Peri tou hagiou pneumatos. (Phot.
Bibl. Cod. 102; Leontius, do Sectis) 12. Pros tous Sunousiastas, a work directed
against the Apollinaristae. Some fragments of the first book are preserved in
Leontius. (Bibl. Patr. ix., ed. Lugdun.) This work, which is still extant in Syriac,
seems to have been the principal cause of Diodorus being looked upon as heretical;
for the Nestorians appealed to it in support of their tenets, and Cyrillus wrote
against it. 13. A commentary on most of the books of the Old and New Testament.
This was one of his principal works, and in his interpretation of the Scriptures
he rejected the allegorical explanation, and adhered to the literal meaning of
the text. (Suidas, l. c. ; Socrat. vi. 2 ; Sozomen. viii. 2; Hieronym. Catal.
119.) The work is frequently referred to by ecclesiastical writers, and many fragments
of it have thus been preserved. (Cave, Hist. Lit. i., ed. London ; Fabric. Bibl.
Gr. iv., ix.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Constantinus of Antioch, also called Constantius, was a presbyter at the metropolitan church of Antioch, lived about A. D. 400, and was destined to succeed bishop Flavianus, Porphyrius, however, who wished to obtain that see, intrigued at the court of Constantinople, and succeeded in obtaining an order from the emperor Arcadius for the banishment of Constantine. With the aid of some friends, Constantine escaped to Cyprus, where he seems to have remained during the rest of his life. He survived St. Chrysostom, who died in A. D. 407. Constantine edited the Commentary of St. Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews, consisting of thirty-four homilies, arranged by the editor. Among the Epistles of St. Chrysostom, two, viz. Ep. 221 and 225, are addressed to Constantine, who is perhaps the author of two other Epistles commonly attributed to St. Chrysostom, viz. Ep. 237 and 238.
Ignatius, of Antioch, one of the Apostolical Fathers; called also Theodorus, or Deifer (ho Theophoros),
a title explained by Ignatius himself in his conversation with the emperor Trajan
to mean "one that has Christ in his heart". Some of the Greeks, interpreting the
epithet passively "borne or carried of God", supposed that Ignatius was the little
child whom our Lord took in his arms when he rebuked the ambitious contentions
of his disciples (Mark, ix. 36, &c.); but this story, whatever currency it may
have obtained, is unsupported by any early testimony, and is in fact contradicted
by Chrysostom. who incidentally states (In S. Ignat. Homilia) that Ignatius never
saw Jesus Christ. Jerome indeed, in one place (De Viris Illust. c. 16) states
that Ignatius had seen Christ; but he did not correctly understand the text of
Eusebius, from whom the passage is translated. By the Syriac writers, the expression
has been understood to mean, "wearing", or "clad with God".
Abulpharagius (Historia Dynastiarum. Dynast. vii.) had been understood
to assert that Ignatius was a native of Nura, which was conjectured to be either
Nura in Sardinia or Nora in Cappadocia. But the late researches of Mr. Cureton
have shown that the words used had no reference to the place of his birth.
Ignatius conversed (according to Chrysostom), with the apostles. Some
accounts make him a disciple of Peter; but according to the better authority of
the Martyrium Ignatii (c. 3), he was, together with Polycarp, a hearer of John.
This would lead to the conclusion that Ephesus or its neighbourhood was the place
of his residence. He was appointed bishop of the church at Antioch, Chrysostom
says, by the choice of the apostles, and was ordained by the laying on of their
hands. Theodoret especially mentions Peter as the apostle who laid hands on him
(Orat. ad Manachos Euphratesiae, Opp. vol. iv.). But these statements are hardly
consistent with the account of Eusebius (Chron. Pars II. interp. Hieron), that
his ordination took place A. D. 69, when Peter and several of the apostles were
already dead. He is said to have succeeded Evodius, whose ordination is placed
in A. D. 44. As in the apostolic age a plurality of bishops existed in some at
least of the first churches, e. g. Ephesus and Philippi (comp. Acts, xx. 17, 28;
Philip. i.1), and as the church at Antioch was from the first a large and important
church, it is not impossible that Ignatius may have been made bishop before the
death of Evodius, and may therefore have been ordained by Peter or some other
of the apostles.
Of the episcopate of Ignatius we know little. He appears to have been
over-earnest in insisting upon the prerogatives of the clergy, especially the
bishops. The Martyrium Ignatii represents him as anxious for the stedfastness
of his flock during the persecution said to have taken place in Domitian's reign;
and incessant in watching and prayer, and in instructing his people, fearing lest
the more ignorant and timid among them should fall away. On the cessation of the
persecution he rejoiced at the little injury the church at Antioch had sustained.
When the emperor Trajan, elated with his victories over the Dacians
and other nations on the Danubian frontier, began to persecute the church, the
anxiety of Ignatius was renewed; and, eager to avert the violence of persecution
from his flock, and to obtain the crown of martyrdom for himself, he offered himself
as a victim, and was brought before the emperor, then at Antioch on his way to
the eastern frontier to attack the Armenians and Parthians. The conference between
the emperor and the bishop is given in the Martyrium Ignatii ; it ended by the
emperor passing sentence on Ignatius that he should be taken to Rome, and there
thrown to wild beasts. He was led to Rome by a long and tedious route, but was
allowed to have communication with his fellow-Christians at the places at which
he stopped. He was thrown to the wild beasts in the Roman amphitheatre, at the
feast distinguished as he triskaidekate, "the feast of the thirteenth" (i. e.
the thirteenth before the kalends of January, or 20th Dec. according to our computation),
one of the days of the Opalia, which made part of the great festival of the Saturnalia.
(Dict. of Antiq. s. v. Saturnalia.) Such parts of him as remained were collected
by his sorrowing friends, and were taken back to Antioch, where in Jerome's time
they were resting in the cemetery outside the gate toward Daphne. From thence
they were removed, by the Emperor Theodosius II. to the church of St. Ignatius
(previously known as the Tychaeum, or Temple of Fortune), in the city of Antioch
(Evagr. H. E. i. 16). Their subsequent removals are uncertain. The martyrdom of
St. Ignatius is commemorated by the Romish church on the 1st of Feb.; by the Greek
church on the 20th December, the correct anniversary of his martyrdom.
The year of Ignatius's death has been much disputed. Many of the best
writers (following the Martyrium Ignatii), place it in A. D. 107; but others contend
for a later date; some as late as A. D. 116.
On his way from Antioch to Rome, Ignatius is said to have written
seven epistles. These are enumerated both by Eusebius (H. E. iii. 46) and Jerome
(De Viris Illustr c. 16). The fact of his having written letters, though without
specifying either the number or the parties to whom they are addressed, is attested
by his contemporary, Polycarp (ad Philipp. c. 13. Vers. Lat.), who collected several
and sent them to the Philippians, and some quotations from him are found in Irenaeus
(Adv. Haeres. v. 28) and Origen (Proleg. in Cantic. Canticor. and Homil. VI. in
Lucam). There are, however, at present extant fifteen epistles ascribed to Ignatius.
Seven of these are considered to be genuine; namely, 1. Pros Ephesious, Ad Ephesios;
2. Magnesieusin, Ad Magnesianos; 3. Trallianois, Ad Trallianos; 4. Pros Romaious,
Ad Romansos; 5. Philadelpheusin, Ad Philadelphenos; 6. Smurnaiois, ad Smyrneos;
and, 7. Pros Polukarpon, Ad Polycarpum. The titles of these epistles agree with
the enumeration of Eusebius and Jerome. There are found two recensions of them,--a
longer, now regarded as an interpolated one, and a shorter form, which is considered
as tolerably uncorrupted. Two ancient Latin versions are extant, corresponding
in a great degree to the two forms or recensions of the Greek text : the larger,
known as the common (vulgata) version; the other first discovered and published
by Archbishop Usher. Many of the interpolations found in the larger form are of
passages of the New Testament.
Five other epistles, though extant in Greek, are regarded as spurious;
namely, 8. Pros Marian eis Neapolin ten pros toi Zarboi, or Pros Marian Kassoboliten,
or ek Kassobelon, or Kastabalitin, or ek Kastabalon, Ad Mariam, Neupolim, quae
est ad Zarbun, or Ad Mariam Cassobolitaim, variously written (Castabaliiam, or
Castabalensem, or ex Cossobelis, or Chassaobolorum, or Chasabolorum, or Castabalorum.
9. Pros tous en Tarsoi, Ad Tarsenses; 10. Pros Antocheis, Ad Antionchenos; 11.
Pros Herona, diakonon Antiocheias Ad Heronem Diaconum Antionchiae; 12. Pros Philippesious,
Ad Philippenses. Some copies add to the title of this epistle the words Peri Baptismatos,
De Baptismate ; an addition which by no means correctly describes the contents.
Of four of these spurious epistles two ancient Latin versions are extant, the
common version and that published by Usher; of that to the Philippians, there
is only one version (viz. the common). The epistle to Polycarp in the common Latin
version is defective; containing only about one third of what is in the Greek
text. There is also extant, both in the Greek and in the two Latin versions, an
epistle of Mary of Cassobelae (called also Proselutos, Proselyta) to Ignatius,
to which his letter professes to be an answer.
The remaining three epistles ascribed to Ignatius are found only in
Latin: they are very short, and have long been given up as spurious: they are,
13. S. Joanni Evangelistae; 14. Ad Eundem; and, 15, Beatae Virgini. With these
is found a letter of the Virgin to Ignatius, Beata Virgo Ignatio, professing to
be an answer to his letter. This also is given up as spurious. The whole, indeed,
of the Epistles, the first seven as well as the rest, have been vehemently assailed,
and by some eminent scholars; but the above statement is in accordance with the
general opinion of the learned.
The extent and celebrity of the controversy respecting these writings,
and the importance of the letters in their bearing on the much-disputed question
of primitive church government, require some notice to be taken of the discussion.
In A. D. 1495 the three Latin epistles and the letter of the Virgin were printed
at Paris, subjoined to the Vita et Processus S. Thomae Cantuarensis Martyris super
Libertate Ecclesiastica. In A. D. 1498, three years after the appearance of these
letters, another collection, edited by Jacobus Faber of Etaples (Stapulensis),
was printed at Paris in folio, containing the common Latin version of eleven letters,
that to Mary of Cassobelae not being among them. They were published with some
of the works ascribed to Dionysius Areopagita and an epistle of Polycarp. These
eleven epistles were reprinted at Venice, A. D. 1502, Paris, A. D. 1515, Basel,
1520, and Strasburg, 1527. In 1516, the preceding fourteen epistles, with the
addition of the letter to Mary of Cassobelae, were edited by Symphorianus Champerius
of Lyons, and published at Paris in 4to. with seven letters of St. Antony, commonly
called the Great. The whole of the letters ascribed to Ignatius were now before
the public in Latin, nor does their genuineness appear to have been as yet suspected.
They were repeatedly reprinted in the course of the sixteenth century. In A. D.
1557 the twelve epistles of Ignatius in Greek were published by Valentinus Paceus
or Pacaeus in 8vo. at Dillingen in Suabia on the Danube, from an Augsburg MS.
They were reprinted at Paris, A. D. 1558 with critical emendations. The same twelve
Greek epistles from another MS. from the library of Gaspar a Nydpryck, were published
by Andreas Gesner with a Latin version by Joannes Brunnerus, fol. Zurich, 1559.
In these editions the Greek text of the seven epistles was given in the larger
form, the shorter form, both in Greek and Latin, being as yet undiscovered.
The genuineness of these remains was new called into question, the
acuteness of criticism being apparently increased by a distaste for the contents
of the Epistles. The authors of the Centuriae Magdeburgenses were the first to
express their doubts, though with caution and moderation. Calvin, in his Institutiones,
i. 3, declared that " nothing could be more silly than the stuff (naeniae) which
had been brought out under the name of Ignatius ; which rendered the impudence
of those persons more insufferable who had set themselves to deceive people by
such phantoms (larvae)." It has been observed, however, that the parts which incurred
Calvin's reprehension were the supposititious epistles, or the parts since found
to be interpolated in the larger form of the genuine ones. The controversy grew
warm : the Romish writers and the Episcopalians commonly contending for the genuineness
of at least a part of the Epistles, and some of the Presbyterians denying it.
The three epistles not extant in Greek were the first given up; but the rest were
stoutly contended for. Several however distinguished between the seven enumerated
by Eusebius and the rest; and some contended that even those which were genuine
were interpolated. While the controversy was in this state, Vedelius, a professor
at Geneva, published an edition (S. Ignatii quae extant Omnia, 4to. Geneva, 1623),
in which the seven genuine were arranged apart from the other five epistles. He
marked also in the genuine epistles the parts which he regarded as interpolations.
His conjectures, however, were not happy.
In 1644 appeared the edition by Archbishop Usher (4to. Oxford) of
the Epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius. This edition contained, 1. Polycarpiana
Epistolarum Ignatianarum Sylloge (Polycarp's Collection of the Epistles of Ignatius),
containing Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians, and six of the genuine epistles
of Ignatius (that to Polycarp being referred by Usher to the next class) in the
longer form, with the common Latin version printed in parallel columns. The interpolated
portions, so far as they were ascertainable by the aid of an old Latin version
of the shorter form, of which Usher had obtained two MSS. in England, and which
he was the first to publish, were distinguished by being printed in red. This
recension, however, by no means restored the text to its original purity, as may
be seen by the most cursory comparison of Usher's text with that of Cotelerius
and Le Clerc. The edition of Usher further contained, 2. Epistolae B. Ignatio
adscriptae a Mediae Aetais Graecis Sex (Six Epistles ascribed to St. Ignatius
by the Greeks of the Middle Age). The Epistle of Polycarp was included in this
class, with the five spurious epistles extant in Greek. The common Latin version
was also printed with these in parallel columns; and the three epistles which
are extant only in Latin were subjoined. 3. A Latin version of eleven epistles
(that to the Philippians being omitted) from the two MSS. obtained by Usher, and
now first printed. This version is quite different from the common one, and very
ancient. It corresponds, in the main, to the shorter text of the genuine Epistles.
The work of Usher contains also a valuable introduction and notes
to the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, the Apostolical Constitutions, and the
Canons ascribed to Clement of Rome. In 1646 the Epistles of Ignatius were published
by Isaac Vossius (4 to. Amsterdam), from a MS. in the Medicean Library at Florence.
The MS., which is not accurately written, and is mutilated at the end, is valuable
as the only one containing the shorter recension of the genuine Epistles : it
wants, however, that to the Romans, which was given by Vossius in the longer form,
as in the former editions. The five spurious epistles, and that of Mary of Cassobelae
to Ignatius, from the Medicean MS., the text of which differs materially from
that previously published ; the three Latin Epistles, Usher's Latin version of
the eleven Greek Epistles, and the common version of that to the Philippians,
were all given by Vossius. In 1647 Usher published his Appendix Ignatiana, containing
the Greek text of the seven Epistles, and two Latin versions of the Martyrum Ignatii.
He gave the Medicean text of six of the Epistles; that to the Romans was the common
text with the interpolations expunged, as determined by a collation of the epistle
as given in the Martyrium, both in the Greek of Symeon Metaphrastes and the Latin
versions published by Usher. The text of Ignatius was thus settled on the basis
of MS. authority, except in the case of the Epistle to the Romans, and that was
afterwards published by Le Clerc from a manuscript in the Colbertine Library.
After the controversy had been carried on for some time, and great
progress had been made towards the settlement of the text, the most formidable
attack on the genuineness of the Epistles was made by DaillΓ© (Dallaeus), one
of the most eminent of the French Protestants, in his work De Scriptis quae sub
Dionysii Areopagitae et Ignatii Antiocheni circmferuntur Libri duo, 4to. Geneva,
16666. The works of Ignatius form the subject of the second book. This attack
of DaillΓ© called forth the Vindiciae Ignatianae of Bishop Pearson, 4to. Cambridge,
1672, which may be considered as having exhausted the controversy. The subsequent
contributions to the discussion do not require notice. The genuineness and substantial
integrity of the seven epistles in the shorter form may be considered as now generally
recognised.
The Epistles of Ignatius are characterised by simplicity of thought
and by piety. His eagerness to obtain the crown of martyrdom has been censured
; and his zeal in enforcing the claims of the bishops and clergy to reverence
and obedience is very great. Perhaps this characteristic, which has quickened
the suspicions of, or objections to, the genuineness of the Epistles, may be rather
regarded as an argument that they were written while those claims were by no means
generally admitted. His zeal in enforcing them is an indication of their being
disputed, as men do not contend for what no one denies. The Greek style of Ignatius
is by no means good, which is accounted for by the circumstance of Greek not being
his vernacular tongue.
The most complete and valuable edition of Ignatius is that contained
in the Patres Apostolici of Cotelerius, the second edition of which by Le Clerc
(2 vols. fol. Amsterdam. 1724) contains the two recensions of the genuine epistles,
all the spurious epistles (Greek and Latin), with the epistles of Mary of Cassobelae
and of the Virgin; the two ancient Latin versions (the common one and Usher's),
the Martyrium Ignatii, the Dissertationes (i. e. the Introduction) of Usher, the
Vindiciae of Pearson, a Dissertatio de Ignatianis Epistolis, by Le Clerc, and
variorm notes. A useful edition of the genuine Epistles with those of Clement
of Rome and Polycarp, and the Martyria of Ignatius and Polycarp, was published
by Jacobson (2 vols. 8vo. Oxford, 1838). There are versions in several of the
languages of modern Europe; including two English translations, an old one by
Archbishop Wake, and a modern one by Clementson (8vo. 1827). Wake's translation
has been repeatedly published.
Ebed-jesu, the Syrian, speaks of Ignatius as having written De Re
Fidei et Canones, but he is supposed to refer to his Epistles (Assemani, Bibl.
Orient. ). There is also a Syriac liturgy ascribed to Ignatius, of which a Latin
version is given by Renaudot (Liturg. Orientales, vol. ii.), who declares it to
be spurious.
The Martyrium Ignatii, which is our chief authority for the circumstances
of Ignatius' death, professes to be written by eye-witnesses, the companions of
his voyage to Rome, supposed to be Philo, a deacon of Tarsus or some other church
in Cilicia, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian, who are mentioned in the Epistles of
Ignatius (Ad Philadelph. c. 11; Ad Smyrneos, c.13). Usher adds to them a third
person, Gaius, but on what authority we know not, and Gallandius adds Crocus mentioned
by Ignatius (Ad Romanos, c. 10). The account, with many interpolations, is incorporated
in the work of Symeon Metaphrastes (A. D. 20, Dec.), and a Latin translation from
him is given by Surius, De Probatis Sanctor. Vitis, and in the Acta Sanctorum,
under the date of the 1st of Feb. The Martyrium was first printed in Latin by
archbishop Usher, who gave two distinct versions from different MSS. The Greek
text was first printed by Ruinart in his Acta Martyrum Sincera (4to. Paris, 1689)
from a MS. in the Colbertine library, and in a revised edition in Le Clerc's Cotelerius.
It is given by Jacobson and by most of the later editors of the Epistles. Its
genuineness is generally recognised; but it is thought to be interpolated. See
the remarks of Grabe quoted by Jacobson at the end of the Martyrium. A considerable
fragment of an ancient Syriac version of the Martyrium of Ignatius is published
by Mr. Cureton.
A recent discovery promises to reopen the question, as to the integrity
of the shorter epistles. Several writers, including Beausobre, Lardner, and Priestly,
had expressed their suspicion or conviction, that there were in them interpolations,
more or less considerable. An ancient Syriac version of the epistles to Polycarp,
to the Romans, and to the Ephesians, recently discovered, gives reason to believe
that the interpolations are very considerable. This version was discovered among
the MSS. of the library of the Syriac convent of the desert of Nitria, in Egypt,
which has been lately purchased by the trustees of the British Museum. These epistles
have been published by the Rev. W. Cureton, of the British Museum (The Ancient
Syriac Version of the Epistles of St. Ignatius, &c., by William Cureton, M. A.
8vo. London. 1845), from two MSS., of which one, containing the epistle to Polycarp,
is assigned by him to the sixth century; the other, containing the other two epistles,
belongs, in his judgment, to the seventh or eighth century. The Syriac Epistle
to Polycarp contains scarcely anything of c. vii. and [p. 567] vii, which, in
the Greek text, form the close of the epistle. The Epistle to the Ephesians omits,
with some trifling exceptions, c ii.--vii., xi.--xxi. ; beside the greater part
of c. ix.; the omitted portion forming two-thirds of the Epistle in Greek. The
Epistle to the Romans omits considerable portions of c. i.--iii., nearly the whole
of c. vi.--viii., the greater part of c. ix., and the whole of c. x. The conclusion
of the Epistle to the Romans in Syriac consists of what appears in the Greek as
c. iv.--v. of the Epistle to the Trallians. Mr. Cureton gives an English version,
interpaged with the Syriac text, and subjoins the Greek text conformed to the
Syriac, the parts expunged being printed at the foot of the page. In a valuable
preface he reviews the history of the Greek text of the Epistles, gives an interesting
account of the fruitless endeavours made in the seventeenth century, by Mr. Huntington,
chaplain at Aleppo, (afterwards Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, and Bishop
of Raphoe), to discover the Syriac version, and the more recent and successful
efforts. He discusses the question whether the Syriac text is to be preferred
to the Greek, and argues strongly for its superiority. The interpolations, several
of which enforce clerical and episcopal authority, while others support the deity
of Jesus Christ, he considers to be subsequent to and intended to bear upon the
Arian and Aerian controversies.
(Pearson, Usher, Jacobson, ll. cc.; Lardner, Credibility ; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol.
vii. 32. &c.; Galland, Biblioth. Patrum, vol. i. Proleg. c. 7, 8; Cave, Hist.
Litt. vol. i.; Oudin, de Scriptoribus Eccles. vol. i. cod. 71; Ceillier, Auteurs
Sacroes, vol. i.)
St. Ignatius of Antioch, also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117.
More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence,
though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child
whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed,
and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors
of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop
of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II,
iii, 22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority
for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St.
John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in
receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom.
in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III,
xii, art. xvi, p. 53).
All the sterling qualities of ideal pastor and a true soldier of Christ
were possessed by the Bishop of Antioch in a preeminent degree. Accordingly, when
the storm of the persecution of Domitian broke in its full fury upon the Christians
of Syria, it found their faithful leader prepared and watchful. He was unremitting
in his vigilance and tireless in his efforts to inspire hope and to strengthen
the weaklings of his flock against the terrors of the persecution. The restoration
of peace, though it was short-lived, greatly comforted him. But it was not for
himself that he rejoiced, as the one great and ever-present wish of his chivalrous
soul was that he might receive the fullness of Christian discipleship through
the medium of martyrdom. His desire was not to remain long unsatisfied. Associated
with the writings of St. Ignatius is a work called "Martyrium Ignatii ", which
purports to be an account by eyewitnesses of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius and
the acts leading up to it. In this work, which such competent Protestant critics
as Pearson and Ussher regard as genuine, the full history of that eventful journey
from Syria to Rome is faithfully recorded for the edification of the Church of
Antioch. It is certainly very ancient and is reputed to have been written by Philo,
deacon of Tarsus, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian, who accompanied Ignatius to Rome.
It is generally admitted, even by those who regarded it as authentic, that this
work has been greatly interpolated. Its most reliable form is that found in the
"Martyrium Colbertinum" which closes the mixed recension and is so called because
its oldest witness is the tenth-century Codex Colbertinus (Paris).
According to these Acts, in the ninth year of his reign, Trajan, flushed
with victory over the Scythians and Dacians, sought to perfect the universality
of his dominion by a species of religious conquest. He decreed, therefore, that
the Christians should unite with their pagan neighbors in the worship of the gods.
A general persecution was threatened, and death was named as the penalty for all
who refused to offer the prescribed sacrifice. Instantly alert to the danger that
threatened, Ignatius availed himself of all the means within his reach to thwart
the purpose of the emperor. The success of his zealous efforts did not long remain
hidden from the Church's persecutors. He was soon arrested and led before Trajan,
who was then sojourning in Antioch. Accused by the emperor himself of violating
the imperial edict, and of inciting others to like transgressions, Ignatius valiantly
bore witness to the faith of Christ. If we may believe the account given in the
"Martyrium", his bearing before Trajan was characterized by inspired eloquence,
sublime courage, and even a spirit of exultation. Incapable of appreciating the
motives that animated him, the emperor ordered him to be put in chains and taken
to Rome, there to become the food of wild beasts and a spectacle for the people.
That the trials of this journey to Rome were great we gather from
his letter to the Romans (par. 5): "From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild
beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards,
even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated."
Despite all this, his journey was a kind of triumph. News of his fate, his destination,
and his probable itinerary had gone swiftly before. At several places along the
road his fellow-Christians greeted him with words of comfort and reverential homage.
It is probable that he embarked on his way to Rome at Seleucia, in Syria, the
nearest port to Antioch, for either Tarsus in Cilicia, or Attalia in Pamphylia,
and thence, as we gather from his letters, he journeyed overland through Asia
Minor. At Laodicea, on the River Lycus, where a choice of routes presented itself,
his guards selected the more northerly, which brought the prospective martyr through
Philadelphia and Sardis, and finally to Smyrna, where Polycarp, his fellow-disciple
in the school of St. John, was bishop. The stay at Smyrna, which was a protracted
one, gave the representatives of the various Christian communities in Asia Minor
an opportunity of greeting the illustrious prisoner, and offering him the homage
of the Churches they represented. From the congregations of Ephesus, Magnesia,
and Tralles, deputations came to comfort him. To each of these Christian communities
he addressed letters from Smyrna, exhorting them to obedience to their respective
bishops, and warning them to avoid the contamination of heresy. These, letters
are redolent with the spirit of Christian charity, apostolic zeal, and pastoral
solicitude. While still there he wrote also to the Christians of Rome, begging
them to do nothing to deprive him of the opportunity of martyrdom.
From Smyrna his captors took him to Troas, from which place he dispatched
letters to the Christians of Philadelphia and Smyrna, and to Polycarp. Besides
these letters, Ignatius had intended to address others to the Christian communities
of Asia Minor, inviting them to give public expression to their sympathy with
the brethren in Antioch, but the altered plans of his guards, necessitating a
hurried departure, from Troas, defeated his purpose, and he was obliged to content
himself with delegating this office to his friend Polycarp. At Troas they took
ship for Neapolis. From this place their journey led them overland through Macedonia
and Illyria. The next port of embarkation was probably Dyrrhachium (Durazzo).
Whether having arrived at the shores of the Adriatic, he completed his journey
by land or sea, it is impossible to determine. Not long after his arrival in Rome
he won his long-coveted crown of martyrdom in the Flavian amphitheater. The relics
of the holy martyr were borne back to Antioch by the deacon Philo of Cilicia,
and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian, and were interred outside the gates not far from
the beautiful suburb of Daphne. They were afterwards removed by the Emperor Theodosius
II to the Tychaeum, or Temple of Fortune which was then converted into a Christian
church under the patronage of the martyr whose relics it sheltered. In 637 they
were translated to St. Clement's at Rome, where they now rest. The Church celebrates
the feast of St. Ignatius on 1 February.
The character of St. Ignatius, as deduced from his own and the extant
writings of his contemporaries, is that of a true athlete of Christ. The triple
honor of apostle, bishop, and martyr was well merited by this energetic soldier
of the Faith. An enthusiastic devotion to duty, a passionate love of sacrifice,
and an utter fearlessness in the defense of Christian truth, were his chief characteristics.
Zeal for the spiritual well-being of those under his charge breathes from every
line of his writings. Ever vigilant lest they be infected by the rampant heresies
of those early days; praying for them, that their faith and courage may not be
wanting in the hour of persecution; constantly exhorting them to unfailing obedience
to their bishops; teaching them all Catholic truth ; eagerly sighing for the crown
of martyrdom, that his own blood may fructify in added graces in the souls of
his flock, he proves himself in every sense a true, pastor of souls, the good
shepherd that lays down his life for his sheep.
Collections
The oldest collection of the writings of St. Ignatius known to have existed was
that made use of by the historian Eusebius in the first half of the fourth century,
but which unfortunately is no longer extant. It was made up of the seven letters
written by Ignatius whilst on his way to Rome; These letters were addressed to
the Christians:
of Ephesus (Pros Ephesious);
of Magnesia (Magnesieusin);
of Tralles (Trallianois);
of Rome (Pros Romaious);
of Philadelphia (Philadelpheusin);
of Smyrna (Smyrnaiois); and
to Polycarp (Pros Polykarpon).
We find these seven mentioned not only by Eusebius ("Hist. eccl.", III, xxxvi)
but also by St. Jerome (De viris illust., c. xvi). Of later collections of Ignatian
letters which have been preserved, the oldest is known as the "long recension".
This collection, the author of which is unknown, dates from the latter part of
the fourth century. It contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters, but
even the genuine epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal
views of its author. For this reason they are incapable of bearing witness to
the original form. The spurious letters in this recension are those that purport
to be from Ignatius:
to Mary of Cassobola (Pros Marian Kassoboliten);
to the Tarsians (Pros tous en tarso);
to the Philippians (Pros Philippesious);
to the Antiochenes (Pros Antiocheis);
to Hero a deacon of Antioch (Pros Erona diakonon Antiocheias). Associated with the foregoing is
a letter from Mary of Cassobola to Ignatius.
It is extremely probable that the interpolation of the genuine, the addition of the spurious letters, and the union of both in the long recension was the work of an Apollonarist of Syria or Egypt, who wrote towards the beginning of the fifth century. Funk identifies him with the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, which came out of Syria in the early part of the same century. Subsequently there was added to this collection a panegyric on St. Ignatius entitled, "Laus Heronis". Though in the original it was probably written in Greek, it is now extant only in Latin and Coptic texts. There is also a third recension, designated by Funk as the "mixed collection". The time of its origin can be only vaguely determined as being between that of the collection known to Eusebius and the long recension. Besides the seven genuine letters of Ignatius in their original form, it also contains the six spurious ones, with the exception of that to the Philippians.
In this collection is also to be found the "Martyrium Colbertinum". The Greek original of this recension is contained in a single codex, the famous Mediceo-Laurentianus manuscript at Florence. This codex is incomplete, wanting the letter to the Romans, which, however, is to be found associated with the "Martyrium Colbertinum" in the Codex Colbertinus, at Paris. The mixed collection is regarded as the most reliable of all in determining what was the authentic text of the genuine Ignatian letters. There is also an ancient Latin version which is an unusually exact rendering of the Greek. Critics are generally inclined to look upon this version as a translation of some Greek manuscript of the same type as that of the Medicean Codex. This version owes its discovery to Archbishop Ussher, of Ireland, who found it in two manuscripts in English libraries and published it in 1644. It was the work of Robert Grosseteste, a Franciscan friar and Bishop of Lincoln (c. 1250). The original Syriac version has come down to us in its entirety only in an Armenian translation. It also contains the seven genuine and six spurious letters. This collection in the original Syriac would be invaluable in determining the exact text of Ignatius, were it in existence, for the reason that it could not have been later than the fourth or fifth century. The deficiencies of the Armenian version are in part supplied by the abridged recension in the original Syriac. This abridgment contains the three genuine letters to the Ephesians, the Romans, and to Polycarp. The manuscript was discovered by Cureton in a collection of Syriac manuscripts obtained in 1843 from the monastery of St. Mary Deipara in the Desert of Nitria. Also there are three letters extant only in Latin. Two of the three purport to be from Ignatius to St. John the Apostle, and one to the Blessed Virgin, with her reply to the same. These are probably of Western origin, dating no further back than the twelfth century.
The Controversy
At intervals during the last several centuries a warm controversy has been carried on by patrologists concerning the authenticity of the Ignatian letters. Each particular recension has had its apologists and its opponents. Each has been favored to the exclusion of all the others, and all, in turn, have been collectively rejected, especially by the coreligionists of Calvin. The reformer himself, in language as violent as it is uncritical (Institutes, 1-3), repudiates in globo the letters which so completely discredit his own peculiar views on ecclesiastical government. The convincing evidence which the letters bear to the Divine origin of Catholic doctrine is not conducive to predisposing non-Catholic critics in their favor, in fact, it has added not a little to the heat of the controversy. In general, Catholic and Anglican scholars are ranged on the side of the letters written to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrniots, and to Polycarp; whilst Presbyterians, as a rule, and perhaps a priori, repudiate everything claiming Ignatian authorship.
The two letters to the Apostle St. John and the one to the Blessed
Virgin, which exist only in Latin, are unanimously admitted to be spurious. The
great body of critics who acknowledge the authenticity of the Ignatian letters
restrict their approval to those mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome. The six
others are not defended by any of the early Fathers. The majority of those who
acknowledge the Ignatian authorship of the seven letters do so conditionally,
rejecting what they consider the obvious interpolations in these letters. In 1623,
whilst the controversy was at its height, Vedelius gave expression to this latter
opinion by publishing at Geneva an edition of the Ignatian letters in which the
seven genuine letters are set apart from the five spurious. In the genuine letters
he indicated what was regarded as interpolations. The reformer Dallaeus, at Geneva,
in 1666, published a work entitled "De scriptis quae sub Dionysii Areop. et Ignatii
Antioch. nominibus circumferuntur", in which (lib. II) he called into question
the authenticity of all seven letters. To this the Anglican Pearson replied spiritedly
in a work called "Vindiciae epistolarum S. Ignatii", published at Cambridge, 1672.
So convincing were the arguments adduced in this scholarly work that for two hundred
years the controversy remained closed in favor of the genuineness of the seven
letters. The discussion was reopened by Cureton's discovery (1843) of the abridged
Syriac version, containing the letters of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Romans, and
to Polycarp. In a work entitled "Vindiciae Ignatianae" London, 1846), he defended
the position that only the letters contained in his abridged Syriac recension,
and in the form therein contained, were genuine, and that all others were interpolated
or forged outright. This position was vigorously combated by several British and
German critics, including the Catholics Denzinger and Hefele, who successfully
de fended the genuineness of the entire seven epistles. It is now generally admitted
that Cureton's Syriac version is only an abbreviation of the original.
While it can hardly be said that there is at present any unanimous
agreement on the subject, the best modern criticism favors the authenticity of
the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius. Even such eminent non-Catholic critics
as Zahn, Lightfoot, and Harnack hold this view. Perhaps the best evidence of their
authenticity is to be found in the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, which
mentions each of them by name. As an intimate friend of Ignatius, Polycarp, writing
shortly after the martyr's death, bears contemporaneous witness to the authenticity
of these letters, unless, indeed, that of Polycarp itself be regarded as interpolated
or forged. When, furthermore, we take into consideration the passage of Irenaeus
(Adv. Haer., V, xxviii, 4) found in the original Greek in Eusebius (Hist. eccI.,
III, xxxvi), in which he refers to the letter to the Romans. (iv, I) in the following
words: "Just as one of our brethren said, condemned to the wild beasts in martyrdom
for his faith", the evidence of authenticity becomes compelling. The romance of
Lucian of Samosata, "De morte peregrini", written in 167, bears incontestable
evidence that the writer was not only familiar with the Ignatian letters, but
even made use of them. Harnack, who was not always so minded, describes these
proofs as "testimony as strong to the genuineness of the epistles as any that
can be conceived of" (Expositor, ser. 3, III, p. 11).
Contents of the letters
It is scarcely possible to exaggerate the importance of the testimony which the Ignatian letters offer to the dogmatic character of Apostolic Christianity. The martyred Bishop of Antioch constitutes a most important link between the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church. Receiving from the Apostles themselves, whose auditor he was, not only the substance of revelation, but also their own inspired interpretation of it; dwelling, as it were, at the very fountain-head of Gospel truth, his testimony must necessarily carry with it the greatest weight and demand the most serious consideration. Cardinal Newman did not exaggerate the matter when he said ("The Theology of the Seven Epistles of St. Ignatius", in "Historical Sketches", I, London, 1890) that "the whole system of Catholic doctrine may be discovered, at least in outline, not to say in parts filled up, in the course of his seven epistles". Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii; Trall., c. iii); the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi; Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii); the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation.
Editions
The four letters found in Latin only were printed in Paris in 1495. The common Latin version of eleven letters, together with a letter of Polycarp and some reputed works of Dionysius the Areopagite, was printed in Paris, 1498, by Lefevre d'Etaples. Another edition of the seven genuine and six spurious letters, including the one to Mary of Cassobola, was edited by Symphorianus Champerius, of Lyons, Paris, 1516. Valentinus Paceus published a Greek edition of twelve letters (Dillingen, 1557). A similar edition was brought out at Zurich, in 1559, by Andrew Gesner; a Latin version of the work of John Brunner accompanied it. Both of these editions made use of the Greek text of the long recension. In 1644 Archbishop Ussher edited the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp. The common Latin version, with three of the four Latin letters, was subjoined. It also contained the Latin version of eleven letters taken from Ussher's manuscripts. In 1646 Isaac Voss published at Amsterdam an edition from the famous Medicean Codex at Florence. Ussher brought out another edition in 1647, entitled "Appendix Ignatiana", which contained the Greek text of the genuine epistles and the Latin version of the "Martyrium Ignatii".
In 1672 J.B. Cotelier's edition appeared at Paris, containing all
the letters, genuine and supposititious, of Ignatius, with those of the other
Apostolic Fathers. A new edition of this work was printed by Le Clerc at Antwerp,
in 1698. It was reprinted at Venice, 1765-1767, and at Paris by Migne in 1857.
The letter to the Romans was published from the "Martyrium Colbertinum" at Paris,
by Ruinart, in 1689. In 1724 Le Clerc brought out at Amsterdam a second edition
of Cotelier's "Patres Apostolici", which contains all the letters, both genuine
and spurious, in Greek and Latin versions. It also includes the letters of Mary
of Cassobola and those purporting to be from the Blessed Virgin in the "Martyrium
Ignatii", the "Vindiciae Ignatianae" of Pearson, and several dissertations. The
first edition of the Armenian version was published at Constantinople in 1783.
In 1839 Hefele edited the Ignatian letters in a work entitled "Opera Patrum Apostolicorum",
which appeared at Tubingen. Migne took his text from the third edition of this
work (Tubingen, 1847). Bardenhewer designates the following as the best editions:
Zahn, "Ignatii et Polycarpi epistulae martyria, fragmenta" in "Patr. apostol.
opp. rec.", ed. by de Gebhardt, Harnack, Zahn, fasc. II, Leipzig, 1876; Funk,
"Opp. Patr. apostol.", I, Tubingen, 1878, 1887, 1901; Lightfoot, "The Apostolic
Fathers", part II, London, 1885, 1889; an English version of the letters to be
found in Lightfoot's "Apostolic Fathers", London, 1907, from which are taken all
the quotations of the letters in this article, and to which all citations refer.
Related articles/documents:
The Epistle of Ignatius to
the Ephesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to
the Magnesians
The Epistle of Ignatius to
the Trallians
The Epistle of Ignatius to
the Romans
The Epistle of Ignatius to
the Philadelphians
The Epistle of Ignatius to
the Smyrnaeans
The Epistle of Ignatius to
Polycarp
The Epistle to Polycarp
The Second Epistle to the
Ephesians
Third Epistle of Ignatius
Epistle to the Tarsians
Epistle to the Antiochians
Epistle to Hero
Epistle to the Philippians
Epistle to Ignatius
Epistle to Mary at Neapolis
Epistle to St. John the Apostle
Second Epistle to St. John
False Epistle to the Virgin
Mary
The Martyrdom of Ignatius
John B. O'Connor, ed.
Transcribed by: Charles Sweeney, S.J.
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Joannes Maro, so called from the monastery of St. Maro on the Orontes, near Antioch,
an eminent ecclesiastic among the Maronites of Syria; and according to some authors,
Maronite patriarch of Antioch. He is said to have enjoyed the favour of the emperor
Heraclius. He wrote in Syriac Commentarius in Liturgiam S. Jacobi, of which many
extracts have been published. (Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 537.)
Isaacus. Surnamed SYRUS, because he was a native of Syria, was first monk and afterwards priest at Antioch, and died about A. D. 456. He wrote in Syriac, and perhaps also in Greek, different works and treatises on theological matters, several of them to oppose the writers of the Nestorians and Eutychians. His principal work is De Contemtu Mundi, de Operatione Corporali et sui Abjectione Liber, published in the second edition of the Orthodoxographi, Basel, 1569; in the Bibl. Patr. Colon. vol. vi.; in the B. P. Paris, vol. v.; in the B. P. Novissima Lugdun, vol. xi.; and in Galland. Bibl. Patr. vol. xii. In all these collections it is printed in Greek, with a Latin translation, but the Greek text also seems to be a translation from the Svriac. It is very doubtful whether this work was written by Isaac, the subject of this notice, or by another Isaac, the subject of the following article. Neither Trithenius nor Gennadius (De Script. Eccles.) attribute the work to our Isaac. There is more reason to believe that he wrote " De Cogitationibus," the Greek text of which, with a Latin translation, was published by Petrus Possinus, in his Ascetica. Several other productions of Isaac are extant in MS. in the library of the Vatican and in other libraries. (Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 434-435 ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 214, &c.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Leontius (Leontios) of Antioch. Leontius was born in Phrygia, and was a disciple of the martyr Lucianus; and having
entered the church was ordained presbyter. In order to enjoy without scandal the
society of a young female, Eustolius or Eustolia, to whom he was much attached,
he mutilated himself; but, notwithstanding, did not escape suspicion, and was
deposed front his office. On the deposition, however, of Stephanus or Stephen,
bishop of Antioch, he was by the favour of the Emperor Constantius and the predominant
Arian party appointed to that see, about 348 or 349. He was one of the instructors
of the heresiarch Aetius, to whom, according to Philostorgius, he expounded the
writings of the prophets, especially Ezekiel; but, after appointing him deacon,
he was compelled by the opposite party under Diodorus and Flavian to silence and
depose him. Leontius died about A. D. 358.
Of his writings, which were numerous, nothing remains except a fragment
of what Cave describes, we know not on what authority, as Oratio in Passionem
S. Babylae, which is cited in the Paschal Chronicle in the notice of the Decian
persecution. In this fragment Leontius distinctly asserts that both the Emperor
Philip, the Arabian, and his wife, were avowed Christians. (Socrat. H. E. ii.
26; Sozomen, H. E. iii. 20; Theodoret. H. E. ii. 10, 24; Philostorg. H. E. iii.
15, 17, 18; Athanas. Apolog. de Fuga sua, c. 26, Hist. Arianor. ad Monachos, c.
28, Chron. Pasch. vol. i. pp. 270, 289, ed. Paris, pp. 216, 231, ed. Venice, pp.
503, 535, ed. Bonn; Cave, Historia Litteraria, vol. i. p. 211, ed. Oxon. 1740-43;
Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. 324.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Macedonius Critophagus, or Crithophagus. (ho Krithophagos.) Macedonius was a celebrated ascetic, contemporary with the earlier years of Theodoret, who was intimately acquainted with him, and has left an ample record of him in his Philotheus or Historia Religiosa (c. 13). He led an ascetic life in the mountains, apparently in the neighbourhood of Antioch; and dwelt forty-five years in a deep pit (for he would not use either tent or hut). When he was growing old, he yielded to the intreaties of his friends, and built himself a hut; and was afterwards further prevailed upon to occupy a small house. lie lived twenty-five years after quitting his cave, so that his ascetic life extended to seventy years; but his age at his death is not known. His habitual diet was barley, bruised and moistened with water, from which he acquired his name of Crithophagus, " the barley-eater." He was also called, from his dwelling-place, Gouba, or Guba, a Syriac word denoting a "pit" or " well." He was ordained priest by Flavian of Antioch, who was obliged to use artifice to induce him to leave his mountain abode; and ordained him, without his being aware of it, during the celebration of the eucharist. When informed of what had occurred, Macedonius, imagining that his ordination would oblige him to give up his solitude and his barley diet, flew into a passion ill becoming his sanctity; and after pouring out the bitterest reproaches against the patriarch and the priests, he took his walking staff, for he was now an old man, and drove them away. He was one of the monks who resorted to Antioch, to intercede with the emperor's officers for the citizens of Antioch after the great insurrection (A. D. 387), in which they had overthrown the statues of the emperor. His admirable plea is given by Theodoret. (H. E. v. 19.) Chrysostom notices one part of the plea of Macedonius, but does not mention his name. (Ad Popul. Antiochen. de Statuis. Homil. xvii. 1.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 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!
