Listed 100 (total found 103) sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for wider area of: "ALEXANDRIA Airport EGYPT" .
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Anatolius (Anatolios), Bishop of Laodicea (A. D. 270), was an Alexandrian by birth. Eusebius
ranks him first among the men of his age, in literature, philosophy, and science,
and states, that the Alexandrians urged him to open a school of Aristotelian philosophy
(H. E. vii. 32). He was of great service to the Alexandrians when they were besieged
by the Romans, A. D. 262. From Alexandria he went into Syria. At Caesarea he was
ordained by Theotechnus, who destined him to be his successor in the bishopric,
the duties of which he discharged for a short time as the vicar of Theotechnus.
Afterwards, while proceeding to attend a council at Antioch, he was detained by
the people of Laodicea, and became their bishop. Of his subsequent life nothing
is known; but by some he is said to have suffered martyrdom. He wrote a work on
the chronology of Easter, a large fragment of which is preserved by Eusebius.
(l. c.) The work exists in a Latin translation, which some ascribe to Rufinus,
under the title of "Volumen de Paschate", or "Canones Paschales", and which was
published by Aegidius Bucherius in his Doctrina Temnporum, Antverp., 1634. He
also wrote a treatise on Arithmetic, in ten books (Hieron. de Vir. Illust. c.
73), of which some fragments are preserved in the Theologoumena tes Arithmetikes.
Some fragments of his mathematical works are printed in Fabric. Bib. Graec. iii.
(Aphthonios) of Alexandria is mentioned by Philostorgius (iii. 15) as a learned and eloquent bishop of the Manichacans. He is mentioned as a disciple and commentator of Mani by Photius and Peter of Sicily, and in the form of abjuring Manichaeism. Philostorgius adds, that Aetius had a public disputation with Aphthonius, in which the latter was defeated, and died of grief seven days afterwards.
Georgius. Of Alexandria, the writer of a life of Chrysostom, which has been several times printed (sometimes with a Latin version by Godfrey Tilmann), in editions of the works of Chrysostom. Photius gives an account of the work, but says he could state nothing certain respecting the author. He is styled Bishop of Alexandria, and it is the opinion of those who have examined into the matter that he lived after the commencement of the seventh century. A George was Catholic bishop or patriarch of Alexandria from A. D. 616 to 630, and as no other patriarch appears under that name between A. D. 600 and the time of Photius, he was probably the writer. The life of Chrysostom occupies above a hundred folio pages, in Savile's edit. of Chrysostom (vol. viii.). It abounds in useless and fabulous matter. The writer in his preface professes to have drawn his account from the writings of Palladius and Socrates, and from the oral statements of faithful priests and pious laymen. Oudin ascribes to this writer the compilation of the Chronicon Paschale, but without foundation. (Georgius, Vita Chrys.; Phlot. Bibl. Cod. 96; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. vii., vol. viii., vol. x.; Allatius, Diatrib. de Geory. apud Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xii.; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i., ed. Ox. 1740-43.)
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
Gregorius, of Alexandria. The Arian prelates who formed the council of Antioch,
A. D. 341, appointed Gregory to the patriarchal see of Alexandria, which they
regarded as vacant, though the orthodox patriarch, Athanasius, was in actual possession
at the time. They had previously offered the see to Eusebius of Emesa, but he
declined accepting it. The history of Gregory previous to this appointment is
obscure. He is said to have been a Cappadocian; and some identify him with the
person whom Gregory Nazianzen describes as a namesake and countryman of his own,
who, after receiving kindness from Athanasius at Alexandria. had joined in spreading
the charge against him of murdering Arsenius: it is not unlikely that this Gregory
was the person appointed bishop, though Bollandus and Tillemont argue against
their identity. His establishment at Alexandria was effected by military force,
but Socrates, and Theophanes, who follows him, are probably wrong in making Syrianus
commander of that force: he was the agent in establishing Gregory's successor,
George of Cappadocia. Athanasius escaped with considerable difficulty, being surprised
in the church during divine service.
Very contradictory accounts are given of the conduct and fate of Gregory.
If we may trust the statements of Athanasius, which have been collected by Tillemont,
he was a violent persecutor, sharing in the outrages offered to the solitaries,
virgins, and ecclesiastics of the Trinitarian party, and sitting on the tribunal
by the side of the magistrates by whom the persecution was carried on. That considerable
harshness was employed against the orthodox is clear, after making all reasonable
deduction from the statements of Athanasius, whose position as a party in the
quarrel renders his evidence less trustworthy. The Arians had now the upper hand,
and evidently abused their predominance; though it may be judged from an expression
of Athanasius (Encyc. ad Episcop. Epistola, c. 3), and from the fact that the
orthodox party burnt the church of Dionysius at Alexandria, that their opponents
were sufficiently violent. The close of Gregory's episcopate is involved, both
as to its time and manner, in some doubt. He was still in possession of the see
at the time of the council of Sardica, by which he was declared to be not only
no bishop, but no Christian. A. D. 347; but according to Athanasius, he died before
the return of that prelate from his second exile, A. D. 349. He held the patriarchate,
according to this account, about eight years.
Socrates and Sozomen agree in stating that he was deposed by the Arian
party, apparently about A. D. 354, because he had become unpopular through the
burning of the church of Dionysius, and other calamities caused by his appointment,
and because he was not strenuous enough in support of his party. The account of
Theodoret, which is followed by Theophanes, appears to have originated in some
confusion of Gregory with his successor. (Athanasius, Encyc. ad Episcop. Epistola;
Histor. Arian. ad Monachos, c. 11-18, 54, 75; Socrat. H. E. ii. 10, 11, 14; Sozom.
H. E. iii. 5, 6, 7; Theodoret. H. E. ii. 4, 12; Phot. Bibl. Codd. 257, 258; Philostorg.
H. E. ii. 18; Theophanes, Chronog. vol. i., ed. Bonn ; Tillemont, Memoires, vol.
viii.)
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
CANOPUS (Ancient city) EGYPT
Ammonius, the monk, flourished A. D. 372. He was one of the Four Great Brothers (so called
from their height), disciples of Pambo, the monk of Mt. Nitria (Vitae Patrum,
ii. 23). He knew the Bible by heart, and carefully studied Didymus, Origen, and
the other ecclesiastical authors. In A. D. 339-341 he accompanied St. Athanasius
to Rome. In A. D. 371-3, Peter II. succeeded the latter, and when he fled to Rome
from his Arian persecutors, Ammonius retired from Canopus into Palestine. He witnessed
the cruelties of the Saracens against the monks of Mount Sinai A. D. 377, and
received intelligence of the sufferings of others near the Red Sea. On his return
to Egypt, he took up his abode at Memphis, and described these distresses in a
book which he wrote in Egyptian. This being found at Naucratis by a priest, named
John, was by him translated into Greek, and in that form is extant, in Christi
Martyrum Electi triumphi. Ammonius is said to have cut off an ear to avoid promotion
to the episcopate (Socr. iv. 23; Pallad. Hist. Laus. c. 12).
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
MAREIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Ammonas or (Amoun, founder of one of the most celebrated monastic communities in Egypt.
Obliged by his relations to marry, he persuaded his bride to perpetual continence
(Sozom. Hist. Eccl. i. 14) by the authority of St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians
(Socr. Hist. Eccl. iv. 23). They lived together thus for 18 years, when at her
wish, for greater perfection, they parted, and he retired to Scetis and Mt. Nitria,
to the south of Lake Mareotis, where he lived 22 years, visiting his sister-wife
twice in the year (Ibid. and Pallad. Hist. Laus. c. 7; Ruffin. Vit.Patr. c. 29).
He died before St. Antony (from whom there is an epistle to him), i. e. before
A. D. 365, for the latter asserted that he beheld the soul of Amoun borne by angels
to heaven (Vit. S. Antonii a S. Athanas. 60), and as St. Athanasius's history
of St. Antony preserves the order of time, he died perhaps about A. D. 320. There
are seventeen or nineteen Rules of Asceticism (kephalaia) ascribed to him; the
Greek original exists in MS.; they are published in the Latin version of Gerhard
Vossius in the Biblioth. PP. Ascetica, Paris. 1661. Twtenty-two Ascetic Institutions
of the same Amoun, or one bearing the same name, exist also in MS.
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
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
295 - 373
Bishop of Alexandria; Confessor and Doctor of the Church; born c.
296; died 2 May, 373. Athanasius was the greatest champion of Catholic belief
on the subject of the Incarnation that the Church has ever known and in his lifetime
earned the characteristic title of “Father of Orthodoxy”, by which
he has been distinguished ever since.
While the chronology of his career still remains for the most part
a hopelessly involved problem, the fullest material for an account of the main
achievements of his life will be found in his collected writings and in the contemporary
records of his time. He was born, it would seem, in Alexandria, most probably
between the years 296 and 298. It is impossible to speak more than conjecturally
of his family. Of the claim that it was both prominent and well-to-do, we can
only observe that the tradition to the effect is not contradicted by such scanty
details as can be gleaned from the saint's writings. Those writings undoubtedly
betray evidences of the sort of education that was given, for the most part, only
to children and youths of a better class. But Athanasius was one of those rare
personalities that derive incomparably more from their own native gifts of intellect
and character than from the fortuitousness of descent or environment.
His career almost personifies a crisis in the history of Christianity;
and he may be said rather to have shaped the events in which he took part than
to have been shaped by them. Yet it would be misleading to urge that he was in
no notable sense a debtor to the time and place of his birth. The Alexandria of
his boyhood was an epitome, intellectually, morally, and politically, of that
ethnically many-coloured Graeco-Roman world, over which the Church of the fourth
and fifth centuries was beginning at last, to realize its supremacy. It was, moreover,
the most important centre of trade in the whole empire; and its primacy as an
emporium of ideas was more commanding than that of Rome
or Constantinople, Antioch
or Marseilles.
To have been born and brought up in such an atmosphere of philosophizing
Christianity was, in spite of the dangers it involved, the timeliest and most
liberal of educations; and there is abundant evidence in the saint's writings
to testify to the ready response which all the better influences of the place
must have found in the heart and mind of the growing boy. Athanasius seems to
have been brought early in life under the immediate supervision of the ecclesiastical
authorities of his native city. Sozomen speaks of his “fitness for the priesthood”,
and calls attention to the significant circumstance that he was “from his
tenderest years practically self-taught”. “Not long after this,”
adds the same authority, the Bishop Alexander “invited Athanasius to be
his commensal and secretary. He had been well educated and had already, while
still a young man, given proof to those who dwelt with him of his wisdom and acumen”.
While still a levite under Alexander's care, he seems to have been brought for
a while into close relations with some of the solitaries of the Egyptian desert,
and in particular with the great St. Anthony, whose life he is said to have written.
It is impossible to deny that the monastic idea appealed powerfully to the young
cleric's temperament.
He had a ready wit, was quick in intuition, easy and affable in manner,
pleasant in conversation, keen, and, perhaps, somewhat too unsparing in debate.
In addition to these qualities, he was conspicuous for two others to which even
his enemies bore unwilling testimony. He was endowed with a sense of humour that
could be as mordant as it seems to have been spontaneous and unfailing; and his
courage was of the sort that never falters, even in the most disheartening hour
of defeat. He was by instinct neither a liberal nor a conservative in theology.
From first to last he cared greatly for one thing and one thing only;
the integrity of his Catholic creed. The religion it engendered in him was obviously
of a passionate and consuming sort. It began and ended in devotion to the Divinity
of Jesus Christ. He was scarcely out of his teens, and certainly not in more than
deacon's orders, when he published two treatises, in which his mind seemed to
strike the key-note of all its riper after-utterances on the subject of the Catholic
Faith. The “Contra Gentes” and the “Oratio de Incarnatione”
were written some time between the years 318 and 323. As a plea for the Christian
position, addressed chiefly to both Gentiles and Jews, the young deacon's apology
is strongly individual and almost pietistic in tone.Though it deals with the Incarnation,
it is silent on most of those ulterior problems in defence of which Athanasius
was soon to be summoned by the force of events and the fervour of his own faith
to devote the best energies of his life.
Arius was at length deposed in a synod consisting of more than one
hundred bishops of Egypt
and Libya. The condemned
heresiarch withdrew first to Palestine
and afterwards to Bithynia,
where, under the protection of Eusebius of Nicomedia
and his other “Collucianists”, he was able to increase his already
remarkable influence, while his friends were endeavouring to prepare a way for
his forcible reinstatement as priest of the Alexandrian Church. Athanasius, though
only in deacon's order, must have taken no subordinate part in these events. He
was the trusted secretary and advisor of Alexander, and his name appears in the
list of those who signed the encyclical letter subsequently issued by the primate
and his colleagues to offset the growing prestige of the new teaching, and the
momentum it was beginning to acquire from the ostentatious patronage extended
to the deposed Arius by the Eusebian faction. Indeed, it is to this party and
to the leverage it was able to exercise at the emperor's court that the subsequent
importance of Arianism as a political, rather than a religious, movement seems
primarily to be due.
It is Athanasius' peculiar merit that he not only saw the drift of
things from the very beginning, but was confident of the issue down to the last.
His insight and courage proved almost as efficient a bulwark to the Christian
Church in the world as did his singularly lucid grasp of traditional Catholic
belief. His opportunity came in the year 325, when the Emperor Constantine, in
the hope of putting an end to the scandalous debates that were disturbing the
peace of the Church, met the prelates of the entire Catholic world in council
at Nicaea. The great council
convoked at this juncture was something more than a pivotal event in the history
of Christianity. Its sudden, and, in one sense, almost unpremeditated adoption
of a quasi-philosophic and non-Scriptural term -- homoousion -- to express the
character of orthodox belief in the Person of the historic Christ, by defining
Him to be identical in substance, or co-essential, with the Father, had consequences
of the gravest import, not only to the world of ideas, but to the world of politics
as well. Athanasius, though not yet in priest's orders, accompanied Alexander
to the council in the character of secretary and theological adviser. He was not,
of course, the originator of the famous homoousion. His writings, composed during
the forty-six critical years of his episcopate, show a very sparing use of the
word; but Athanasius, in common with the leaders of the orthodox party, loyally
accepted the term as expressive of the traditional sense in which the Church had
always held Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.
Five months after the close of the council the Primate of Alexandria
died; and Athanasius, quite as much in recognition of his talent, as in deference
to the death-bed wishes of the deceased prelate, was chosen to succeed him. His
election, in spite of his extreme youth and the opposition of a remnant of the
Arian and Meletian factions in the Alexandrian Church, was welcomed by all classes
among the laity.
The opening years of the saint's rule were occupied with the wonted
episcopal routine of a fourth-century Egyptian bishop. But Eusebius of Nicomedia,
who had fallen into disgrace and been banished by the Emperor Constantine for
his part in the earlier Arian controversies, had been recalled from exile. After
an adroit campaign of intrigue, this smooth-mannered prelate so far prevailed
over Constantine as to induce him to order the recall of Arius likewise from exile.
These events must have happened some time about the close of the year 330. Finally
the emperor himself was persuaded to write to Athanasius, urging that all those
who were ready to submit to the definitions of Nicaea should be re-admitted to
ecclesiastical communion. This Athanasius stoutly refused to do, alleging that
there could be no fellowship between the Church and the one who denied the Divinity
of Christ.
The Bishop of Nicomedia
thereupon brought various ecclesiastical and political charges against Athanasius,
which, though unmistakably refuted at their first hearing, were afterwards refurbished
and made to do service at nearly every stage of his subsequent trials. Four of
these were very definite, to wit: that he had not reached the canonical age at
the time of his consecration; that he had imposed a linen tax upon the provinces;
that his officers had, with his connivance and authority, profaned the Sacred
Mysteries in the case of an alleged priest names Ischyras; and lastly that he
had put one Arenius to death and afterwards dismembered the body for purposes
of magic. Summoned by the emperor's order after protracted delays extended over
a period of thirty months, Athanasius finally consented to meet the charges brought
against him by appearing before a synod of prelates at Tyre
in the year 335. Fifty of his suffragans went with him to vindicate his good name;
but the complexion of the ruling party in the synod made it evident that justice
to the accused was the last thing that was thought of. He, therefore, suddenly
withdrew from Tyre, escaping
in a boat with some faithful friends who accompanied him to Byzantium,
where he had made up his mind to present himself to the emperor.
Constantine was returning from a hunt, when Athanasius unexpectedly
stepped into the middle of the road and demanded a hearing. The astonished emperor
could hardly believe his eyes. “Give me”, said the prelate, “a
just tribunal, or allow me to meet my accusers face to face in your presence.”
His request was granted. An order was peremptorily sent to the bishops, who had
tried Athanasius and, of course, condemned him in his absence, to repair at once
to the imperial city. The command reached them while they were on their way to
the great feast of the dedication of Constantine's new church at Jerusalem.
The saint was taken at his word; and the old charges were renewed in the hearing
of the emperor himself. Athanasius was condemned to go into exile at Treves, where
he was received with the utmost kindness by the saintly Bishop Maximinus and the
emperor's eldest son, Constantine. His exile lasted nearly two years and a half.
Public opinion in his own diocese remained loyal to him during all that time.
Meanwhile events of the greatest importance had taken place. Arius
had died in 336; and the death of Constantine himself had followed, on the 22nd
of May the year after. Some three weeks later the younger Constantine invited
the exiled primate to return to his see; and by the end of November of the same
year Athanasius was once more established in his Episcopal city. His return was
the occasion of great rejoicing. But already trouble was brewing in a quarter
from which the saint might reasonably have expected it. The Eusebian faction managed
to win over to their side the weak-minded Emperor Constantius. The old charges
were refurbished with a graver ecclesiastical accusation added by way of rider.
Athanasius had ignored the decision of a duly authorized synod. He had returned
to his see without the summons of ecclesiastical authority. In the year 340, the
notorious Gregory of Cappadocia
was forcibly intruded into the Alexandrian See, and Athanasius was obliged to
go into hiding.
Within a very few weeks he set out for Rome
to lay his case before the Church at large. He had made his appeal to Pope Julius.
The pope summoned a synod of bishops to meet in Rome.
After a careful and detailed examination of the entire case, the primate's innocence
was proclaimed to the Christian world. Meanwhile the Eusebian party had met at
Antioch and passed a series
of decrees framed for the sole purpose of preventing the saint's return to his
see. Three years were passed at Rome,
during which time the idea of the cenobitical life, as Athanasius had seen it
practised in the deserts of Egypt,
was preached to the clerics of the West. Two years after the Roman synod had published
its decision, Athanasius was summoned to Milan
by the Emperor Constans, who laid before him the plan which Constantius had formed
for a great reunion of both the Eastern and Western Churches. Now began a time
of extraordinary activity for the Saint. Early in the year 343 we find the undaunted
exile in Gaul, whither he had gone to consult the saintly Hosius, the great champion
of orthodoxy in the West. The two together set out for the Council of Sardica
which had been summoned in deference to the Roman pontiff's wishes. At this great
gathering of prelates the case of Athanasius was taken up once more; and once
more was his innocence reaffirmed. Two conciliar letters were prepared, one to
the clergy and faithful of Alexandria, and the other to the bishops of Egypt
and Libya, in which the will
of the Council was made known. The persecution against the orthodox party broke
out with renewed vigour, and Constantius was induced to prepare drastic measures
against Athanasius and the priests who were devoted to him. Athanasius withdrew
from Sardica to Naissus in Mysia.
After that he set out for Aquileia
in obedience to a friendly summons from Constans, to whom Italy had fallen in
the division of the empire that followed on the death of Constantine.
Meanwhile an unexpected event had taken place. Gregory of Cappadocia
had died (probably of violence) in June, 345. The embassy which had been sent
by the bishops of Sardica to the Emperor Constantius, and which had at first met
with the most insulting treatment, now received a favourable hearing. Constantius
was induced to reconsider his decision, and he made up his mind to yield. But
three separate letters were needed to overcome the natural hesitation of Athanasius.
He passed rapidly from Aquileia
to Adrianople and Antioch,
where he met Constantius. He was sent back to his see in triumph, where he began
his memorable ten years' reign, which lasted down to the third exile, that of
356. These were full years in the life of the Bishop; but the intrigues of the
Eusebian party were soon renewed. Pope Julius had died in April, 352, and Liberius
had succeeded him as Sovereign Pontiff. For two years Liberius had been favourable
to the cause of Athanasius; but driven at last into exile, he was induced to sign
an ambiguous formula, from which the great Nicene test, the homoousion, had been
studiously omitted.
In 355 a council was held at Milan,
where in spite of the vigorous opposition of a handful of loyal prelates among
the Western bishops, a fourth condemnation of Athanasius was announced to the
world. On the night of 8 February, 356, while engaged in services in the Church
of St. Thomas, a band of armed men burst in to secure his arrest. It was the beginning
of his third exile. Through the influence of the Eusebian faction at Constantinople,
an Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia,
was now appointed to rule the see of Alexandria. Athanasius withdrew into the
deserts of upper Egypt, where
he remained for a period of six years, living the life of the monks and devoting
himself in his enforced leisure to the composition of that group of writings of
which we have the rest in the “Apology to Constantius”, the “Apology
for his Flight”, the “Letter to the Monks”, and the “History
of the Arians”. But by the close of the year 360 a charge was apparent in
the complexion of the anti-Nicene party. The Arians no longer presented an unbroken
front to their orthodox opponents. The Emperor Constantius, who had been the cause
of so much trouble, died 4 November, 361, and was succeeded by Julian. The proclamation
of the new prince's accession was the signal for a pagan outbreak against the
still dominant Arian faction in Alexandria. An edict had been put forth by Julian
permitting the exiled bishops of the “Galileans” to return to their
“towns and provinces”. Athanasius received a summons from his own
flock, and he accordingly re-entered his episcopal capital 22 February, 362.
With characteristic energy he set to work to re-establish the somewhat
shattered fortunes of the orthodox party and to purge the theological atmosphere
of uncertainty. To clear up the misunderstandings that had arisen in the course
of the previous years, an attempt was made to determine still further the significance
of the Nicene formularies. In the meanwhile, Julian, who seems to have become
suddenly jealous of the influence that Athanasius was exercising at Alexandria,
addressed an order to the Prefect of Egypt,
peremptorily commanding the expulsion of the restored primate, on the ground that
he had never been included in the imperial act of clemency. On 23 October the
people gathered about the proscribed bishop to protest against the emperor's decree;
but the saint urged them to submit, consoling them with the promise that his absence
would be of short duration. The prophecy was curiously fulfilled. Julian terminated
his brief career 26 June, 363; and Athanasius returned in secret to Alexandria,
where he soon received a document from the new emperor, Jovian, reinstating him
once more in his episcopal functions. His first act was to convene a council which
reaffirmed the terms of the Nicene Creed.
Early in September he set out for Antioch,
bearing a synodal letter, in which the pronouncements of this council had been
embodied. At Antioch he had
an interview with the new emperor, who received him graciously and even asked
him to prepare an exposition of the orthodox faith. But in the following February
Jovian died; and in October, 364, Athanasius was once more an exile. The accession
of the emperor gave a fresh lease of life to the Arian party. He issued a decree
banishing the bishops who had been deposed by Constantius, but who had been permitted
by Jovian to return to their sees. The news created the greatest consternation
in the city of Alexandria itself, and the prefect, in order to prevent a serious
outbreak, gave public assurance that the very special case of Athanasius would
be laid before the emperor. But the saint seems to have divined what was preparing
in secret against him. He quietly withdrew from Alexandria, 5 October, and took
up his abode in a country house outside the city. Valens, who seems to have sincerely
dreaded the possible consequences of a popular outbreak, gave order within a very
few weeks for the return of Athanasius to his see. He spent his remaining days,
characteristically enough, in reemphasizing the view of the Incarnation which
had been defined at Nicaea
and which has been substantially the faith of the Christian Church.
By one of those inexplicable ironies that meet us everywhere in human
history, this man, who had endured exile so often, and risked life itself in defence
of what he believed to be the first and most essential truth of the Catholic creed,
died not by violence or in hiding, but peacefully in his own bed, surrounded by
his clergy and mourned by the faithful of the see he had served so well.
Cornelius Clifford, ed.
Transcribed by: David Joyce
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Athanasius, (Athanasios). A Christian bishop of the fourth century. He was a native of
Egypt, and a deacon of the Church of Alexandria under Alexander the Bishop, whom
he succeeded in his dignity A.D. 326. Previous to his obtaining this high office
he had been private secretary to Alexander, and had also led for some time an
ascetic life with the renowned St. Anthony. Alexander had also taken him to the
council at Nice, where he gained the highest esteem of the fathers by the talent
which he displayed in the Arian controversy. He had a great share in the decrees
passed here, and thereby drew on himself the hatred of the Arians. On his advancement
to the prelacy he dedicated all his time and talents to the doctrine of the Trinity,
and resolutely refused the request of Constantine for the restoration of Arius
to the Catholic communion. In revenge for this refusal, the Arian party brought
several accusations against him before the emperor. Of these he was acquitted
in the first instance; but, on a new charge of having detained ships at Alexandria,
laden with corn for Constantinople, either from conviction or policy, he was found
guilty and banished to Gaul. Here he remained in exile eighteen months, or, as
some accounts say, upwards of two years, his see in the meantime being unoccupied.
On the death of Constantine he was recalled, and restored to
his functions by Constantius; but the Arian party made new complaints against
him, and he was condemned by 90 Arian bishops assembled at Antioch. On the opposite
side, 100 orthodox bishops, assembled at Alexandria, declared him innocent; and
Pope Iulius confirmed this finding, in conjunction with more than 300 bishops
assembled at Sardis from the East and West. In consequence of this, he returned
a second time to his diocese. But when Constans, emperor of the West, died, and
Constantius became master of the whole Empire, the Arians again ventured to rise
up against Athanasius. They condemned him in the councils of Arles and Milan,
and, as the worthy patriarch refused to listen to anything but an express command
of the emperor, when he was one day preparing to celebrate a festival in the church,
a body of soldiers suddenly rushed in to make him prisoner. The surrounding priests
and monks, however, placed him in security. Athanasius, displaced for a third
time, fled into the deserts of Egypt. His enemies pursued him even here, and set
a price on his head. To relieve the hermits, who dwelt in these solitary places
and who would not betray his retreat, from suffering on his account, he went into
those parts of the desert which were entirely uninhabited. He was followed by
a faithful servant, who, at the risk of his life, supplied him with the means
of subsistence. In this undisturbed spot Athanasius composed many writings, full
of eloquence, to strengthen the faith of the believers or expose the falsehoods
of his enemies. When Julian the Apostate ascended the throne, he allowed the orthodox
bishops to return to their churches. Athanasius, therefore, returned after an
absence of six years. The mildness which he exercised towards his enemies was
imitated in Gaul, Spain, Italy, and Greece, and restored peace to the Church.
But this peace was interrupted by the complaints of the heathen, whose temples
the zeal of Athanasius kept always empty. They excited the emperor against him,
and he was obliged to fly to the Thebais to save his life. The death of the emperor
and the accession of Jovian again brought him back; but on Valens becoming emperor
eight months after, and the Arians recovering their superiority, he was once more
compelled to fly. He concealed himself in the tomb of his father, where he remained
four months, until Valens, moved by the pressing entreaties and threats of the
Alexandrians, allowed him to return. From this period he remained undisturbed
in his office until he died, in A.D. 373.
Of the forty-six years of his official life, he spent twenty
in banishment, and the greater part of the remainder in defending the Nicene Creed.
Athanasius is one of the greatest men of which the Church can boast. His deep
mind, his noble heart, his invincible courage, his living faith, his unbounded
benevolence, sincere humility, lofty eloquence, and strictly virtuous life, gained
the honour and love of all. His writings are on polemical, historical, and moral
subjects. The polemical treat chiefly of the doctrines of the Trinity, the incarnation
of Christ, and the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The historical ones are of the
greatest importance for the history of the Church. In all his writings the style
is distinguished, considering the age in which they were produced, for clearness
and moderation. His apology, addressed to the emperor Constantine, is a masterpiece.
The creed which bears his name is now generally allowed not to have been his.
It was first printed in Greek in 1540, and several times afterwards to 1671. It
has been questioned whether this creed was ever received by the Greek and Oriental
Churches.
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
St. Athanasius (Athanasios), archbishop of Alexandria, was born in that city,
a few years before the close of the third century. The date of his birth cannot
be ascertained with exactness; but it is assigned by Montfaucon, on grounds sufficiently
probable, to A. D. 296. No particulars are recorded of the lineage or the parents
of Athanasius. The dawn of his character and genius seems to have given fair promise
of his subsequent eminence; for Alexander, then primate of Egypt, brought him
up in his own family, and superintended his education with the view of dedicating
him to the Christian ministry. We have no account of the studies pursued by Athanasius
in his youth, except the vague statement of Gregory Nazianzen, that he devoted
comparatively little attention to general literature, but acquired an extraordinary
knowledge of the Scriptures. His early proficiency in Biblical knowledge is credible
enough; but though he was much inferior in general learning to such men as Clemens
Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius, his Oration against the Greeks, itself a juvenile
performance, evinces no contemptible acquaintance with the literature of heathen
mythology. While a young man, Athanasius frequently visited the celebrated hermit
St. Antony, of whom he eventually became the biographer; and this early acquaintance
laid the foundation of a friendship which was interrupted only by the death of
the aged recluse. At what age Athanasius was ordained a deacon is nowhere stated;
but he was young both in years and in office when he vigorously supported Alexander
in maintaining the orthodox faith against the earliest assaults of the Arians.
He was still only a deacon when appointed a member of the famous council of Nice
(A. D. 325), in which he distinguished himself as an able opponent of the Arian
doctrine, and assisted in drawing up the creed that takes its name from that assembly.
In the following year Alexander died; and Athanasius, whom he had
strongly recommended as his successor, was raised to the vacant see of Alexandria,
the voice of the people as well as the suffrages of the ecclesiastics being decisively
in his favour. The manner in which he discharged the duties of his new office
was highly exemplary; but he had not long enjoyed his elevation, before he encountered
the commencement of that long series of trials which darkened the eventful remainder
of his life. About the year 331, Arius, who had been banished by Constantine after
the condemnation of his doctrine by the council of Nice, made a professed submission
to the Catholic faith, which satisfied the emperor; and shortly after, Athanasius
received an imperial order to admit the heresiarch once more into the church of
Alexandria. The archbishop had the courage to disobey, and justified his conduct
in a letter which seems, at the time, to have been satisfactory to Constantine.
Soon after this, complaints were lodged against Athanasius by certain enemies
of his, belonging to the obscure sect of the Meletians. One of the charges involved
nothing short of high treason. Others related to acts of sacrilege alleged to
have been committed in a church where a priest named Ischyras or Ischyrion officiated.
It was averred that Macarius, a priest acting under the orders of Athanasius,
had forcibly entered this church while Ischyras was performing divine service,
had broken one of the consecrated chalices, overturned the communion-table, burned
the sacred books, demolished the pulpit, and razed the edifice to its foundations.
Athanasius made his defence before the emperor in person, and was honourably acquitted.
With regard to the pretended acts of sacrilege, it was proved that Ischyras had
never received regular orders; that, in consequence of his unduly assuming the
priestly office, Athanasius in one of his episcopal visitations had sent Macarius
and another ecclesiastic to inquire into the matter; that these had found Ischyras
ill in bed, and had contented themselves with advising his father to dissuade
him from all such irregularities for the future. Ischyras himself afterwards confessed
with tears the groundlessness of the charges preferred against Macarius; and gave
Athanasius a written disavowal of them, signed by six priests and seven deacons.
Notwithstanding these proofs of the primate's innocence, his enemies renewed their
attack in an aggravated form; accusing Athanasius himself of the acts previously
imputed to Macarius, and charging him moreover with the murder of Arsenius, bishop
of Hypselis in Upper Egypt. To give colour to this latter accusation Arsenius
absconded, and lay concealed for a considerable time. The emperor before whom
the charges were laid, already knew that those relating to Ischyras were utterly
unfounded. He referred it to his brother Dalmatius, the Censor, to inquire into
the alleged murder of Arsenius. Dalmatius wrote to Athanasius, commanding him
to prepare his defence. The primate was at first inclined to leave so monstrous
a calumny to its own fate; but finding that the anger of the emperor had been
excited against him, he instituted an active search after Arsenius, and in the
end learned that he had been discovered and identified at Tyre. The Arians meanwhile
had urged the convention of a council at Caesareia, for the purpose of inquiring
into the crimes imputed to Athanasius. But he, unwilling to trust his cause to
such a tribunal, sent to the emperor a full account of the exposure of the pretended
homicide. On this, Constantine ordered Dalmatius to stay all proceedings against
Athanasius, and commanded the Arian bishops, instead of holding their intended
synod at Caesareia, to return home.
Undeterred by this failure, the enemies of Athanasius, two years after,
prevailed upon Constantine to summon a council at Tyre, in which they repeated
the old accusations concerning Ischyras and Arsenius, and urged new matter of
crimination. The pretended sacrilege in the church of Ischyras was disproved by
the bishops who were present from Egypt. The murder of Arsenius was satisfactorily
disposed of by producing the man himself alive and well, in the midst of the council.
The adversaries of the primate succeeded, however, in appointing a commission
to visit Egypt and take cognizance of the matters laid to his charge. The proceedings
of this commission are described by Athanasius as having been in the highest degree
corrupt, iniquitous, and disorderly. On the return of the commissioners to Tyre,
whence Athanasius had meanwhile withdrawn, the council deposed him from his office,
interdicted him from visiting Alexandria, and sent copies of his sentence to all
the bishops in the Christian world, forbidding them to receive him into their
communion. On a calm review of all the proceedings in this case, it seems impossible
to doubt that the condemnation of Athanasius was flagrantly unjust, and was entirely
provoked by his uncompromising opposition to the tenets of the Arians, who had
secured a majority in the council. Undismayed by the triumph of his enemies, the
deposed archbishop returned to Tyre, and presenting himself before Constantine
as he was entering the city, entreated the emperor to do him justice. His prayer
was so far granted as that his accusers were summoned to confront him in the imperial
presence. On this, they abandoned their previous grounds of attack, and accused
him of having threatened to prevent the exportation of corn from Alexandria to
Constantinople. It would seem that the emperor was peculiarly sensitive on this
point; for, notwithstanding the intrinsic improbability of the charge, and the
earnest denials of Athanasius, the good prelate was banished by Constantine to
Gaul. It is not unlikely that, when the heat of his indignation had subsided,
Constantine felt the sentence to be too rigorous; for he prohibited the filling
up of the vacant see, and declared that his motive in banishing the primate was
to remove him from the machinations of his enemies. Athanasius went to Treves
(A. D. 336), where he was not only received with kindness by Maximinus, the bishop
of that city, but loaded with favours by Constantine the Younger. The Alexandrians
petitioned the emperor to restore their spiritual father, and Antony the hermit
joined in the request; but the appeal was unsuccessful.
In the year 337, Constantine died. In the following year, Athanasius
was replaced in his see by Constantine II. He was received by the clergy and the
people with the liveliest demonstrations of joy. But he had scarcely resumed the
dignities and duties of his office, when the persevering hostility of his Arian
opponents began to disturb him afresh. They succeeded in prejudicing the mind
of Constantius against him, and in a council held at Antioch proceeded to the
length of appointing Pistus archbishop of Alexandria. To counteract their movements,
Athanasius convoked a council at Alexandria, in which a document was prepared
setting forth the wrongs committed by the adverse party, and vindicating the character
of the Egyptian primate. Both parties submitted their statements to Julius, the
bishop of Rome, who signified his intention of bringing them together, in order
that the case might be thoroughly investigated. To this proposition Athanasius
assented. The Arians refused to comply. In the year 340, Constantine the Younger
was slain; and in him Athanasius seems to have lost a powerful and zealous friend.
In the very next year, the Arian bishops convened a council at Antioch, in which
they condemned Athanasius for resuming his office while the sentence of deposition
pronounced by the council of Tyre was still unrepealed. They accused him of disorderly
and violent proceedings on his return to Alexandria, and even revived the old
exploded stories about the broken chalice and the murder of Arsenius. They concluded
by appointing Eusebius Emisenus to the archbishopric of Alexandria; and when he
declined the dubious honour, Gregory of Cappadocia was advanced in his stead.
The new primate entered on his office (A. D. 341) amidst scenes of atrocious violence.
The Christian population of Alexandria were loud in their complaints against the
removal of Athanasius; and Philagrius the prefect of Egypt, who had been sent
with Gregory to establish him in his new office, let loose against them a crowd
of ferocious assailants, who committed the most frightful excesses. Athanasius
fled to Rome, and addressed to the bishops of every Christian church an energetic
epistle, in which he details the cruel injuries inflicted upon himself and his
people, and entreats the aid of all his brethren. At Rome he was honourably received
by Julius, who despatched messengers to the ecclesiastical opponents of Athanasius,
summoning them to a council to be held in the imperial city. Apparently in dread
of exposure and condemnation, they refused to comply with the summons. When the
council met (A. D. 342), Athanasius was heard in his own vindication, and honourably
restored to the communion of the church. A synodical letter was addressed by the
council to the Arian clergy, severely reproving them for their disobedience to
the summons of Julius and their unrighteous conduct to the church of Alexandria.
In the year 347, a council was held at Sardica, at which the Arians
at first designed to attend. They insisted, however, that Athanasius and all whom
they had condemned should be excluded. As it was the great object of this council
to decide upon the merits of that very case, the proposition was of course resisted,
and the Arians left the assembly. The council, after due investigation, affirmed
the innocence of those whom the Arians had deposed, restored them to their offices,
and condemned their adversaries. Synodical epistles, exhibiting the decrees of
the council, were duly prepared and issued. Delegates were sent to the emperor
Constantius at Antioch, to notify the decision of the council of Sardica; and
they were also entrusted with a letter from Constans to his brother, in which
the cause of the orthodox clergy was strongly recommended. At Antioch an infamous
plot was laid to blast the reputation of the delegates. Its detection seems to
have wrought powerfully upon the mind of Constantius, who had previously supported
the Arians; for he recalled those of the orthodox whom he had banished, and sent
letters to Alexandria forbidding any further molestation to be offered to the
friends of Athanasius.
In the following year (A. D. 349), Gregory was murdered at Alexandria;
but of the occasion and manner of his death no particulars have reached us. It
prepared the way for the return of Athanasius. He was urged to this by Constantius
himself, whom he visited on his way to Alexandria, and on whom he made, for the
time, a very favourable impression. He was once more received at Alexandria with
overflowing signs of gladness and affection. Restored to his see, he immediately
proceeded against the Arians with great vigour, and they, on their side, renewed
against him the charges which had been so often disproved. Constans, the friend
of Athanasius, was now dead; and though Constantius, at this juncture, professed
great friendliness for the primate, he soon attached himself once more to the
Arian party. In a council held at Arles (A. D. 353), and another at Milan (A.
D. 355), they succeeded by great exertions in procuring [p. 396] the condemnation
of Athanasius. On the latter occasion, the whole weight of the imperial authority
was thrown into the scale against him; and those of the bishops who resolutely
vindicated his cause were punished with exile. Among these (though his banishment
occurred some time after the synod of Milan had closed) was Liberius, bishop of
Rome. Persecution was widely directed against those who sided with Athanasius;
and he himself, after some abortive attempts to remove him in a more quiet manner,
was obliged once more to flee from Alexandria in the midst of dreadful atrocities
committed by Syrianus, a creature of the emperor's. The primate retired to the
Egyptian deserts, whence he wrote a pastoral address to his persecuted flock,
to comfort and strengthen them amidst their trials. His enemies meanwhile had
appointed to the vacant primacy one George of Cappadocia, an illiterate man, whose
moral character was far from blameless. The new archbishop commenced a ruthless
persecution against the orthodox, which seems to have continued, with greater
or less severity, during the whole of his ecclesiastical administration. The banished
primate was affectionately entertained in the monastic retreats which had already
begun to multiply in the deserts of Egypt; and he employed his leisure in composing
some of his principal works. His place of retreat was diligently sought for by
his enemies; but, through his own activity and the unswerving fidelity of his
friends, the monks, the search was always unsuccessful. In the year 361, Constantius,
the great patron of the Arians, expired. He was succeeded by Julian, commonly
called the Apostate, who, at the commencement of his reign, ordered the restoration
of the bishops banished by Constantius. This was rendered the easier in the case
of Athanasius, inasmuch as George the Cappadocian was slain, at that very juncture,
in a tumult raised by the heathen population of the city. Once more reinstated
in his office, amidst the joyful acclamations of his friends, Athanasius behaved
with lenity towards his humbled opponents, while he vigorously addressed himself
to the restoration of ecclesiastical order and sound doctrine. But, after all
his reverses, he was again to be driven from his charge, and again to return to
it in triumph. The heathens of Alexandria complained against him to the emperor,
for no other reason, it would seem, than his successful zeal in extending the
Christian faith. Julian was probably aware that the superstition he was bent upon
re-establishing had no enemy more formidable than the thrice-exiled archbishop:
he therefore banished him not only from Alexandria, but from Egypt itself, threatening
the prefect of that country with a heavy fine if the sentence were not carried
into execution. Theodoret, indeed, affirms, that Julian gave secret orders for
inflicting the last penalties of the law upon the hated prelate. He escaped, however,
to the desert (A. D. 362), having predicted that this calamity would be but of
brief duration; and after a few months' concealment in the monasteries, he returned
to Alexandria on receiving intelligence of the death of Julian.
By Jovian, who succeeded to the throne of the empire, Athanasius was
held in high esteem. When, therefore, his inveterate enemies endeavoured to persuade
the emperor to depose him, they were repeatedly repulsed, and that with no little
asperity. The speedy demise of Jovian again deprived Athanasius of a powerful
protector. During the first three years of the administration of Valens, the orthodox
party seem to have been exempt from annoyance. In this interval Athanasius wrote
the life of St. Antony, and two treatises on the doctrine of the Trinity. In the
year 367, Valens issued an edict for the deposition and banishment of all those
bishops who had returned to their sees at the death of Constantius. After a delay
occasioned by the importunate prayers of the people on behalf of their beloved
teacher, Athanasius was for the fifth time expelled from Alexandria. His last
exile, however, was short. In the space of a few months, he was recalled by Valens
himself, for reasons which it is now impossible to penetrate; and from this time
to the date of his death, A. D. 373, he seems to have remained unmolested. He
continued to discharge the laborious duties of his office with unabated energy
to the last; and after holding the primacy for a term of forty-six years, during
which he sustained unexampled reverses with heroic fortitude, and prosecuted the
great purpose of his life with singular sagacity and resolution, he died without
a blemish upon his name, full of years and covered with honour.
The following eulogium was extorted by his merits from the pen of
an historian who seldom lavishes praise upon ancient or modern defenders of orthodoxy
: "Amidst the storms of persecution, the Archbishop of Alexandria was patient
of labour, jealous of fame, careless of safety; and though his mind was tainted
by the contagion of fanaticism, Athanasius displayed a superiority of character
and abilities, which would have qualified him, far better than the degenerate
sons of Constantine, for the government of a great monarchy. His learning was
much less profound and extensive than that of Eusebius of Caesarea, and his rude
eloquence could not be compared with the polished oratory of Gregory or Basil;
but whenever the primate of Egypt was called upon to justify his sentiments or
his conduct, his unpremeditated style, either of speaking or writing, was clear,
forcible, and persuasive". Erasmus's opinion of the style of Athanasius seems
to us more just and discriminating than Gibbon's : "Erat vir ille saeculo tranquillissimo
dignus, dedisset nobis egregios ingenii facundiaeque suae fructus. Habebat enim
vere dotem illam, quam Paulus in Episcopo putat esse prae-cipuaimi, to didaktikon;
adeo dilucidus est, acutus, sobrius, adtentus, breviter omnibus modis ad docendum
appositus. Nihil habet durumn, quod offendit in Tertulliano: nihil epideiktikon,
quod vidimus in Hieronymo; nihil operosum, quod in Hilario: nihil laciniosum,
quod est in Augustino, atque etiam Chrysostomo: nihil Isocraticos numeros, aut
Lysiae compositionem redolens, quod est in Gregorio Nazianzeno: sed totus est
in explicanda re".
The most important among the works of Athanasius are the following:
Oratio contra Gentes, Oratio de Incarnatione, Encyclica ad Episcopos Epistola,
Apologia contra Arianos, Epistola de Nicaenis Decretis, Epistola ad Episcopos
Aegypti et Libyae, Apologia ad Imperatorem Constantium, Apologia de Fuga sua,
Historia Arianorum ad Monachos, Orationes quatuor contra Arianos, Epistolae quatuor
ad Serapionem, Epistola de Synodis Arimini et Seleuciae, Vita Antonii, Liber de
Incarnatione Dei Verbi et c. Arianos.
The earliest edition of the collected works of Athanasius appeared
at Heidelberg, A. D. 1600. The Greek text was accompanied by the Latin version
of Peter Nanning (Nannius); and in the following year an appendix issued from
the same press, containing notes, various readings, indices, &c., by Peter Felckmann.
Those who purchase this edition should take care that their copies contain the
appendix. The Paris edition of 1627, and the Leipzig of 1686 (which professes,
but untruly, to have been published at Cologne), are not held in much estimation;
and the latter is very inaccurately printed. The valuable Benedictine edition
of Athanasius was published at Paris, A. D. 1698. The learned editor, Montfaucon,
was at first assisted in preparing it by James Loppinus; but his coadjutor dying
when no more than half of the first volume was finished, the honour of completing
the edition devolved upon Montfaucon. Many of the opuscula of Athanasius were
printed, for the first time, in the second volume of Montfaucon's " Collectio
Nova Patrum et Scriptorum Graecorum," Paris, A. D. 1706. The most complete edition
of the works of Athanasius is that published at Padua, A. D. 1777.
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
Works by St. Athanasius:
Against the Heathen
On the Incarnation of the Word
Deposition of Arius
Council of Nicaea/Letter of Eusebius
On Luke 10:22 (Matthew 11:27)
Circular Letter
Apologia Contra Arianos
De Decretis
De Sententia Dionysii
Vita S. Antoni (Life of St. Anthony) Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae
Apologia ad Constantium
Apologia de Fuga
Historia Arianorum
Four Discourses Against the Arians
De Synodis
Tomus ad Antiochenos
Ad Afros Epistola Synodica
Historia Acephala
Letters
St. Alexander. Patriarch of Alexandria, date of birth uncertain; died 17 April, 326.
He is, apart from his own greatness, prominent by the fact that his
appointment to the patriarchial see excluded the heresiarch Arius from that post.
When Achillas died Alexander was elected, and after that Arius threw off all disguise.
Alexander was particularly obnoxious to him, although so tolerant at first of
the errors of Arius that the clergy nearly revolted. Finally the heresy was condemned
in a council held in Alexandria, and later on, as is well known, in the general
Council of Nicaea, whose
Acts Alexander is credited with having drawn up.
An additional merit of this great man is that during his priesthood
he passed through the bloody persecutions of Galerius, Maximinus, and others.
It is worth recording that the great Athanasius succeeded Alexander, the dying
pontiff compelling the future doctor of the Church to accept the post. Alexander
is described as “a man held in the highest honour by the people and clergy,
magnificent, liberal, eloquent, just, a lover of God and man, devoted to the poor,
good and sweet to all, so mortified that he never broke his fast while the sun
was in the heavens.” His feast is kept on 17 April.
T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Alexander (Alexandros), (ST.,) of Alexandria, succeeded as patriarch of that city St. Achillas, (as his predecessor, St. Peter, had predicted, Martyr. S. Petr) A. D. 312. He, "the noble Champion of Apostolic Doctrine", (Theodt. Hist. Eccl. i. 2) first laid bate the irreligion of Arius, and condemned him in his dispute with Alexander Baucalis. St. Alexander was at the Oecumenical Council of Nicaea, A. D. 325, with his deacon, St. Athanasius, and, scarcely five months after, died, April 17th, A. D. 326. St. Epiphanius says he wrote some seventy circular epistles against Arius and Socrates and Sozomen, that he collected them into one volume. Two epistles remain; 1. to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, written after the Council at Alexandria which condemned Arius, and before the other circular letters to the various bishops. 2. The Encyclic letter announcing Arius's deposition with the subscriptions from Gelasius Cyzicen. There remains, too, The Deposition of Arius and his, i. e. an Address to the Priests and Deacons, desiring their concurrence therein. Two fragments more, apud Galland. St. Athanasius also gives the second epistle.
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
Doctor of the Church. St. Cyril has his feast in the Western Church
on the 28th of January; in the Greek Menaea it is found on the 9th of June, and
on the 18th of January.
He seems to have been of an Alexandrian family and was the son of
the brother of Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria; Theophilus died 15 Oct., 412,
and on the 18th Cyril was consecrated his uncle's successor.
He drove out of Alexandria the Jews, who had formed a flourishing
community there since Alexander the Great. For some years Cyril refused to insert
the name of St. Chrysostom in the diptychs of his Church, in spite of the requests
of Chrysostom's supplanter, Atticus. Later he seems to have yielded to the representations
of his spiritual father, Isidore of Pelusium.
For some time the strongest opponent of Cyril was Theodoret, but eventually he
approved a letter of Cyril to Acacius of Berhoea.
The great patriarch died on the 9th or the 27th of June, 444, after
an episcopate of nearly thirty-two years.
St. Cyril as a theologian
The principal fame of St. Cyril rests upon his defense of
Catholic doctrine against Nestorius. That heretic was undoubtedly confused and
uncertain. He wished to teach that Christ was a perfect man. The union of the
human and the Divine natures was therefore to Nestorius an unspeakably close junction,
but not a union in one hypostasis. St. Cyril taught the personal, or hypostatic,
union in the plainest terms; and when his writings are surveyed as a whole, it
becomes certain that he always held the view that the one Christ has two perfect
and distinct natures, Divine and human. But he would not admit two physeis in
Christ, because he took physis to imply not merely a nature but a subsistent (i.e.
personal) nature. His opponents misrepresented him as teaching that the Divine
person suffered in His human nature; and he was constantly accused of Apollinarianism.
On the other hand, after his death Monophysitism was founded upon a misinterpretation
of his teaching. Especially unfortunate was the formula “one nature incarnate
of God the Word” (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene), which he took
from a treatise on the Incarnation which he believed to be by his great predecessor
St. Athanasius. By this phrase he intended simply to emphasize against Nestorius
the unity of Christ's Person; but the words in fact expressed equally the single
Nature taught by Eutyches and by his own successor Diascurus. He brings out admirably
the necessity of the full doctrine of the humanity of God, to explain the scheme
of the redemption of man. He argues that the flesh of Christ is truly the flesh
of God, in that it is life-giving in the Holy Eucharist.
Cyril was a man of great courage and force of character. We can often
discern that his natural vehemence was repressed and schooled, and he listened
with humility to the severe admonitions of his master and advisor, St. Isidore.
As a theologian, he is one of the great writers and thinkers of early times. Yet
the troubles that arose out of the Council of Ephesus
were due to his impulsive action.
His writings
The exegetical works of St Cyril are very numerous. The seventeen
books “On Adoration in Spirit and in Truth” are an exposition of the
typical and spiritual nature of the Old Law. The Glaphyra or “brilliant”,
Commentaries on Pentateuch are of the same nature. Long explanations of Isaias
and of the minor Prophets give a mystical interpretation after the Alexandrian
manner. Only fragments are extant of other works on the Old Testament, as well
as of expositions of Matthew, Luke, and some of the Epistles, but of that of St.
Luke much is preserved in a Syriac version. Of St. Cyril's sermons and letters
the most interesting are those which concern the Nestorian controversy. Of a great
apologetic work in the twenty books against Julian the Apostate ten books remain.
Among his theological treatises we have two large works and one small one on the
Holy Trinity, and a number of treatises and tracts belonging to the Nestorian
controversy.
John Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Kenneth J. Pomeisl
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
St. Cyrus of Alexandria. A Melchite patriarch of that see in the seventh century, and one of the authors
of Monothelism; d. about 641. He had been since 620 Bishop of Phasis in Colchis
when the Emperor Heraclius, in the course of his Persian campaign (626), consulted
him about a plan for bringing the Monophysites of Egypt back to the Church and
to the support of the empire. The plan, suggested by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
consisted of confessing the faith of Chalcedon on the two natures of Christ, while
practically nullifying it by the admission of one theandric will and operation,
"Εν θέλημα και μία ενέργεια - En thelhma ke mia energeia". Cyrus hesitated
at first, but being assured by Sergius that this formula was opposed to neither
the Fathers nor Chalcedon and was destined to achieve great results, he became
a stanch supporter of it, and was, in return, raised by Heraclius to the then
vacant See of Alexandria (630). Once a patriarch, he set himself vigorously to
effect the desired union. In a synod held at Alexandria he proposed what is known
as the or "Satisfactio", an agreement in nine articles, the seventh of which is
a bold assertion of the Monothelite heresy. The Monophysites (Theodosians or Severians)
welcomed the agreement with, however, the remark that Chalcedon was coming to
them, not they to Chalcedon. The union thus effected was adroitly exploited, with
a view to win over Pope Honorius to Monothelism; otherwise it proved ineffective,
and soon fell into discredit under the name of "Ενωσις υδροβαφής", contemptuously
called the "washy union". Cyrus persevered none the less in his adhesion to the
compromise, and even accepted the Ecthesis, a new imperial formulary of the same
error (637). When Omar's general, Amru, threatened the Prefecture of Egypt, Cyrus
was made prefect and entrusted with the conduct of the war. Certain humiliating
stipulations, to which he subscribed for the sake of peace, angered his imperial
master. He was recalled and harshly accused of connivance with the Saracens; however,
he was soon restored to his former authority, owing to the impending siege of
Alexandria, but could not avert the fall of the great city (640) and died shortly
after.
From Cyrus we have three letters to Sergius and the "Satisfactio",
all preserved in the acts of the Roman Synod of the Lateran and of the Sixth ?cumenical
Council (Mansi, X, 1004; XI, 560, 562, 964). The first letter is an acceptation
of the Ecthesis; in the second Cyrus describes his perplexity between Pope Leo
and Sergius; the conversion of the Theodosians is narrated in the third. The seventh
article of the "Satisfactio" ? the others are irrelevant ? reads thus: "The one
and same Christ, the Son, performs the works proper to God and to man by one theandric
operation according to St. Dionysius". Cyrus' chief opponents, St. Sophronius,
d. in 637 (Epistola synodica, Mansi, XI, 480), and St. Maximus, d. in 662 (Epistola
ad Nicandrum; disputatio cum Pyrrho, P.G., XCI, 101, 345), reproached him for
falsifying the then much-respected text of Dionysius and substituting for (new).
They showed, moreover, the inanity of his claim to the support of the Fathers,
and explained how the Divine and human natures of Christ, sometimes styled one,
because they belong to the same person and work in perfect harmony, can no more
by physically identified than the natures from which they proceed. Historians
are not agreed as to how Cyrus came by this error. Some think that he was, from
the outset, a Monophysite at heart. Others, with more reason, hold that he was
led into error by Sergius and Heraclius. Cyrus was condemned as a heretic in the
Lateran Council of 649 (Denzinger, Enchiridion, 217, 219) and in 680 at the Third
Oecumenical Council of Constantinople (Denzinger, 238; Mansi, XI, 554).
(See MONOTHELITES .)
J.F. Sollier, ed.
Transcribed by: WGKofron
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Cyrus, an Egyptian bishop belonging to the seventh century. He was first bishop of Phasis A. D. 620, and afterwards patriarch of Alexandria, A. D. 630-640. It was owing to the favour of Heraclius, the emperor, that he was appointed over the latter place. In 633 he attempted to make peace between the Theodosians or Severians and the Catholics, and for that purpose held a synod at Alexandria, in which he proposed a Libellus Satisfactionis in nine chapters. This treatise was to be subscribed by the Theodosians, and then they were to be admitted into the bosom of the church. But the seventh chapter favoured the Monotholite heresy, and led to much disputation. In 638, Heraclius published an Ecthesis or formula of faith drawn up by Sergius, in which he clearly stated that there was but one will in Christ. This was subscribed by Cyrus, a circumstance that served to confirm its truth in the eyes of many. Cyrus died A. D. 640. Besides the Libellus Satisfactionis, he wrote three letters to Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, which are still extant.
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
Native of Amathus in Cyprus
Patriarch of Alexandria (385-412). Concerning the extraction and early
life of Theophilus we have but scanty information. He had a sister of similar
temperament and St. Cyril, his successor, was his nephew. Hydatius calls him a
“most learned man”. After his election to the Patriarchate of Alexandria
(385) he showed himself a man of great intellectual gifts and capacity, but also
extremely violent and unscrupulous in the choice of his means.
His name is connected with three important historical events: the
decay of paganism in Egypt, the Origenistic controversy, and the deposition and
banishment of St. John Chrysostom. About 390 Theophilus deprived the pagans of
Alexandria of a temple, probably with the consent of the Emperor Theodosius I,
and apparently destroyed several other temples. A riot ensued, and a number of
Christians were slain. With Theophilus at their head, the Christians retaliated
by destroying the celebrated temple of Serapis, on the ruins of which the patriarch
erected a church. He also erected a magnificent church at Canope.
In 391 or 392 Theophilus was requested by the Synod of Capua to exert
his influence to end the schism at Antioch.
However, he failed to establish peace. Until 399 Theophilus was regarded as a
friend of Origen and the Origenists. Many of the so-called Origenist monks were
among his best friends; some of them he appointed to ecclesiastical offices and
dignities.
Between 399 and 400 Theophilus suddenly altered his attitude; the
chief motive for the change seems to have been a personal quarrel with the archpresbyter
Isidore, well known as a friend of the Origenists. Isidore found protection with
his friends, the monks of Nitria, whereupon Theophilus turned against them also.
At the Synod of the Oak in 403 Theophilus concluded an equitable peace with the
persecuted monks, and on his return to Alexandria is said to have again received
the books of Origen.
That Theophilus may have been really very “broad-minded”,
is shown by the fact that he consecrated the philosopher Synesius bishop about
410, although the latter had not yet been baptized, and had stipulated that, as
bishop, he might retain his wife and adhere to his Platonic views (pre-existence
of soul, allegorical explanation of the Resurrection, etc.).
As a writer Theophilus did not attain much prominence. In addition
to his Easter letters,he wrote “one large volume against Origen” (Gennadius,
33), of which some fragments are preserved. The Canons ascribed to Theophilus
are in Pitra.
Chrys. Baur, ed.
Transcribed by: Herman F. Holbrook
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Patriarch of that see from 580 to 607.
He was a successful combatant of the heretical errors then current
in Egypt, notably the various
phases of Monophysitism. Eulogius refuted the Novatians, some communities of which
ancient sect still existed in his diocese, and vindicated the hypostatic union
of the two natures in Christ, against both Nestorius and Eutyches. Besides the
above works and a commentary against the various sects of the Monophysites (Severians,
Theodosians, Cainites, Acephali) he left eleven discourses in defence of Leo I
and the council of Chalcedon,
also a work against the Agnoetae, submitted by him before publication to Gregory
I, who after some observations authorized it unchanged. With exception of one
sermon and a few fragments all the writings of Eulogius have perished.
M.J. McNeal, ed.
Transcribed by: Gerald M. Knight
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Christophorus, (Christophoros), patriarch of Alexandria, about A. D. 836, wrote an exhortation
to asceticism under the title ti homoioutai ho Bios outos kai eis poion telos
katastrephei. There are citations from this work in Allatius, ad Eustath. Antioch.,
and Cotelerius, Monum. Msta. in Bibl. Caesar. There are MSS. of the work at Vienna,
Paris, Rome, Milan, and Oxford.
Marcus (Markos). Of Alexabdria, patriarch of Alexandria early in the thirteenth century, proposed certain questions for solution on various points of ecclesiastical law or practice. Sixty-four of these questions, with the answers of Theodorus Balsamon, are given in the Jus Orientale of Bonefidius, p. 237, &c. 8vo., Paris, 1573, and in the Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius, vol. i. pp. 362-394, fol. Frankfort, 1596. Some MSS. contain two questions and solutions more than the printed copies. Fabricius suggests that Mark of Alexandria is the Marcus cited in a MS. Catena in Matthaei Evangelium of Macarius Chrysocephalus, extant in the Bodleian library at Oxford. (Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 1203, vol. ii. p. 279, ed. Oxford, 1740-42.)
Basilides. The earliest of the Alexandrian Gnostics; he was a native of Alexandria
and flourished under the Emperors Adrian and Antoninus Pius, about 120-140. St.
Epiphanius's assertion that he was a disciple of Menander at Antioch and only
later moved to Alexandria is unlikely in face of the statement of Eusebius and
Theodoret that he was an Alexandrian by birth. Of his life we know nothing except
that he had a son called Isidore, who followed in his footsteps. The remark in
the Acts of Archelaus (lv) that Basilides was "a preacher amongst the Persians"
is almost certainly the result of some confusion. Basilides invented prophets
for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, and claimed to have received verbal instructions
from St. Matthias the Apostle and to be a disciple of Glaucias, a disciple of
St. Peter.
HIS SYSTEM
As practically nothing of Basilides' writing is extant and as we have
no contemporaneous Gnostic witnesses, we must gather the teaching of this patriarch
of Gnosticism from the following early sources: (a) St. Irenaeus, "Contra Haereses",
I, xxiv, written about 170; (b) Clement of Alexandria, "Stromata", I, xxi, II,
vi, viii, xx, IV, xi, xii, xxv, V, I, etc., written between 208-210, and the so-called
"Excerpta ex Theodoto" perhaps from the same hand; (c) Hippolytus of Rome, "Philosophumena",
VII, written about 225; (d) Pseudo-Tertullian, "Against All Heresies", a little
treatise usually attached to Tertullian's "De Praescriptionibus", but really by
another hand, perhaps by Victorinus of Pettau, written about 240 and based upon
a non-extant "Compendium" of Hippolytus; (e) Artistic remains of Gnosticism such
as Abrasax gems, and literary remains like the Pistis Sophia, the latter part
of which probably dates back to the end of the second century and, though not
strictly Basilidian, yet illustrates early Alexandrian Gnosticism. Later sources
are Epiphanius, "Adv. Haer.", xxiv, and Theodoret, "Haer. Fab. Comp.", I, iv.
Unfortunately, the descriptions of the Basilidian system given by our chief informants,
St. Irenaeus and Hippolytus, are so strongly divergent that they seem to many
quite irreconcilable. According to Irenaeus, Basilides was apparently a dualist
and an emanationist, and according to Hippolytus a pantheistic evolutionist.
Seen from the viewpoint of Irenaeus, Basilides taught that Nous (Mind)
was the first to be born from the Unborn Father; from Nous was born Logos (Reason);
from Logos, Phronesis (Prudence); from Phronesis, Sophia (Wisdom) and Dynamis
(Strength) and from Phronesis and Dynamis the Virtues, Principalities, and Archangels.
By these angelic hosts the highest heaven was made, by their descendants the second
heaven, and by the descendants again of these the third, and so on till they reached
the number 365. Hence the year has as many days as there are heavens. The angels,
who hold the last or visible heaven, brought about all things that are in the
world and shared amongst themselves the earth and the nations upon it. The highest
of these angels is the one who is thought to be the God of the Jews. And as he
wished to make the other nations subject to that which was especially his own,
the other angelic principalities withstood him to the utmost. Hence the aversion
of all other peoples for this race. The Unborn and Nameless Father seeing their
miserable plight, sent his First-born, Nous (and this is the one who is called
Christ) to deliver those who should believe in him from the power of the angelic
agencies who had built the world. And to men Christ seemed to be a man and to
have performed miracles. It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather
Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly
crucified in Christ's stead. Simon having received Jesus' form, Jesus assumed
Simon's and thus stood by and laughed at them. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned
to His Father. Through the Gnosis (Knowledge) of Christ the souls of men are saved,
but their bodies perish.
Out of Epiphanius and Pseudo-Tertullian we can complete the description
this: the highest god, i.e. the Unborn Father, bears the mystical name Abrasax,
as origin of the 365 heavens. The Angels that made the world formed it out of
Eternal Matter; but matter is the principle of all evil and hence both the contempt
of the Gnostics for it and their docetic Christology. To undergo martyrdom in
order to confess the Crucified is useless, for it is to die for Simon of Cyrene,
not for Christ.
Hippolytus sets forth the doctrine of Basilides as follows:
There was a time when nothing existed, neither matter nor form, nor
accident; neither the simple nor the compound, neither the unknowable nor the
invisible, neither man or angel nor god nor any of these things, which are called
by names or perceived by the mind or the senses. The Not-Being God (ouk on theos)
whom Aristotle calls Thought of thought (noesis tes noeseos), without consciousness,
without perception, without purpose, without aim, without passion, without desire,
had the will to create the world. I say "had the will" only by way of speaking,
because in reality he had neither will, nor ideas nor perceptions; and by the
word 'world' I do not mean this actual world, which is the outcome of extension
and division, but rather the Seed of the world. The seed of the world contained
in itself, as a mustard seed, all things which are eventually evolved, as the
roots, the branches, the leaves arise out of the seedcorn of the plant. Strange
to say this World-seed or All-seed (Panspermia) is still described as Not-Being.
It is a phrase of Basilides: "God is Not-Being, even He, who made the world out
of what was not; Not-Being made Not-Being."
Basilides distinctly rejected both emanation and the eternity of matter.
"What need is there", he said, "of emanation or why accept Hyle [Matter]; as if
God had created the world as the spider spins its thread or as mortal man fashions
metal or wood. God spoke and it was; this Moses expresses thus: 'Let there be
light and there was light'." This sentence has a Christian ring, but we must not
forget that to Basilides God was Absolute Negation. He cannot find words enough
to bring out the utter non-existence of God; God is not even "unspeakable" (arreton),
He simply is Not. Hence the popular designation of Oukontiani for people who always
spoke of Oukon, Not-Being. The difficulty lies in placing the actual transition
from Not-Being into Being. This was probably supposed to consist in the Sperma
or Seed, which in one respect was Not-Being, and in the other, the All-seed of
the manifold world. The Panspermia contained in itself a threefold Filiation,
Hyiotes: one composed of refined elements, Leptomeres, a second of grosser elements,
Pachymeres, and a third needing purification, Apokatharseos deomenon.
These three Filiations ultimately reach the Not-Being God, but each
reaches him in a different way. The first Filiation rose at once and flew with
the swiftness of thought to the Not-Being God. The second, remaining as yet in
the Panspermia, wished to imitate the first Filiation and rise upwards; but, being
too gross and heavy, it failed. Whereupon the second Filiation takes to itself
wings, which are the Holy Ghost, and with this aid almost reaches the Not-Being
God. But when it has come near, the Holy Ghost, of different substance from the
Second Filiation, can go no further, but conducts the Second Filiation near to
the First Filiation and leaves. Yet he does not return empty but, as a vessel
full of ointment, he retains the sweet odour of Filiation; and he becomes the
"Boundary Spirit" (Methorion Pneuma), between the Supermundane and the Mundane
where the third Filiation is still contained in the Panspermia. Now there arose
out of the Panspermia the Great Archon, or Ruler; he sped upwards until he reached
the firmament, and thinking there was nothing above and beyond, and not knowing
of the Third Filiation, still contained in the Panspermia, he fancied himself
Lord and Master of all things. He created to himself a Son out of the heap of
Panspermia; this was the Christ and being himself amazed at the beauty of his
Son, who was greater than his Father, he made him sit at his right hand; and with
him he created the ethereal heavens, which reach unto the Moon. The sphere where
the Great Archon rules, i.e. the higher heavens, the lower boundary of which is
the plane where the moon revolves, is called the Ogdoad.
The same process is repeated and we have a second Archon and his Son
and the sphere where they rule is the Hebdomad, beneath the Ogdoad. Lastly, the
third Filiation must be raised to the Not-Being God. This took place though the
Gospel. From Adam to Moses the Archon of the Ogdoad had reigned (Rom., v, 14);
in Moses and the Prophets the Archon of the Hebdomad had reigned, or God of the
Jews. Now in the third period the Gospel must reign. This Gospel was first made
known from the First Filiation through the Holy Ghost to the Son of the Archon
of the Ogdoad; the Son told his Father, who was astounded and trembled and acknowledged
his pride in thinking himself the Supreme Deity. The Son of the Archon of the
Ogdoad tells the Son of the Archon of the Hebdomad, and he again tells his father.
Thus both spheres, including the 365 heavens and their chief Archon, Abrasax,
know the truth. This knowledge is not conveyed through the Hebdomad to Jesus,
the Son of Mary, who through his life and death redeemed the third Filiation,
that is: what is material must return to the Chaos, what is psychic to the Hebdomad,
what is spiritual to the Not-Being God. When the third Filiation is thus redeemed,
the Supreme God pours out a blissful Ignorance over all that is and that shall
so remain forever. This is called "The Restoration of all things".
From Clement of Alexandria we get a few glimpses into the ethical
side of the system. Nominally, faith was made the beginning of the spiritual life;
it was not, however, a free submission of the intellect, but a mere natural gift
of understanding (Gnosis) bestowed upon the soul before its union with the body
and which some possessed and others did not. But if faith is only a natural quality
of some minds, what need of a Saviour, asks Clement, and Basilides would reply
that faith is a latent force which only manifests its energy through the coming
of the Saviour, as a ray of light will set naphtha on fire. Sin was not the results
of the abuse of free will but merely the outcome of an inborn evil principle.
All suffering is punishment for sin; even when a child suffers, this is the punishment
of its own sin, i.e. the latent evil principle within; that this indwelling principle
has had no opportunity to manifest itself, is immaterial. The persecutions Christians
underwent had therefore as sole object the punishment of their sin. All human
nature was thus vitiated by the sinful; when hard pressed Basilides would call
even Christ a sinful man, for God alone was righteous. Viewed in another way evil
was a sort of excrescence on the rational soul, the result of an original disturbance
and confusion. "Their whole system", says Clement, "is a confusion of the Panspermia
(All-seed) with the Phylokrinesis (Difference-in-kind) and the return of things
thus confused to their own places." St. Irenaeus and St. Epiphanius reproach Basilides
with the immorality of his system, and St. Jerome calls Basilides a master and
teacher of debaucheries. It is likely, however, that Basilides was personally
free from immorality and that this accusation was true neither of the master nor
of some of his followers. That Basilidianism, together with the other forms of
Gnosticism, eventually led to gross immorality, there can be no doubt. Clement
of Alexandria and St. Epiphanius have preserved for us a passage of the writings
of Basilides' son and successor, which counsels the free satisfaction of sensual
desires in order that the soul may find peace in prayer. And it is remarkable
that Justin the Martyr in his first Apology (xxvi), that is, as early as 150-155,
suggests to the Roman emperors that possibly the Gnostics are guilty of those
immoralities of which Christians are falsely accused. It is true that in this
passage he mentions only Simon, Menander, and Marcion by name; but the passage
is general in tone, and elsewhere Valentinus, Basilides, and Saturninus follow
in the list.
WRITINGS
Nearly all the writings of Basilides have perished, but the names of three of his works and some fragments have come down to us.
(a) A Gospel. Origin in his Homily on Luke, I, states that Basilides had dared to write a Gospel according to Basilides. St. Jerome and St. Ambrose adopt this state of Origen; and St. Jerome, in the Prologue of his Commentary on St. Matthew, again speaks of an "Evangelium Basilidis". In all likelihood this "Gospel" was compiled out of our canonical Gospels, the text being curtailed and altered to suit his Gnostic tenets, a diatessaron on Gnostic lines.
(b) A Gospel Commentary in twenty-four books. (Clement of Alexandria calls it "Exegetica"; the Acta Archelai et Manetis, "Tractatus".) Fragments of this Commentary have come down to us (in Stromata, IV, 12-81, sqq.; Acta Arch., lv; probably also in Origen, Commentary on Romans V, i).
(c) Hymns. Origen in a note on Job, xxi, 1 sqq., speaks of "Odes" of Basilides; and the so-called Muratorian Fragment, containing a list of canonical and non-canonical books (170 or thereabouts) ends with the words: "etiam novu psalmorum librum marcioni conscripserunt una cum Basilide assianum catafrycum constitutorem". This sentence, notwithstanding its obscurity, supports Origen's statement. For a collection of Basilidian fragments see Hilgenfeld, "Ketzergeschichte des Urchrist" (Leipzig, 1884), 207, 213.
SCHOOL
Basilides never formed a school of disciples, who modified or added
to the doctrines of their leader. Isidore, his son, is the only one who elaborated
his father's system, especially on the anthropological side. He wrote a work on
the "Psyche Prosphyes" or Appendage-Soul; another work, called "Ethics" by Clement
and "Paraenetics" by Epiphanius; and at least two books of "Commentaries on the
Prophet Parchor." Basilidianism survived until the end of the fourth century as
Epiphanius knew of Basilidians living in the Nile Delta. It was however almost
exclusively limited to Egypt, though according to Sulpicius Severus it seems to
have found an entrance into Spain through a certain Mark from Memphis. St. Jerome
states that the Priscillianists were infected with it. Of the customs of the Basilidians,
we know no more than that Basilides enjoined on his followers, like Pythagoras,
a silence of five years; that they kept the anniversary of the baptism of Jesus
as a feast day and spent the eve of it in reading; that their master told them
not to scruple eating things offered to idols; that they wore amulets with the
word Abrasax and symbolic figures engraved on them, and, amongst other things,
believed them to possess healing properties.
Although Basilides is mentioned by all the Fathers as one of the chiefs
of Gnosticism, the system of Valentinus seems to have been much more popular and
wider spread, as was also Marcionism. Hence, though anti-Gnostic literature is
abundant, we know of only one patristic work, which had for its express purpose
the refutation of Basilides, and this work is no longer extant. Eusebius (Hist.
Eccl., IV, vii, 6-8) says: "There has come down to us a most powerful refutation
of Basilides by Agrippa Castor, one of the most renowned writers of that day,
which shows the terrible imposture of the man." With the exception of a few phrases
given by Eusebius we know nothing of this Agrippa and his work.
J.P.Arendzen, ed.
Transcribed by: Susan Birkenseer
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Isidorus (Isidoros). A son of BASILIDES, the Gnostic heretic, wrote a work, peri prosphuous psuches, which only exists in MS. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. x. p. 495.)
Bishop of Alexandria; date of birth unknown; d. at Gangra, in Asia
Minor, 11 Sept., 454. He had been archdeacon under St. Cyril, whom he succeeded
in 444. Soon afterward Theodoret, who had been on good terms with Cyril since
433, wrote him a polite letter, in which he speaks of the report of Dioscurus's
virtues and his modesty. In such a letter no contrary report would be mentioned,
and we cannot infer much from these vague expressions. The peace establish between
John of Antioch and Cyril seems to have continued between their successors until
448, when Domnus, the successor and nephew of John, had to judge the case of Ibas,
Bishop of Edessa, who was accused of heresy and many crimes by the Cyrillian party.
Domnus awcquited Ibas. The Cyrillian monks of Osrhoene were furious and betook
themselves to Dioscurus as their natural protector. Dioscurus wrote to Domnus,
complaining that he championed the Nestorian Ibas and Theodoret. Domnus and Theodoret
both replied defending themselves, and showing their perfect orthodoxy. The accusers
of Ibas went to the court at Constantinople, where the feeble Theodorius II was
only too ready to mix in ecclesiastical quarrels. From him the Cyrillians obtain
a decree against the Nestorians, in particular against Irenaeus, who had befriended
the Nestorians at the Council iof Ephesus, where he was in authority as imperial
representative; he was now deposed from the Bishopric of Tyre which he had obtained.
Tyheodoret was forbidden to leave his Diocese of Cyrrus. In September a new Bishop
of Tyre was appointed, and the Patriarch Domnus, feeling that Dioscurus was about
to triumph, wrote to Flavian of Constantinople in order to get his support. Alexandria
had of old been the first see of the East and was now only surpassed in power
by the imperial city. The Egyptian patriarch had vast civil and political influence,
as well as an almost autocratic sway over a hundred bishops and a great army of
monks, who were heart and soul devoted to the memory of Cyril, and rather fervent
than discriminating in their orthodoxy. Constantinople had been granted the next
dignity after Rome by the great Council of 381, and the humiliation of Alexandria
had embittered the long standing rivalry between the two sees. Antioch had always
tended to support Constantinople, and Domnus was now ready to grant precedence
to Flavian. Dioscurus, he said, had already complained that he, Domnus, was betraying
the rights of Antioch and Alexandria in admitting the canon of 381, which had
never been accepted by Alexandria or Rome. But Flavian was not a helpful ally,
for he had neglected to obtain the favour of the eunich Chrysaphiuus, who was
all powerful at court. An unforseen incident was now to set the world in a blaze.
At a council held by Flavian in November of the same year, 448, Eusebius of Dorylaeum
accused the Archimandrite Eusebius of teaching of one nature only in Christ. He
was treated with all consideration, but his obstinacy made it unavoidable that
he should be deposed and excommunicated. Now Eutyches was godfather to Chrysaphius,
and "one nature" was precisely the unfortunate expression of St. Cyril, which
his followers were already interpreting in a heretical sense. Eutyches at once
therefore became the martyr of Cyrillianism; and though he was not a writer nor
a theologian, he has given his name to Monophysite heresy, into which the whole
Cyrillian party now plunged once for all.
The Cyrillians were further incensed by the failure of their second
attempt to convict Ibas. They had procured an order from the emperor, 25 Oct.,
448, for a fresh trial. The bishops who met for this purpose at Tyre in Feb.,
449, were obliged by the violence of the Eastern monks to transfer some of their
sittings to Berytus. At the end of the month Ibas was exculpated, though the emperor
was known to be against him. Dioscurus and his party replied by an unexpected
stroke; in March they induced the emperor to issue an invitation to all the greater
bishops to attend with their suffragans a general council to be held at Ephesus
in August. It was indeed not unreasonable to desire some permanent settlement
of the intermittent war, and the pope, St. Leo I, warmly accepted the emperor's
proposition, or rather order. Eutyches had written to him, pretending that he
had appealed at the time of his comdemnation, and promising to abide by his judgement.
He wrote also to other bishops, and we still possess the reply sent to him by
St. Peter Chrysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, where the court of Valentinian III,
the Western emperor, had its headquarters. St. Peter tells him to await the decision
of the pope, who alone can judge a case concerning the Faith. St. Leo at first
had complained that the matter had not at once been referred to him, then, on
finding that a full account sent by St. Flavian had been accidentally delayed,
wrote a compendious explanation of the whole doctrine involved, and sent it to
St. Flavian as a formal and authoritative decision of the question. He reproves
Flavian's council for want of severity to an expression of Eutyches, but adds
that the archimandrite may be restored if he repent. This letter, the most famous
of all Christian antiquity, is known as "St. Leo's Tome". He sent as legates to
the council, a bishop named Julius, a priest, Renatus (he died on the way), and
the deacon Hilarus, afterwards pope. St. Leo expresses his regret that the shortness
of the notice must prevent the presence of any other bishop of the West. It is
probable that his difficulty had been anticipated by Dioscurus, who had answered
an appeal from Eutyches in a different strain. He regarded him as a downtrdden
disciple of the great Cyril, persecuted by the Nestorian Flavian. As his predecessor
Peter had appointed a bishop for Constantinople, and as Theophilus had judged
St. Chrysostom, so Dioscurus, with the air of a superior, actually declared Etyches
absoved and restored. In April Etyches obtained a slight revision of the Acts
of the council which had condemned him. In the same month the case of Ibas was
again examined, by the emperor's order, this time at Edessa itself, and by a lay
inquisitor, Cheraeas, the Governor of Osrhoene. The people received him shouts
against Ibas. No defense was heard. On the arrival of Cheraeas's report, the emperor
wrote demanding the presence of Ibas's most famous accuser, the monk Bar Tsaouma
(Barsumas), and other monks at the approaching council. In all this we see the
influence of Dioscurus dominant. In March Theodosius had prohibited Theodoret
from coming to the council. On 6 August he shows some fear that his order may
be disregarded, in a letter in which he constitutes Dioscurus president of the
synod.
The council met at Ephesus on 8 Aug., 449. It was to have been ecumenical
in authority, but it was dubbed by St. Leo a latrocinium, and "The Robber Council"
has been its title ever since. A full history of it would be out of place here
(see EPHESUS, ROBBER COUNCIL
OF). It is only necessary to say that the assembly was wholly dominated by
Dioscurus. Flavian was not allowed to sit as a bishop, but was on lis trial. When
Stephen, Bishop of Ephesus, wished to give Communion to Flavian's slergy, he was
attacked by soldiers and monks of Eutyches, 300 in number, who cried out that
Stephen was the enemy of the emperor, since he received the emperor's enemies.
Eutyches was admitted to defend himself, but the other side was only so far heard
that the Acts of the council which had condemned him were read in full. The soldiers
and monks were brought into the council, and many bishops were forced to sign
a blank paper. The papal legate Hilarus uttered the protest Contradictur, and
saved himself by flight. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum appealed to the pope,
and their letters, only lately discovered, were probably taken by Hilarus to Rome,
which he reached by a devious route. St. Flavian was thrown into prison and died
in three days of the blows and ill usage he received. The bishops who were present
gave their testimony, when the Acts were publicly read at the Council of Chalcedon,
to the violence used at Ephesus. No doubt they exaggerated somewhat, in order
to excuse their own base compliance. But there were too many witnesses to allow
them to falsify the whole affair; and we have also the witness of letters of Hilarus,
of Eusebius, and of Flavian, and the martyrdom of the latter, to confirm the charges
against Diosurus.
No more was read at Chalcedon of the Acts. But at this point begin
the Syriac Acts of The Robber Council, which tells us of the carrying out by Dioscurus
of a thoroughgoing but short-sited policy. The papal legates came no more to the
council, and Domnus excused himself through illness. A few other bishops withdrew
or escaped, leaving 101 out of the original 128, and some nine new-comers raised
the total to 110. The deposition of Ibas was voted with cries, such as "Let him
be burned in the midst of Antioch". The accused was not present, and no witnesses
for the defence were heard. Daniel, Bishop of Haran, nephew of Ibas, was degraded.
Irenaeus of Tyre, already deposed, was anathematized. Then it was the turn of
the leader of the Antiochene party. Ibas had been accused of immorality and a
misuse of ecclesiastical property, as well as of heresy; no such charges could
be made against the great Theo doret; his character was unblemished, and his orthodoxy
had been admitted by St. Cyril himself. Never the less, his earlier writings,
in which he had incautiously and with incorrect expressions attqcked St. Cyril
and defended Nestorius, were now raked up against him. None ventured to dissent
from the sentence of deposition pronounced by Discurus, which ordered his writings
to be burnt. If we may bekieve the Acts, Domnus, from his bed of real or feigned
sickness, gave a general assent to all the council had done. But this could not
save him from the accusation of favouring Nestorians. He was deposed without a
word of defence being heard, and a new patriarch, Maximus, was set up in his place.=20
So ended the council. Dioscurus proceeded to Constantinople, and there
made his own secretary, Anatolius, bishop of the city. One foe remained. Dioscurus
had avoided reading the pope's letter to the Council of Ephesus, though he promised
more than once to do so. He evidently could not then venture to contest the pope's
ruling as to the Faith. But now, with his own creatures on the thrones of Antioch
and Constantinople, and sure of the support of Chrysaphius, he stopped at Nicea,
and with ten bishops launched an excommunication of St. Leo himself. It would
be vain to attribute all these acts to the desire of his own self aggrandizment.
Political motives could not have led him so far. He must have known that in attacking
the pope he could have no help from the bishops of the West or from the Western
emperor. It is clear that he was genuinely infatuated with his heresy, and was
fighting in its interest with all his might.
The pope, on hearing the report of Hilarus, immediately annulled the
Acts of the council, absolved all those whom it had excommunicated, and excommunicated
the hundred bishops who had taken part in it. He wrote to Theodosius II insisting
on the necessity of a council to be held in Italy, under his own direction. The
emperor, with the obstinacy of a weak man, supported the council, and paid no
attention to the intervention of his sister, St. Pulcheria, nor to that of his
colleague, Valentinian III, who, with his mother Galla Placidia, and his wife,
the daughter of Theodosius, wrote to him at St. Leo's suggestion. The reasons
given to the pope for his conduct are unknown, for his letters to Leo are lost.
In June or July, 450, he died of a fall from his horse, and was succeeded by his
sister Pulcheria, who took for her colleague and nominal husband the excellent
general Marcian. St. Leo, now sure of the support of the rulers of the East, declared
a council unnecessary; many bishops had already signed his Tome, and the remainder
would do so without difficulty. But the new emperor had already taken steps to
carry out the pope's wish, by a council not indeed in Italy, which was outside
his jurisdiction, but in the immediate neighborhood of Constantinople, where he
himself could watch its proceedings and insure its orthodoxy. St. Leo therefore
agreed and sent legates who this time were to preside.
The council, in the intention of both pope and emperor, was to accept
and enforce the definition given long since from Rome. Anatolius was ready enough
to please the emperor by signing the Tome; and at Pulcheria's intercessiiion he
was accepted as bishop by St. Leo. The latter permitted the restoration to communion
of those bishops who repented after their conduct at the Robber Council, with
the exception of Dioscurus and of the leaders of that synod, whose case he first
reserved to the Apostolic See, and then commited to the council. The synod met
at Chalcedon, and its six hundred bishops made it the largest of ancient councils
(see Chalcedon, Ecumenical Council of). The papal legates presided, supported
by lay commissioners supported by the emperor, who were in practice the real presidents,
since the legates did not speak Greek. The first point raised was the position
of Dioscurus. He had taken his seat, but the legates objected that he was on trial.
The commissioners asked for the charge against him to be formulated, and it was
replied that he had held a council without the permission of the Apostolic See,
a thing which had never been permitted. This statement was difficult to explain,
before the discovery of the Syriac Acts; but we now know that Dioscurus had continued
his would be general council for many sessions after the papal legates had taken
their departure. The commissioners ordered him to sit in the midst as accused.
(A sentence in this passage of the Acts is wrongly translated in the old Latin
version; this was carelessly followed by Hefele, who thus led Bright into the
error of supposing that the commissioners addressed to the legates a rebuke they
meant in reality for Dioscurus). The Alexandrian patriarch was now as much deserted
by his own party as his victims had been deserted at Ephesus by their natural
defenders. Some sixty bishops, Egyptian, Palestinian, and Illyrian, were on his
side, but were afraid to say a word in his defence, though they raised a great
commotion at the introduction into the assembly of Theodoret, who had been especially
excluded from the Council of Ephesus. The Acts of the first session of the Robber
Council were read, continually interrupted by the disclaimers of the bishops.
The leaders of that council, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Maximus
of Antioch, now declared that Flavian was orthodox; Anatolius had long since gone
over to the winning side. Dioscurus alone stood his ground. He was at least no
time-server, and he was a convinced heretic. After this session he refused to
appear. At the second session ( the third, according to the printed texts and
Hefele, but the Ballerini are right in inverting the order of the second and third
session) the case of Dioscurus was continued. Petitions against him from Alexandria
were read. In these he was accused of injustice and cruelty by the family of Cyril
and of many other crimes, even against the emperor and the State. How much of
this is true it is impossible to say, as Dioscurus refused to appear or to make
any defence. The accusations were dropped, and judgemnet must necessarily go against
Diocurus, if only for contempt of court. The bishops therefore repeatedly demanded
that the legates should deliver judgement. Paschasinus, therefore, the senior
legate, recited the crimes of Dioscurus?he had absolved Eutyches contrary to the
canons, even before the council; he was still contumacious when others asked for
pardon; he had not had the pope's letter read; he had excommunicated the pope;
he had been thrice formally cited and refused to appear?"Wherefore the most holy
and blessed Archbishop of elder Rome, Leo, by us and the most holy council, together
with the thrice blessed and praiseworthy Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and
base of the Catholic Church and the foundation of the orthodox Faith, has stripped
him of the episcopal and of all sacerdotal dignity. Wherefore this most holy and
great council will decree that which is accordance with the canons against the
aforesaid Dioscurus." All the bishops signified their agreement in a few words
and then all signed the papal sentence. A short notice of his deposition was sent
to Dioscurus. It is taken almost word for word from that sent to Nestorius by
the Council of Ephesus twenty years before. With the rest of the council-its definition
of the Faith imposed upon it Pope Leo, its rehabilitation of Theodoret and of
Ibas, etc.,-- we have nothing to do. Dioscurus affected to ridicule his condemnation,
saying that he should soon be restored. But the council decreed that he was incapable
of restoration, and wrote in this sense to the emperors, reciting his crimes.
He was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, where he died three years later. The
whole of Egypt revered him as the true representative of Cyrillian teaching, and
from this time forth the Patriarchate of Alexandrian was lost to the Church. Dioscurus
has been honoured in it as its teacher, and it has remained Eutychian to the present
day.
Hohn Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: J.F.M. Freeman
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
St. Ammon. Sometimes called AMUN or AMUS, born about 350; an Egyptian who, forced
into marriage when twenty-two years old, persuaded his wife on the bridal night
to pronounce a vow of chastity, which they kept faithfully, though living together
for eighteen years; at the end of this time he became a hermit in the desert of
Nitria.
Nitria, to which Ammon betook himself, is a mountain surmounted by
a desolate region, seventy miles south of Alexandria, beyond Lake Mareotis. At
the end of the fourth century there were fifty monasteries there inhabited by
5,000 monks. St. Jerome called the place “The City of God”. As to
whether Ammon was the first to build a monastery there, authorities disagree,
but it is certain that the fame of his sanctity drew many anchorites around him,
who erected cellos not only on the mountain but in the adjacent desert. St. Anthony
came to visit him and induced him to gather his scattered solitaries into monasteries.
When Ammon died at about the age of 62, Anthony, though thirteen days journey
distant, saw his soul entering heaven. He is honored on 4 October.
J. Cambell, ed.
Transcribed by: Michael Christensen
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
St. Apollonia. A holy virgin who suffered martyrdom in Alexandria during a local
uprising against the Christians previous to the persecution of Decius (end of
248, or beginning of 249). During the festivities commemorative of the first millenary
of the Roman Empire, the agitation of the heathen populace rose to a great height,
and when one of their poets prophesied a calamity, they committed bloody outrages
on the Christians whom the authorities made no effort to protect. The great Dionysius,
then Bishop of Alexandria (247-265), relates the sufferings of his people in a
letter addressed to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, long extracts from which Eusebius
has preserved for us. Dionysius writes: “At that time Apollonia the parthenos
presbutis (virgo presbytera, by which he very probably means not a virgin advanced
in years, but a deaconess) was held in high esteem. These men seized her also
and by repeated blows broke all her teeth. They then erected outside the city
gates a pile of fagots and threatened to burn her alive if she refused to repeat
after them impious words (either a blasphemy against Christ, or an invocation
of the heathen gods). Given, at her own request, a little freedom, she sprang
quickly into the fire and was burned to death.”
Apollonia belongs, therefore, to that class of early Christian martyrs
who did not await the death they were threatened with, but either to preserve
their chastity, or because confronted with the alternative of renouncing their
faith or suffering death, voluntarily embraced the latter in the form prepared
for them. In the honour paid to her martyrs the Church made no distinction between
these women and others.
The Roman Church celebrates her memory on 9 February, and she is popularly
invoked against the toothache because of the torments she had to endure. She is
represented in art with pincers in which a tooth is held.
J.P. Kirsch, ed.
Transcribed by: W.G. Kofron
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
St. Clement of Alexandria. Date of birth unknown; died about the year 215. St. Clement was an
early Greek theologian and head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. Athens
is given as the starting-point of his journeyings, and was probably his birthplace.
He became a convert to the Faith and travelled from place to place in search of
higher instruction, attaching himself successively to different masters: to a
Greek of Ionia, to another of Magna Graecia, to a third of Coele-Syria, after
all of whom he addressed himself in turn to an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and a converted
Palestinian Jew. At last he met Pantaenus in Alexandria, and in his teaching "found
rest".
The place itself was well chosen. It was natural that Christian speculation
should have a home at Alexandria. This great city was at the time a centre of
culture as well as of trade. A great university had grown up under the long-continued
patronage of the State. The intellectual temper was broad and tolerant, as became
a city where so many races mingled. The philosophers were critics or eclectics,
and Plato was the most favoured of the old masters. Neo-Platonism, the philosophy
of the new pagan renaissance, had a prophet at Alexandria in the person of Ammonius
Saccas. The Jews, too, who were there in very large numbers breathed its liberal
atmosphere, and had assimilated secular culture. They there formed the most enlightened
colony of the Dispersion. Having lost the use of Hebrew, they found it necessary
to translate the Scriptures into the more familiar Greek. Philo, their foremost
thinker, became a sort of Jewish Plato. Alexandria was, in addition, one of the
chief seats of that peculiar mixed pagan and Christian speculation known as Gnosticism.
Basilides and Valentinus taught there. It is no matter of surprise, therefore,
to find some of the Christians affected in turn by the scientific spirit. At an
uncertain date, in the latter half of the second century, "a school of oral instruction"
was founded. Lectures were given to which pagan hearers were admitted, and advanced
teaching to Christians separately. It was an official institution of the Church.
Pantaenus is the earliest teacher whose name has been preserved. Clement first
assisted and then succeeded Pantaenus in the direction of the school, about A.D.
190. He was already known as a Christian writer before the days of Pope Victor
(188-199).
About this time he may have composed the "Hortatory Discourse to the
Greeks" (Protreptikos pros Ellenas) It is a persuasive appeal for the Faith, written
in a lofty strain. The discourse opens with passages which fall on the ear with
the effect of sweet music. Amphion and Arion by their minstrelsy drew after them
savage monsters and moved the very stones; Christ is the noblest minstrel. His
harp and Iyre are men. He draws music from their hearts by the Holy Spirit: nay,
Christ is Himself the New Canticle, whose melody subdues the fiercest and hardest
natures. Clement then proceeds to show the transcendence of the Christian religion.
He constrasts Christianity with the vileness of pagan rites and with the faint
hope of pagan poetry and philosophers. Man is born for God. The Word calls men
to Himself. The full truth is found in Christ alone. The work ends with a description
of the God-fearing Christian. He answers those who urge that it is wrong to desert
one's ancestral religion.
The work entitled "Outlines" (Hypotyposeis) is likewise believed to
be a production of the early activity of Clement. It was translated into Latin
by Rufinus under the title "Dispositiones". It was in eight books, but is no longer
extant, though numerous fragments have been preserved in Greek by Eusebius, Oecumenius,
Maximus Confessor, John Moschos, and Photius. According to Zahn, a Latin fragment,
"Adumbrationes Clementis Alexandrini in epistolas canonicas", translated by Cassiodorus
and purged of objectionable passages, represents in part the text of Clement.
Eusebius represents the "Outlines" as an abridged commentary, with doctrinal and
historical remarks on the entire Bible and on the non-canonical "Epistle of Barnabas"
and "Apocalypse of Peter". Photius, who had also read it describes it as a series
of explanations of Biblical texts especially of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes
and the Pauline and Catholic Epistles. He declares the work sound on some points,
but adds that it contains "impieties and fables", such as the eternity of matter,
the creatureship of the Word, plurality of words (Logoi), Docetism, metempsychosis,
etc. Conservative scholars are inclined to believe that Photius has thrown the
mistakes of Clement, whatever they may have been, into undue relief. Clement's
style is difficult, his works are full of borrowed excerpts, and his teaching
is with difficulty reduced to a coherent body of doctrine. And this early work,
being a scattered commentary on Holy Writ, must have been peculiarly liable to
misconstruction. It is certain that several of the more serious charges can rest
upon nothing but mistakes. At any rate, his extant writings show Clement in a
better light.
Other works of his are the "Miscellanies" (Stromateis) and "The Tutor"
(Paidagogos). The "Miscellanies" comprise seven entire books, of which the first
four are earlier than "The Tutor". When he had finished this latter work he returned
to the "Miscellanies", which he was never able to finish. The first pages of the
work are now missing. What has been known as the eighth book since the time of
Eusebius is nothing more than a collection of extracts drawn from pagan philosophers.
It is likely, as von Annin has suggested, that Clement had intended to make use
of these materials together with the abridgement of Theodotus (Excerpts from Theodotus
and the Eastern School of Valentinus) and the "Eclogae Propheticae". Extracts
from the Prophets (not extracts, but notes at random on texts or Scriptural topics)
for the continuation of the "Miscellanies". In the "Miscellanies" Clement disclaims
order and plan. He compares the work to a meadow where all kinds of flowers grow
at random and, again, to a shady hill or mountain planted with trees of every
sort. In fact, it is a loosely related series of remaks, possibly notes of his
lectures in the school. It is the fullest of Clement's works. He starts with the
importance of philosophy for the pursuit of Christian knowledge. Here he is perhaps
defending his own scientific labours from local criticism of conservative brethren.
He shows how faith is related to knowledge, and emphasizes the superiority of
revelation to philosophy. God's truth is to be found in revelation, another portion
of it in philosophy. It is the duty of the Christian to neglect neither. Religious
science, drawn from his twofold source, is even an element of perfection, the
instructed Christian -- "the true Gnostic" is the perfect Christian. He who has
risen to this height is far from the disturbance of passion; he is united to God,
and in a mysterious sense is one with Him. Such is the line of thought indicated
in the work, which is full of digressions.
"The Tutor" is a practical treatise in three books. Its purpose is
to fit the ordinary Christian by a disciplined life to become an instructed Christian.
In ancient times the paedagogus was the slave who had constant charge of a boy,
his companion at all times. On him depended the formation of the boy's character.
such is the office of the Word Incarnate towards men. He first summons them to
be HIS, then He trains them in His ways. His ways are temperate, orderly, calm,
and simple. Nothing is too common or trivial for the Tutor's care. His influence
tells on the minute details of life, on one's manner of eating, drinking, sleeping,
dressing, taking recreation, etc. The moral tone of this work is kindly; very
beautiful is the ideal of a transfigured life described at the close. In the editions
of Clement "The Tutor" is followed by two short poems, the second of which, addressed
to the Tutor, is from some pious reader of the work; the first, entitled "A Hymn
of the Saviour Christ" (Hymnos tou Soteros Christou), is, in the manuscripts which
contain it, attributed to Clement. The hymn may be the work of Clement (Bardenhewer).
or it may be of as early a date as the Gloria in Excesis (Westcott).
Some scholars see in the chief writings of Clement, the "Exhortation",
"The Tutor", the "Miscellanies", a great trilogy representing a graduated initiation
into the Christian life -- belief, discipline, knowledge -- three states corresponding
to the three degrees of the neo-Platonic mysteries -- purification, initiation,
and vision. Some such underlying conception was doubtless before the mind of Clement,
but it can hardly be said to have been realized. He was too unsystematic. Besides
these more irnportant works, he wrote the beautiful tract, "Who is the rich man
who shall be saved? (tis ho sozomenos plousios). It is an exposition of St. Mark,
x, 17-31, wherein Clement shows that wealth is not condemned by the Gospel as
intrinsically evil; its morality depends on the good or ill use made of it. The
work concludes with the narrative of the young man who was baptized, lost, and
again rewon by the Apostle St. John. The date of the composition cannot be fixed.
We have the work almost in its entirety. Clement wrote homilies on fasting and
on evil speaking, and he also used his pen in the controversy on the Paschal question.
Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l'Eglise, I, 334 sqq.) thus summarizes
the remaining years of Clement's life. He did not end his life at Alexandria.
The persecution fell upon Egypt in the year 202, and catechumens were pursued
with special intent of law. The catechetical school suffered accordingly. In the
first two books of the "Miscellanies", written at this time, we find more than
one allusion to the crisis. At length Clement felt obliged to withdraw. We find
him shortly after at Caesarea in Cappadocia beside his friend and former pupil
bishop Alexander. The persecution is active there also, and Clement is fulfillmg
a ministry of love. Alexander is in prison for Christ's sake, Clement takes charge
of the Church in his stead, strengthens the faithful, and is even able to draw
in additional converts. We learn this from a letter written in 211 or 212 by Alexander
to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the election Asclepiades to the bishopric.
Clement himself undertook to deliver the letter in person, being known to the
faithful of Antioch. In another letter written about 215 to Origen Alexander speaks
of Clement as of one then dead.
Clement has had no notable influence on the course of theology beyond
his personal influence on the young Origen. His writings were occasionally copied,
as by Hippolytus in his "Chronicon", by Arnobius, and by Theodoret of Cyrus. St.
Jerome admired his learning. Pope Gelasius in the catalogue attributed to him
mentions Clement's works, but adds, "they are in no case to be received amongst
us". Photius in the "Bibliotheca" censures a list of errors drawn from his writings,
but shows a kindly feeling towards Clement, assuming that the original text had
been tampered with. Clement has in fact been dwarfed in history by the towering
grandeur of the great Origen, who succeeded him at Alexandria. Down to the seventeenth
century he was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the martyrologies,
and his feast fell on the fourth of December. But when the Roman Martyrology was
revised by Pope Clement VIII his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice
of Cardinal Baronius. Benedict XIV maintained this decision of his predecessor
on the grounds that Clement's life was little known that he had never obtained
public cultus in the Church, and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous,
at least suspect. In more recent times Clement has grown in favour for his charming
literary temper, his attractive candour, the brave spirit which made him a pioneer
in theology, and his leaning to the claims of philosophy. He is modern in spirit.
He was exceptionally well-read. He had a thorough knowledge of the whole range
of Biblical and Christian literature, of orthodox and heretical works. He was
fond of letters also, and had a fine knowledge of the pagan poets and philosophers;
he loved to quote them, too, and has thus preserved a number of fragments of lost
works. The mass of facts and citations collected by him and pieced together in
his writings is in fact unexampled in antiquity, though it is not unlikely that
he drew at times upon the florilegia, or anthologies, exhibiting choice passages
of literature.
Scholars have found it no easy task to sum up the chief points of
Clement's teaching. As has already been intimated, he lacks technical precision
and makes no pretense to orderly exposition. It is easy, therefore, to misjudge
him. We accept the discriminating judgment of Tixeront. Clement's rule of faith
was sound. He admitted the authority of the Church's tradition. He would be, first
of all, a Christian, accepting "the ecclesiastical rule", but he would also strive
to remain a philosopher, and bring his reason to bear in matters of religion.
"Few are they", he said, "who have taken the spoils of the Egyptians, and made
of them the furniture of the Tabernacle." He set himself, therefore, with philosophy
as an instrument, to transform faith into science, and revelation into theology.
The Gnostics had already pretended to possess the science of faith, but they were,
in fact, mere rationalists, or rather dreamers of fantastic dreams. Clement would
have nothing but faith for the basis of his speculations. He cannot, therefore,
be accused of disloyalty in will. But he was a pioneer in a diffficult undertaking,
and it must be admitted that he failed at times in his high endeavour. He was
careful to go to Holy Scripture for his doctrine; but he misused the text by his
faulty exegesis. He had read all the Books of the New Testament except the Second
Epistle of St. Peter and the Third Epistle of St. John. "In fact", Tixeront says,
"his evidence as to the primitive form of the Apostolic writings is of the highest
value." Unfortunately, he interpreted the Scripture after the manner of Philo.
He was ready to find allegory everywhere. The facts of the Old Testament became
mere symbols to him. He did not, howerer, permit himself so much freedom with
the New Testament.
The special field which Clement cultivated led him to insist on the
difference between the faith of the ordinary Christian and the science of the
perfect, and his teaching on this point is most characteristic of him. The perfect
Christian has an insight into "the great mysteries" of man, of nature, of virtue
-- which the ordinary Christian accepts without clear insight. Clement has seemed
to some to exaggerate the moral worth of religious knowledge; it must however
be remembered that he praises not mere sterile knowledge, but knowledge which
turns to love. It is Christian perfection that he extols. The perfect Christian
-- the true Gnostic whom Clement loves to describe -- leads a life of unalterable
calm. And here Clement's teaching is undoubtedly colored by Stoicism. He is really
describing not so much the Christian with his sensitive feelings and desires under
due control, but the ideal Stoic who has deadened his feelings altogether. The
perfect Christian leads a life of utter devotion the love in his heart prompts
him to live always in closest union with God by prayer, to labour for the conversion
of souls, to love his enemies, and even to endure martyrdom itself.
Clement preceded the days of the Trinitarian controveries. He taught
in the Godhead three Terms. Some critics doubt whether he distinguished them as
Persons, but a careful reading of him proves that he did. The Second Terrn of
the Trinity is the Word. Photius believed that Clement taught a plurality of Words,
whereas in reality Clement merely drew a distinction between the Father's Divine
immanent attribute of intelligence and the Personal Word Who is the Son. The Son
is eternally begotten, and has the very attributes of the Father. They are but
one God. So far, in fact, does Clement push this notion of unity as to seem to
approach Modalism. And yet, so loose a writer is he that elsewhere are found disquieting
traces of the very opposite error of Subordinationism. These, however, may be
explained away. In fact, he needs to be judged, more than writers generally, not
by a chance phrase here or there, but by the general drift of his teaching. Of
the Holy Ghost he says little, and when he does refer to the Third Person of the
Blessed Trinity he adheres closely to the language of Scripture. He acknowledges
two natures in Christ. Christ is the Man-God, who profits us both as God and as
man. Clement evidently regards Christ as one Person -- the Word. Instances of
the interchange of idioms are frequent in his writings. Photius has accused Clement
of Docetism. Clement, however, clearly admits in Christ a real body, but he thought
this body exempt from the common needs of life, as eating and drinking, and the
soul of Christ exempt from the movement of the passions, of joy, and of sadness.
Francis P. Havey, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Clemens Alexandrinus, whose name was T. Flavius Clemens, usually surnamed Alexandrinus,
is supposed to have been born at Athens, though he spent the greater part of his
life at Alexandria. In this way the two statements in which he is called an Athenian
and an Alexandrian (Epiphan. Haer. xxvii. 6) have been reconciled by Cave. In
early life he was ardently devoted to the study of philosophy, and his thirst
for knowledge led him to visit various countries - Greece, southern Italy, Coelo-Syria,
Palestine, and Egypt.
It appears, from his own account, that he had various Christian preceptors,
of whom he speaks in terms of great respect. One of them was a Jew by birth, and
several were from the East. At length, coming to Egypt, he sought out Pantaenus,
master of the Christian school at Alexandria, to whose instructions he listened
with much satisfaction, and whom he prized far more highly than all his former
teachers. It is not certainly known whether he had embraced Christianity before
hearing Pantaenus, or whether his mind had only been favourably inclined towards
it in consequence of previous inquiries. Probably he first became a Christian
under the influence of the precepts of Pantaenus, though Neander thinks otherwise.
After he had joined the Alexandrian church, he became a presbyter, and about A.
D. 190 he was chosen to be assistant to his beloved preceptor. In this latter
capacity he continued until the year 202, when both principal and assistant were
obliged to flee to Palestine in consequence of the persecution under Severus.
In the beginning of Caracalla's reign he was at Jerusalem, to which city many
Christians were then accustomed to repair in consequence of its hallowed spots.
Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, who was at that time a prisoner for the gospel,
recommended him in a letter to the church at Antioch, representing him as a godly
minister, a man both virtuous and wellknown, whom they had already seen, and who
had confirmed and promoted the church of Christ. It is conjectured, that Pantaenus
and Clement returned, after an absence of three years, in 206, though of this
there is no certain evidence. He must have returned before 211, because at that
time he succeeded Pantaenus as master of the school. Among his pupils was the
celebrated Origen. Guerike thinks, that he died in 213; but it is better to assume
with Cave and Schrockh, that his death did not take place till 220. Hence he flourished
under the reigns of Severus and Caracalla, 193-217.
It cannot safely be questioned, that Clement held the fundamental
truths of Christianity and exhibited genuine piety. But in his mental character
the philosopher predominated. His learning was great, his imagination lively,
his power of perception not defective; but he was unduly prone to speculation.
An eclectic in philosophy, he eagerly sought for knowledge wherever it could be
obtained, examining every topic by the light of his own mind, and selecting out
of all systems such truths as commended themselves to his judgment. "I espoused",
says he, "not this or that philosophy, not the Stoic, nor the Platonic, nor the
Epicurean, nor that of Aristotle; but whatever any of these sects had said that
was fit and just, that taught righteousness with a divine and religious knowledge,
all that being selected, I call philosophy". He is supposed to have leaned more
to the Stoics than to any other sect. He seems, indeed, to have been more attached
to philosophy than any of the fathers with the exception of Origen.
In comprehensiveness of mind Clement was certainly deficient. He never
develops great principles, but runs chiefly into minute details, which often become
trifling and insipid. In the interpretation of the Scriptures he was guided by
fancy rather than fixed rules deduced from common sense. He pursues no definite
principles of exposition, neither does he penetrate into the essential nature
of Christianity. His attainments in purely religious knowledge could never have
been extensive, as no one doctrine is well stated. From his works no system of
theology can be gathered. It were preposterous to recur to them for sound exegesis,
or even a successful development of the duties of a Christian, much less for an
enlightened estimate of the obligations under which men are laid to their Creator
and to each other. It may be questioned, whether he had the ability to compose
a connected system of theology, or a code of Christian morality. Doubtless great
allowance should be made for the education and circumstances of the writer, the
character of the age in which he lived, the persons for whom chiefly he wrote,
the modes of thought then current, the entire circle of influences by which he
was surrounded, the principal object he had in view; but after all deductions,
much theological knowledge will not be attributed to him. The speculative philosopher
is still more prominent than the theologian--the allegoriser rather than the expounder
of the Bible appears--the metaphysician eclipses the Christian.
The works of Clement which have reached us are his Logos Protreptikos
pros Hellenas or Hortatory Address to the Greeks; Paidagogos, or Teacher; Stromateis,
or Miscellanies; and Tis ho sozomenos Plousios; Quis Dives salvetur?. In addition
to these, he wrote Hupotuposeis in eight books; Peri tou eascha, i. e. de Paschate;
peri Nesteias, i. e. de Jejunio; peri Katalalias, i. e. de Obtrectatione; Protreptikos
eis Hupomonen, i. e. Exhortatio ad Patientiam; Kanon Ekklesiastikos, i. e. Canon
Ecclesiasticus, or de Canonibus Ecclesiasticis; eis ten Propheten Amos, On the
Prophet Amos; peri Pronoias and Horoi diaphoroi. If the hupotuposeis be the same
as the Adumbrationes mentioned by Cassiodorus, as is probable, various fragments
of them are preserved and may be seen in Potter's edition. Perhaps the eklogai
ek ton prophetikon, which are also given by Potter, were originally a part of
the hupotuposeis. Among the fragments printed in the same edition are also ek
ton Theodotou kai tes anatolikes kaloumenes didaskalias kata tous Oualentinou
chronous epitomai, i e. extracts from the writings of Theodotus and the doctrine
called oriental, relating to the times of Valentinus. Whether these excerpts were
really made by Clement admits of doubt, though Sylburg remarks that the style
and phraseology resemble those of the Alexandrine father. The fragments of his
lost works have been industriously collected by Potter, in the second volume of
his edition of Clement's works; but Fabricius, at the end of his second volume
of the works of Hippolytus, published some of the fragments more fully, along
with several not found in Potter's edition. There are also fragments in the Biblioth.
Patr. of Galland. In various parts of his writings Clement speaks of other works
which he had written or intended to write.
His three principal works constitute parts of a whole. In the Hortatory
Address his design was to convince the Heathens and to convert them to Christianity.
It exposes the impurities of polytheism as contrasted with the spirituality of
Christianity, and demonstrates the superiority of the gospel to the philosophy
of the Gentile world by shewing, that it effectually purifies the motives and
elevates the character. The Paedagogue takes up the new convert at the point to
which he is supposed to have been brought by the hortatory address, and furnishes
him with rules for the regulation of his conduct. In the first chapter he explains
what he means by the term Paedagogue,-- one who instructs children, leading them
up to manhood through the paths of truth. This preceptor is none other than Jesus
Christ, and the children whom he trains up are simple, sincere believers. The
author goes into minutiae and trifling details, instead of dwelling upon great
precepts applicable to human life in all circumstances. The Stromata are in eight
books, but probably the last book did not proceed from Clement himself. The treatise
is rambling and discursive, without system, order, or method, but contains much
valuable information on many points of antiquity, particularly the history of
philosophy. The principal information respecting Egyptian hieroglyphics is contained
in the fifth book of this work of Clement. His object was to delineate in it the
perfect Christian or Gnostic, after he had been instructed by the Teacher and
thus prepared for sublime speculations in philosophy and theology. The eighth
book is a treatise on logic, so that the original seems to have been lost, and
this one substituted in its place. Bishop Kaye, however, inclines to the opinion,
that it is a genuine production of Clement. The treatise entitled tis ho sozomenos
is practical, shewing to what temptations the rich are particularly exposed. It
has the appearance of a homily. His Hypotyposes in eight books (hupotuposeis,
translated adumbrationes by Cassiodorus) contained, according to Eusebius (Hist.
Eccl. iv. 14), a summary exposition of the books of Scripture. Photius gives a
most unfavourable account of it, affirming that it contained many fabulous and
impious notions similar to those of the Gnostic heretics. But at the same time
he suggests, that these monstrous sentiments may not have proceeded from Clement,
as there is nothing similar to them in his acknowledged works. Most probably they
were interpolated.
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
Sts. Chrysanthus & Daria. Roman martyrs, buried on the Via Salaria Nova. The two martyrs were
revered in Rome in the fourth
century, as the appearance of their names in the “Martyrologium Hieronymianum”
proves.
The existing Acts of these Martyrs are without historical value; they
did not originate until the fifth century, and are compiled in two texts--a longer
one, written originally in Greek, but afterwards translated into Latin, and a
shorter one in Latin. The historical notices of Chrysanthus and Daria in the so-called
historical martyrologies of the West, as in the Greek synaxaria, go back to the
legend which makes Chrysanthus the son of the noble Polemius of Alexandria. He
came to Rome with his father
and was converted by the presbyter Carpophorus. Everything was done to make him
apostatize. Daria, a beautiful and very intelligent Vestal, entered into relations
with him, but she herself was won over to the Christian Faith by Chrysanthus,
and both concluded a virginal matrimonial union. Chrysanthus and Daria were condemned
to death, led to a sandpit in the Via Salaria, and there stoned to death.
The story, apart from the assured fact of their martyrdom and the
veneration of their tombs, has, perhaps, some historical value, in assigning the
date to the reign of the Emperor Numerianus (283-84). There is another martyrdom
closely connected with the tomb of the two saints, which is related at the end
of the Acts of these martyrs. After the death of Chrysantus and Daria, when many
of the faithful of Rome were assembled at their tomb to celebrate the anniversary
of their death, they were surprised by the persecutors, who filled in with stones
and earth the subterranean crypt where the Christians were assembled, so that
all perished. Later, when the tomb of Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria was looked for
and found, the bones of these martyrs, and even the liturgical silver vessels,
which they used for the celebration of the Eucharist, were also discovered. Everything
was left as it was found, and a wall was erected so that no one could enter the
place.
In the ninth century the remains of Sts. Chrysanthus and Daria were
brought to Prum and were thence transferred to Munstereifel in Rhenish Prussia,
where they are still greatly venerated. The feast of these saints stands in the
Roman Martyrology on the 25th of October. The Greeks celebrate their feast on
l9 March.
J.P. Kirsch, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
St. Cyrillus (Kurillos), was a native of Alexandria, and nephew of Theophilus, bishop of the
same place. The year of his birth is not known. After having been a presbyter
of the church at Alexandria, he succeeded to the episcopal chair on the death
of Theophilus, A. D. 412. To this office he was no sooner elevated than he gave
full scope to those dispositions and desires that guided him through an unquiet
life. Unbounded ambition and vindictiveness, jealousy of opponents, illdirected
cunning, apparent zeal for the truth, and an arrogant desire to lord it over the
churches, constituted the character of this vehement patriarch. His restless and
turbulent spirit, bent on self-aggrandisement, presents an unfavourable portrait
to the impartial historian. Immediately after his elevation, he entered with vigour
on the duties supposed to devolve on the prelate of so important a city. He banished
from it the Jews, who are said to have been attempting violence towards the Christians,
threw down their synagogue and plundered it, quarrelled with Orestes, and set
himself to oppose heretics and heathens on every side. According to Socrates,
he also shut up the churches of the Novatians, took away all their sacred vessels
and ornaments, and deprived Theopemptus, their bishop, of all he had (Histor.
Eccles. vii. 7). But his efforts were chiefly directed against Nestorius, bishop
of Constantinople; and the greater part of his life was passed amid agitating
scenes, resulting from this persevering opposition. In consequence of an epistle
written by Cyril to the Egyptian monks which had been carried to Constantinople,
Nestorius and his friends were naturally offended. When Cyril understood how much
Nestorius had teen hurt by this letter, he wrote to him in justification of his
conduct, and in explanation of his faith, to which Nestorius replied in a calm
and dignified tone. Cyril's answer repeats the admonitions of his first letter,
expounds anew his doctrine of the union of natures in Christ, and defends it against
the consequences deduced in his opponent's letter. Nestorius was afterwards induced
by Lampon, a presbyter of the Alexandrian church, to write a short letter to Cyril
breathing the true Christian spirit.
In the mean time the Alexandrine prelate was endeavouring to lessen
the influence of his opponent by statements addressed to the emperor, and also
to the princesses Pulcheria, Arcadia, and Marinia; but Theodosius was not disposed
to look upon him with a friendly eye because of such epistles; for he feared that
the prelate aimed at exciting disagreement and discord in the imperial household.
Cyril also wrote to Celestine, bishop of Rome, informing him of the heresy of
Nestorius, and asking his co-operation against it. The Roman bishop had previously
received some account of the controversy from Nestorius; though, from ignorance
of Greek, he had not been able to read the letters and discourses of the Constantinopolitan
prelate. In consequence of Cyril's statement, Celestine held a council at Rome,
and passed a decree, that Nestorius should be deposed in ten days unless he recanted.
The execution of this decree was entrusted to Cyril. The Roman prelate also sent
several letters through Cyril, one of which, a circular letter to the Eastern
patriarchs and bishops, Cyril forwarded with additional letters from himself.
This circular was afterwards sent by John of Antioch to Nestorins. Soon after
(A. D. 430), he assembled a synod at Alexandria, and set forth the truth in opposition
to Nestorius's tenets in twelve heads or anathemas, A letter was also drawn up
addressed to Nestorius another to the officers and members of the church at Constantinople,
inciting them to oppose their patriarch, and a third to the monks. With these
anathemas he sent four bishops as legates to Nestorius, requiring of him to subscribe
them if he wished to remain in the communion of the Catholic church and retain
his see. Celestine's letter, which he had kept back till now, was also despatched.
But Nestorius refused to retract, and answered the anathemas by twelve anti-anathemas.
In consequence of these mutual excommunications and recriminatory letters, the
emperor Theodosius the Second was induced to summon a general council at Ephesus,
commonly reckoned the third oecumenical council, which was held A. D. 431. To
this council Cyril and many bishops subservient to his views repaired. The pious
Isidore in vain remonstrated with the fiery Alexandrine prelate. Nestorius was
accompanied by two imperial ministers of state, one of whom had the command of
soldiers to protect the council. Cyril presided, and urged on the business with
impatient haste. Nestorius and the imperial commissioners requested that the proceedings
might be delayed till the arrival of John of Antioch and the other [p. 918] eastern
bishops, and likewise of the Italian and Sicilian members; but no delay was allowed.
Nestorius was condemned as a heretic. On the 27th of June, five days after the
commencement of the council, John of Antioch, Theodoret, and the other eastern
bishops, arrived. Uniting themselves with a considerable part of the council who
were opposed to Cyril's proceedings, they held a separate synod, over which John
presided, and deposed both Cyril and Memnon his associate. Both, however, were
soon after restored by the emperor, while Nestorius was compelled to return to
his cloister at Antioch. The emperor, though at first opposed to Cyril, was afterwards
wrought upon by various representations, and by the intrigues of the monks, many
of whom were bribed by the Alexandrian prelate. Such policy procured many friends
at court, while Nestorius having also fallen under the displeasure of Pulcheria,
the emperor's sister, was abandoned, and obliged to retire from the city into
exile. Having triumphed over his enemy at Ephesus, Cyril returned to Egypt. But
the deposition of Nestorius had separated the eastern from the western churches,
particularly those in Egypt. In A. D. 432, Cyril and the eastern bishops were
exhorted by the emperor to enter into terms of peace. In pursuance of such a proposal,
Paul of Emesa, in the name of the Orientals. brought an exposition of the faith
to Alexandria, sufficiently catholic to be subscribed by Cyril. He returned with
another from Cyril, to be subscribed by the Easterns. This procured peace for
a little while. But the spirit of the Alexandrian bishop could not easily rest;
and soon after the disputes were renewed, particularly between him and Theodoret.
In such broils he continued to be involved till his death, A. D. 444.
According to Cave, Cyril possessed piety and indomitable zeal for
the Catholic faith. But if we may judge of his piety by his conduct, he is scarcely
entitled to this character. His learning was considerable according to the standard
of the times in which he lived. He had a certain kind of acuteness and ingenuity
which frequently bordered on the mystical; but in philosophical comprehension
and in metaphysical acumen he was very defective. Theodoret brings various accusations
against him, which represent him in an unamiable and even an unorthodox light.
He charges him with holding that there was but one nature in Christ; but this
seems to be only a consequence derived from his doctrine, just as Cyril deduced
from Nestorius's writings a denial of the divine nature in Christ. Theodoret,
however, brings another accusation against him which cannot easily be set aside,
viz. his having caused Hypatia, a noble Alexandrian lady addicted to the study
of philosophy, to be torn to pieces by the populace. Cave, who is partial to Cyril,
does not deny the fact, though he thinks it incredible and inconsistent with Cyril's
character to assert that he sanctioned such a proceeding. (Suidas, s. v. Gpatia.)
As an interpreter of Scripture, Cyril belongs to the allegorising
school, and therefore his exegetical works are of no value. In a literary view
also, his writings are almost worthless. They develop the characteristic tendency
of the Egyptian mind, its proneness to mysticism rather than to clear and accurate
conceptions in regard to points requiring to be distinguished. His style is thus
characterised by Photius (Cod. 49): ho de lopsos antoi pepoiemenos kai eis idiazonsan
idean ekbebiasmenos kai oon lelumene kai to metron huperorosa puiesis. In his
work against Julian, it is more florid than usual, though never rising to beauty
or elegance. It is generally marked by considerable obscurity and ruggedness.
Cyril's extant works are the following:
Glaphyra (i. e. polished or highly-wrought commentaries) on the Pentateuch. This work appeared at Paris in Latin, 1605; and was afterwards published in Greek and Latin by A. Schott, Antwerp, 1618.
Concerning adoration and worship in spirit and in truth, in 17 books.
Commentaries on Isaiah, in 5 books.
A Commentary on the twelve minor Prophets. This was separately published in Greek and Latin at Ingolstadt, 1605.
A Commentary on John, in 10 books.
A treatise (thesaurus) concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity.
Seven dialogues concerning the holy and consubstantial Trinity. To these a compendium of the seventh dialogue is subjoined, or a summary of the arguments adduced in it.
Two dialogues, one concerning the incarnation of the only-begotten, the other proving that Christ is one and the Lord. These dialogues, when taken with the preceding, make the eighth and ninth.
Scholia on the incarnation of the only-begotten. Far the greater part of the Greek text is wanting. They exist entire only in the Latin version of Mercator.
Another brief tract on the same subject.
A treatise concerning the right faith, addressed to the emperor Theodosius. It begins with the third chapter.
Thirty paschal homilies. These were published separately at Antwerp in 1618.
Fourteen homilies on various topics. The last exists only in Latin.
Sixty-one epistles. The fourth is only in Latin. Some in this collection were written by others, by Nestorius, Acacius, John of Antioch, Celestine, bishop of Rome, &c., &c.
Five books against Nestorius, published in Greek and Latin at Rome, in 1608.
An explanation of the twelve chapters or anathemas.
An apology for the twelve chapters, in opposition to the eastern bishops.
An apology for the same against Theodoret.
An apology addressed to the emperor Theodosius, written about the close of A. D. 431.
Ten books against Julian, written A. D. 433.
A treatise against the Anthropomorphites.
A treatise upon the Trinity.
Of his lost works mention is made by Liberatus of "Three books against excerpts
of Diodorus and Theodorus". Fragments of this work are found in the Acts of Synods.
Gennadius says, that he wrote a treatise concerning the termination of the Synagogue,
and concerning the faith against heretics. Ephrem of Antioch speaks of a treatise
on impassibility and another upon suffering. Eustratius of Constantinople cites
a fragment from Cyril's oration against those who say that we should not offer
up petitions for such as have slept in the faith. Nineteen homilies on Jeremiah
were edited in Greek and Latin by Corderius, at Antwerp, 1648, under the name
of Cyril; but it has been ascertained that they belong to Origen, with the exception
of the last, which was written by Clement of Alexandria. A liturgy inscribed to
Cyril, translated from Arabic into Latin by Victor Scialac, was published at Augsburg,
1604. Cyril's works were published in Latin by George of Trebizond at Basel in
1546; by Gentianus Hervetus at Paris, 1573, 1605. They were published in Greek
and Latin by Aubert, Paris, 1638. This is the best edition.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
St. Cyrus, was a native of Alexandria, where he practised medicine gratuitously and with great reputation. He was a Christian, and took every opportunity of endeavouring to convert his patients from paganism. During the persecution of Diocletian he fled to Arabia, where he was said to heal diseases not so much by his medicines as by miraculous powers. He was put to death with many tortures by the command of the prefect Syrianus, in company with several other martyrs, A. D. 300; and his remains were carried to Rome, and there buried. His memory is celebrated on the thirty-first of January both by the Romish and Greek churches.
St. Dionysius the Great. Called the Great, by Eusebius, St. Basil, and others, was undoubtedly,
after St. Cyprian, the most eminent bishop of the third century. He was less a
great theologian than a great administrator. His writings usually took the form
of letters. He was a convert from paganism and was engaged in the controversies
as to the restoration of those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution, about
Novatian, and with regard to the iteration of heretical baptism. A single letter
of Dionysius has been preserved in Greek canon law. For the rest we are dependent
on the many citations by Eusebius, and, for one phase, to the works of his great
successor St. Athanasius.
Dionysius was an old man when he died, so that his birth will fall
about 190, or earlier. He is said to have been of distinguished parentage. He
became a Christian when still young. He studied under Origen. The latter was banished
by Demetrius about 231, and Heraclas took his place at the head of the catechetical
school. On the death of Demetrius very soon afterwards, Heraclas became bishop,
and Dionysius took the headship of the famous school.
In the last year of Philip, 249, although the emperor himself was
reported to be a Christian, a riot at Alexandria, roused by a popular prophet
and poet, had all the effect of a severe persecution. The houses of the faithful
were plundered. Not one, so far as the bishop knew, apostatized. It was impossible
for any Christian to go into the streets, even at night, for the mob was shouting
that all who would not blaspheme should be burnt. The riot was stopped by the
civil war, but the new Emperor Decius instituted a legal persecution in January,
250. St. Cyprian describes how at Carthage
the Christians rushed to sacrifice, or at least to obtain false certificates of
having done so. Similarly Dionysius tells us that at Alexandria many conformed
through fear, others on account of official position, or persuaded by friends;
some pale and trembling at their act, others boldly asserting that they had never
been Christians. Some endured imprisonment for a time; others abjured only at
the sight of tortures; others held out until the tortures conquered their resolution.
But there were noble instances of constancy. Numbers were martyred in the cities
and villages. After the persecution the pestilence. Many priests, deacons, and
persons of merit died from succouring others.
An Egyptian bishop, Nepos, taught the Chiliastic error that there
would be a reign of Christ upon earth for a thousand years, a period of corporal
delights; he founded this doctrine upon the Apocalypse in a book entitled “Refutation
of the Allegorizers”. It was only after the death of Nepos that Dionysius
found himself obliged to write two books “On the Promises” to counteract
this error. St. Dionysius went in person to the villages, called together the
priests and teachers, and for three days instructed them, refuting the arguments
they drew from the book of Nepos. At length Korakion, who had introduced the book
and the doctrine, declared himself convinced. Dionysius treats the Apocalypse
with reverence, and declares it to be full of hidden mysteries.
The Emperor Valerian, whose accession was in 253, did not persecute
until 257. In that year St. Dionysius was banished to Kephro in the Mareotis,
after being tried together with one priest and two deacons before Aemilianus,
the prefect of Egypt. Dionysius
was spared, and returned to Alexandria directly toleration was decreed by Gallienus
in 260. But not to peace, for in 261-2 the city was in a state of tumult little
less dangerous than a persecution. Famine and pestilence raged anew. The inhabitants
of what was still the second city of the world had decreased.
We find Dionysius issuing yearly, like the later bishops of Alexandria,
festal letters announcing the date of Easter and dealing with various matters.
When the heresy of Paul of Samosata,
Bishop of Antioch, began
to trouble the East, Dionysius wrote to the Church of Antioch
on the subject, as he was obliged to decline the invitation to attend a synod
there, on the score of his age and infirmities. He died soon afterwards.
John Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: WG Kofron
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Dionysius. Bishop of Alexandria, was probably a native of the same city. He was born of pagan parents, who were persons of rank and influence. He studied the doctrines of the various philosophical sects, and this led him at last to embrace Christianity. Origen, who was one of his teachers, had probably great influence upon this step of his pupil. After having been a presbyter for some time, he succeeded, about A. D. 232, Heraclas as the head of the theological school at Alexandria, and after the death of Heraclas. who had been raised to the bishopric of Alexandria, Dionysius succeeded him in the see, A. D. 247. During the persecution of the Christians by Decius, Dionysius was seized by the soldiers and carried to Taposiris, a small town between Alexandria and Canopus, probably with a view of putting him to death there. But he escaped from captivity in a manner which lie himself describes very minutely (ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi. 40). He had, however, to suffer still more severely in A. D. 257, during the persecution which the emperor Valerian instituted againist the Christians. Dionysius made an open confession of his faith before the emperor's praefect Aemilianus, and was exiled in consequence to Cephro, a desert district of Libya, whither he was compelled to proceed forthwith, although he was severely ill at the time. After an exile of three years, an edict of Gallienus in favour of the Christians enabled him to return to Alexandria, where henceforth he was extremely zealous in combating heretical opinions. In his attacks against Sabellius he was carried so far by his zeal, that he uttered tlings which were themselves incompatible with the orthodox faith; but when he was taken to accountby Dionysius, bishop of Rome, who convoked a synod for the purpose, he readily owned that he had acted rashly and inconsiderately. In A. D. 265 he was invited to a synod at Antioch, to dispute with Paulus of Samosata, but being prevented from going thither by old age and infirmity, he wrote a letter to the synod on the subject of the controversy to be discussed, and soon after, in the same year, he died, after having occupied the see of Alexandria for a period of seventeen years. The church of Rome regards Dionysius as a saint, and celebrates his memory on the 18th of October. We learn from Epiphanes (Haeres. 69), that at Alexandria a church was dedicated to him. Dionysius wrote a considerable number of theological works, consisting partly of treatises and partly of epistles addressed to the heads of churches and to communities, but all that is left us of them consists of fragments preserved in Eusebius and others. A complete list of his works is given by Cave, from which we mention only the most important. 1. On Promises, in two books, was directed against Nepos, and two considerable fragments of it are still extant. (Euseb. H. E. iii. 28, vii. 24.) 2. A work addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, in four books or epistles, against Sabellius. Dionysius here excused the hasty assertions of which he himself had been guilty in attacking Sabellius. A great number of fragments and extracts of it are preserved in the writings of Athanasiuis and Basilius. 3. A work addressed to Timotheus, " On Nature," of which extracts are preserved in Eusebius. (Praep. Exang. xiv. 23, 27.) Of his Epistles also numerous fragments are extant in the works of Eusebius. All that is extant of Dionysius, is collected in Gallandi's Bibl. Patr. iii., and in the separate collection by Simon de Magistris, Rome, 1796, fol. (Cave, Hist. Lit. i.)
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
Died about 470. Her story belongs to that group of legends which relate
how Christian virgins, in order the more successfully to lead the life of celibacy
and asceticism to which they had dedicated themselves, put on male attire and
passed for men.
According to the narrative of her life in the “Vitae Patrum”,
Euphrosyne was the only daughter of Paphnutius, a rich man of Alexandria, who
desired to marry her to a wealthy youth. But having consecrated her life to God
and apparently seeing no other means of keeping this vow, she clothed herself
as a man and under the name of Smaragdus gained admittance into a monastery of
men near Alexandria, where she lived for thirty-eight years after. She soon attracted
the attention of the abbot by the rapid strides which she made toward a perfect
ascetic life, and when Paphnutius appealed to him for comfort in his sorrow, the
abbot committed the latter to the care of the alleged young man Smaragdus. The
father received from his own daughter, whom he failed to recognize, helpful advice
and comforting exhortation. Not until she was dying did she reveal herself to
him as his lost daughter Euphrosyne. After her death Paphnutius also entered the
monastery. Her feast is celebrated in the Greek Church on 25 September, in the
Roman Church on 16 January.
J.P. Kirsch, ed.
Transcribed by: W.G Kofron
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
A penitent in Egypt
in the fourth century. In the Greek menology her name occurs on 8 Oct., it is
found also in the martyrologies of Maurolychus and Greven, but not in the Roman.
The saint is represented burning her treasures and ornaments, or praying in a
cell and displaying a scroll with the words: “Thou who didst create me have
mercy on me”.
According to the legend Thais was a public sinner in Egypt
who was converted by St. Paphnutius, brought to a convent and enclosed in a cell.
After three years of penance she was released and placed among the nuns, but lived
only fourteen days more.
Francis Mershman, ed.
Transcribed by: C.A. Montgomery
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Bishop of Alexandria from 231 or 232; to 247 or 248.
Heraclas was probably at least five years older than Origen, who was
born in 185. Yet when Origen in his eighteenth year was obliged by his father's
martyrdom and the consequent confiscation of his goods to commence teaching grammar
(for a short time) and philosophy, Heraclas and his brother Plutarch were the
first pupils of the young teacher. Origen converted them both to Christianity,
and St. Plutarch soon suffered for the faith, being the first of Origen's pupils
to gain the crown of martyrdom.
Heraclas gave a great example of philosophical life and askesis and
it was his reputation for knowledge of philosophy and Greek learning that drew
Julius Africanus to visit Alexandria. In course of time Origen chose Heraclas
as his assistant in the catechetical to teach the beginners. Heraclas was made
a priest by the long-lived Bishop Demetrius. When in 231 the latter condemned
Origen, Heraclas became head of the school. Soon afterwards he succeeded Demetrius
as bishop. According to Theophilus of Alexandria, when Origen returned to the
city, Heraclas deposed him from the priesthood and banished him.
Heraclas was succeeded in the third year of the Emperor Philip, by
St. Dionysius, who had previously been his successor as head of the catechetical
school. Heraclas was inserted by Usuard in his martyrology on 14 July, and he
has thus come into the Roman Martyrology on that day. The Copts and Ethiopians
celebrate his feast on 4 Dec.
John Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Douglas J. Potter
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Became Bishop of Alexandria in 300; martyred Nov., 311. According
to Philip of Sidetes he was at one time head of the famous catechetical school
at Alexandria. His theological importance lies in the fact that he marked, very
probably initiated, the reaction at Alexandria against extreme Origenism.
When during the Diocletian persecution Peter left Alexandria for concealment,
the Meletian schism broke out. There are three different accounts of this schism:
(1) According to three Latin documents (translation from lost Greek originals)
published by Maffei, Meletius (or Melitius), Bishop of Lycopolis, took advantage
of St. Peter's absence to usurp his patriarchal functions, and contravened the
canons by consecrating bishops to sees not vacant, their occupants being in prison
for the Faith. Four of them remonstrated, but Meletius took no heed of them and
actually went to Alexandria, where, at the instigation of one Isidore, and Arius
the future heresiarch, he set aside those left in charge by Peter and appointed
others. Upon this Peter excommunicated him. (2) St. Athanasius accuses Meletius
not only of turbulent and schismatical conduct, but of sacrificing, and denouncing
Peter to the emperor. There is no incompatibility betweeen the Latin documents
and St. Athanasius, but the statement that Meletius sacrificed must be received
with caution; it was probably based upon rumour arising out of the immunity which
he appeared to enjoy. At all events nothing was heard about the charge at the
Council of Nic?a. (3) According to St. Epiphanius (Haer., 68), Meletius and St.
Peter quarrelled over the reconciliation of the lapsi, the former inclining to
sterner views. Epiphanius probably derived his information from a Meletian source,
and his story is full of historical blunders. Thus, to take one example, Peter
is made a fellow-prisoner of Meletius and is martyred in prison. According to
Eusebius his martyrdom was unexpected, and therefore not preceded by a term of
imprisonment.
There are extant a collection of fourteen canons issued by Peter in
the third year of the persecution dealing chiefly with the lapsi, excerpted probably
from an Easter Festal Epistle. The fact that they were ratified by the Council
of Trullo, and thus became part of the canon law of the Eastern Church, probably
accounts for their preservation. Many MSS. contain a fifteenth canon taken from
writing on the Passover. The cases of different kinds of lapsi were decided upon
in these canons.
The Acts of the martyrdom of St. Peter are too late to have any historical
value. In them is the story of Christ appearing to St. Peter with His garment
rent, foretelling the Arian schism. Three passages from "On the Godhead", apparently
written against Origen's subordinationist views, were quoted by St. Cyril at the
Council of Ephesus. Two further passages (in Syriac) claiming to be from the same
book, were printed by Pitra in "Analecta Sacra", IV, 188; their genuineness is
doubtful. Leontius of Byzantium quotes a passage affirming the two Natures of
Christ from a work on "The Coming of Christ", and two passages from the first
book of a treatise against the view that the soul had existed and sinned before
it was united to the body. This treatise must have been written against Origen.
Very important are seven fragments preserved in Syriac (Pitra, op. cit., IV, 189-93)
from another work on the Resurrection, in which the identity of the risen with
the earthly body is maintained against Origen.
Five Armenian fragments were also published by Pitra (op. cit., IV,
430 sq.). Two of these correspond with one of the doubtful Syriac fragments. The
remaining three are probably Monophysite forgeries (Harnack, "Altchrist. Lit.",
447). A fragment quoted by the Emperor Justinian in his Letter to the Patriarch
Mennas, purporting to be taken from a Mystagogia of St. Peter's, is probably spurious
(see Routh, "Reliq. Sac.", III, 372; Harnack, op. cit., 448). The "Chronicon Paschale"
gives a long extract from a supposed writing of Peter on the Passover. This is
condemned as spurious by a reference to St. Athanasius (which editors often suppress)
unless, indeed, the reference is an interpolation. A fragment first printed by
Routh from a Treatise "On Blasphemy" is generally regarded as spurious. A Coptic
fragment on the keeping of Sunday, published by Schmidt (Texte und Untersuchung.,
IV) has been ruled spurious by Delehaye, in whose verdict critics seem to acquiesce.
Other Coptic fragments have been edited with a translation by Crum in the "Journal
of Theological Studies" (IV, 287 sqq.). Most of these come from the same manuscript
as the fragment edited by Schmidt. Their editor says: "It would be difficult to
maintain the genuineness of these texts after Delehaye's criticisms (Anal. Bolland.,
XX, 101), though certain of the passages, which I have published may indicate
interpolated, rather than wholly apocryphal compositions."
F.J. Bacchus, ed.
Transcribed by: WG Kofron
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
A priest and probably head master of the catechetical school at Alexandria
conjointly with Achillas, died at Rome
after 309. His skill as an exegetical writer and as a preacher gained for him
the appellation, “Origen the Younger”. Philip of Side,
Photius, and others assert that he was a martyr. However, since St. Jerome assures
us that he survived the Diocletian persecution and spent the rest of his life
at Rome, the term "martyr" can only mean that he underwent sufferings, not death,
for his Faith.The Roman Martyrology commemorates him on 4 November.
He wrote a work (biblion) comprising twelve treatises or sermons (logoi),
in some of which he repeats the dogmatic errors attributed by some authors to
Origen, such as the subordination of the Holy Ghost to the Father and the Son,
and the pre-existence of human souls. His known sermons are: one on the Gospel
of St. Luke (eis to kata Loukan); an Easter sermon on Osee (eis to pascha kai
ton Osee); a sermon on the Mother of God (peri tes theotokou); a few other Easter
sermons; and a eulogy on St. Pamphilus, who had been one of his disciples (eis
ton bion tou hagiou Pamphilou). Only some fragments of his writings are extant.
Michael Ott, ed.
Transcribed by: Douglas J. Potter
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Macarius the Alexandrian. Also called ho politikos either in reference to his
city birth or polished manners; died about 405. He was a younger contemporary
of Macarius the Egyptian, but there is no reason for confounding or identifying
him with his older namesake. More than any of the hermits of the time he exemplified
the spirit of emulation characteristic of this stage of monasticism. He would
be excelled by none in his austerities. Palladius asserts "if he ever heard of
any one having performed a work of asceticism, he was all on fire to do the same".
Because the monks of Tabennisi eschewed cooked food in Lent he abstained for seven
years. Once, in expiation of a fault, he lay for six months in a morass, exposed
to the attacks of the African gnats, whose sting can pierce even the hide of a
wild boar. When he returned to his companions he was so much disfigured that he
could be recognized only by his voice. He is credited with the composition of
a rule for monks, though his authorship is now generally denied.
[Note: Saint Macarius the Younger (the Alexandrian) is named in the Roman Martyrology on 2 January, Saint Macarius the Elder (the Egyptian) on 15 January; in Byzantine liturgical calendars, both Saints are commemorated on 19 January.]
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.
Macarius. Of ALEXANDRIA, contemporary with the foregoing, from whom he is distinguished
by the epithet ALEXANDRINUS (ho Alexandreus), or POLITICUS (Politikos), i.e. URBICUS,
and sometimes JUNIOR. Palladius, who lived with him three years, has given a tolerably
long account of him in his Historia Lausiaca, c. 20; but it chiefly consists of
a record of his supposed miracles. He was a native of Alexandria where he followed
the trade of a confectioner, and must not be confounded with Macarius, the presbyter
of Alexandria, who is mentioned by Socrates (H. E. i. 27) and Sozomen (H. E. ii.
22), and who was accused of sacrilegious violence towards Ischyras. Our Macarius
forsook his trade to follow a monastic life, in which he attained such excellence,
that Palladius (ibid. c. 19) says that, though younger than Macarius the Egyptian,
he surpassed even him in the practice of asceticism. Neither the time nor the
occasion of his embracing a solitary life is known, for the Macarius mentioned
by Sozomen (H. E. vi. 29) appears to be a different person. Tillemont has endeavoured
to show that his retirement took place not later than A. D. 335, but he founds
his calculation on a misconception of a passage of Palladius. Macarius was ordained
priest after the Egyptian Macarius, i. e. after A. D. 340, and appears to have
lived chiefly in that part of the desert of Nitria which, from the number of the
solitaries who had their dwellings there, was termed "the Cells" ("Cellae," or
"Cellulae," ta kellia); but frequently visited, perhaps for a time dwelt, in other
parts of the great Lybian wilderness, and occasionally at least of the wilderness
between the Nile and the Red Sea. Galland says he became at length archimandrite
of Nitria, but does not cite his authority, which was probably the MS. inscription
to his Regula given below, and which is of little value. Philippus Sidetes calls
him a teacher and catechist of Alexandria, but with what correctness seems very
doubtful. Various anecdotes recorded of him represent him as in company with the
other Macarius and with St. Antony. Many miracles are ascribed to him. most of
which are recorded by Palladius either as leaving been seen by himself, or as
resting on the authority of the saint's former companions, but they are frivolous
and absurd. Macarius shared the exile of his namesake [No. 1] in the persecution
which the Arians carried on against the orthodox. He died, according to Tillemont's
calculation, in A. D. 394, but according to Fabricius, in A. D. 404, at the age
of 100, in which case he must have been nearly as old as Macarius the Egyptian.
He is commemorated in the Roman Calendar on the 2d January, and by the Greeks
on the 19th January. Socrates describes him as characterized by cheerfulness of
temper and kindness to his juniors, qualities which induced many of them to embrace
an ascetic life. (Socrat. H. E. iv. 23, 24; Sozom. H. E. iii. 14, vi. 20; Theodoret.
H. E. iv. 21; Rufin. H.E. ii. 4; and apud Heribert Rosweyd, De Vita et Verbis
Senior. ii. 29; Pallad. Hist. Lausiac. c. 20; Bolland. Acta Sanctor. a. d. 2 Januar.;
Tillemont, Memoires, vol. viii. p. 626, &c.)
To this Macarius are ascribed the following works'--I. Rrgula S. Macarii
qui habuit sub Ordinatione sua quinque Millia Monachorum. This Regula, which is
extant in a Latin version, consists of thirty " Capita," and must be distinguished
from another, which is also extant in a Latin version, under the title of Regula
SS. Serapionis, Macarii, Paphnutii et alterius Macarii; to which the first of
the two Macarii contributed capp. v--viii., and the second ("alter Macarius")
capp. xiii.--xvi. Tillemont and others consider these two Macarii to be the Egyptian
and the Alexandrian, and apparently with reason. The Reyula S. Macarii, which
some have supposed to be the Epistola of Macarius the Egyptian [No. 1] mentioned
by Gennadius, is ascribed to the Alexandrian by S. Benedict of Anagni, Holstenius,
Tillemont, Fabricius, and Galland. Cave hesitates to receive it as genuine. II.
Epistola B. Macarii data ad Monachos. A Latin version of this is subjoined to
the Regular; it is short and sententious in style. The Regula was first printed
in the Historia Monasterii S. Joannis Reomaensis of the Jesuit Rouerus (Rouviere),
4to. Paris. 1637; and was reprinted together with the Epistola, in the Codex Regularum
of Holstenius (4to. Rome, 1661), and in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland, vol.
vii. fol. Venice, 1770. III. Tou hagiou Makariou tou Alexandreos logos peri exodou
psuches dikaion kai hamartolon: to pos chorizonrtai ek tou somatos, kai pos eisin,
Sancti Macarii Alexandrini Sermo de Exitu Animae Justorum et Peccatorum: quotmodo
separantur a Corpore, et in quo Statu manent. This was printed, with a Latin version,
by Cave (who, however, regarded it as the forgery of some later Greek writer),
in the notice of Macarius in his Historia Litteraria ad ann. 373 (vol. i. fol.
Lond. 1688, and Oxford, 1740-1742); and was again printed, more correctly, by
Tollius, in his Insignia Itineris Italici, 4to. Utrecht, 1696. Tollius was not
aware that it had been printed by Cave. It is given, with the other works of Macarius
of Alexandria, an the Bibliotheca Patrum of Galland. In one MS. at Vienna it is
ascribed to Alexander. an ascetic and disciple of Macarius. Cave is disposed to
ascribe to Macarius of Alexandria the Honmiliae of Macarius the Egyptian. (Cave,
l. c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. p. 365; Holsten. Codex Regularum, vol.
i. pp. 10-14, 18-21, ed. Augsburg, 1759; Galland, Biblioth. Patr. Proleg. to vol.
vii.; Tilleniont, Memoires, vol. viii. pp. 618, 648; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacres,
vol. vii. p. 712, &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
Third bishop of Alexandria, Egypt. He succeded Sts. Mark and Anianus. Eusebius reported that Abilius was appointed bishop circa 84.
Feastday: Febuary 22
d.250, feastday: December 12
d.c. 250, feastday: December 12
d. 5th century, feastday: October 9
d. unknown, feastday: April 30
d. 257, feastday: October 3
d. 356, feastday: March 26
Martyrs, suffered under Julian the Apostate, 362, commemorated on 10 May. Gordianus was a judge but was so moved by the sanctity and sufferings of the saintly priest, Januarius, he embraced Christianity with many of his household. Being accused before his successor, or as some say before the prefect of the city, Apronianus, he was cruelly tortured and finally beheaded. His body was carried off by the Christians, and laid in a crypt on the Latin Way beside the body of St. Epimachus, who had been recently interred there. The two saints gave their name to the cemetery, and have ever since been joined together in the veneration of the Church.
John F.X. Murphy, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
d. 362 & 250, feastday: May 10
d. 476, feastday: April 14 (Catholic)
d. 250, feastday: June 1
d.c. 250, feastday: October 30 (Greek Orthodox) or February 27 (Roman Church)
d. 282, feastday: December 27
d. unknown, feastday: February 12 (Catholic).
d. 303, feastday: April 2
Bishop of Alexandra from about 283 to 301.
In his time Achillas, who had been appointed presbyter at Alexandria,
at the same time with Pierius, became celebrated. Theonas is commemorated in the
Roman Martyrology on 27 August. St. Athanasius in his apology to Constantinus
speaks of a church dedicated by his predecessor, St. Alexander, to Theonas.
F.J. Bacchus, ed.
Transcribed by: Thomas M. Barrett
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
d. 300, feastday: August 23 (Catholic).
d. 370, feastday: March 21
Born at Alexandria in the latter half of the fourth century; d. not
later than 449-50. He is occasionally designated through mistake as Isidore of
Damietta.
Leaving his family and possessions, Isidore retired to a mountain
near the city of Pelusium,
the name of which was henceforth connected with his own, and embraced the religious
life in the monastery of Lychnos, where he soon became remarkable for his exactitude
in the observance of the rule and for his austerities. He is spoken of as a priest
by Facundus and Suidas, although neither of these writers informs us concerning
the church to which he belonged; it may be that he had no clerical charge, but
was only a priest of the monastery. His correspondence gives us an idea of his
activity. It shows him fighting against unworthy clerics whose elevation to the
priesthood and diaconate was a serious peril and scandal to the faithful. He complains
that many laymen were ceasing to approach the sacraments so as to avoid contact
with these discreditable men.
His veneration for St. John Chrysostom led him to introduce St. Cyril
of Alexandria to render full justice to the memory of the great doctor. He opposed
the Nestorians. St. Isidore was still alive when the heresy of Eutyches began
to spread in Egypt; many
of his letters depict him as opposing the assertion of only one nature in Jesus
Christ.
It seems as though his life was scarcely prolonged beyond the year
449, because there is no mention in letters of the Robber Council of Ephesus
(August, 449) nor of the Council of Chalcedon
(451).
Isidore tells incidentally that he composed a treatise “Adversus
Gentiles” but it has been lost. Another work “De Fato”, which,
the author tells us, met with a certain degree of success, has also been lost.
The only extant works of St. Isidore are a considerable correspondence, comprising
more than 2000 letters. Even this number appears to fall far short of the amount
actually written, since Nicephorus speaks of 10,000. Of these we possess 2182.
These letters of St. Isidore may be divided into three classes according to the
subjects treated: those dealing with dogma and Scripture, with ecclesiastical
and monastic discipline, and with practical morality for the guidance of laymen
of all classes and conditions.
His advice with regard to those who were embracing the monastic state
was that they should not at first be made to feel all the austerities of the rule
lest they should be repelled, nor should they be left idle and exempt from ordinary
tasks lest they should acquire habits of laziness, but they should led step by
step to what is most perfect. Great abstinences serve no purpose unless they are
accompanied by the mortification of the senses. In a great number of St. Isidore's
letters concerning the monastic state it may be remarked that he holds it to consist
mainly in retirement and obedience; that retirement includes forgetfulness of
the things one has abandoned and the renunciation of old habits, while obedience
is attended with mortification of the flesh. A monk's habit should if possible
be of skins, and his food consist of herbs, unless bodily weakness require something
more, in which case he should be guided by the judgment of his superior, for he
must not be governed by his own will, but according to the will of those who have
grown old in the practice of the religious life.
Although for the most part very brief, the majority of St. Isidore's
letters contain much instruction, which is often set forth with elegance, occasionally
with a certain literary art. The style is natural, unaffected, and yet not without
refinement. The correspondence is characterized by an imperturbable equability
of temperament; whether he is engaged at explaining or reprimanding, at disputing
or praising, there is always the same moderation, the same sentiments of sincerity,
the same sober taste. In the explanation of the Scripture the saint does not conceal
his preference for the moral and spiritual sense which he judges most useful for
those who consult him. Everywhere he is seen to put in practice the maxims he
teaches to others, namely that the life should correspond with the words, that
one should practice what one teaches, and that it is not sufficient to indicate
what should be done, if one does not translate one's maxims into action.
H. Leclercq, ed.
Transcribed by: Tom Burgoyne
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Bishop of Alexandria from 188 to 231.
Julius Africanus, who visited Alexandria in the time of Demetrius,
places his accession as eleventh bishop after St. Mark in the tenth year of Commodus.
A legendary history of him is given in the Coptic “Synaxaria”,
in an Abyssinian poem cited by the Bollandists, and in the “Chronicon Orientale”
of Abraham Ecchellensis the Maronite. Three of their statements, however, may
have some truth: one that he died at the age of 105 (born, therefore, in 126);
another, found also in the Melchite Patriarch Eutychius, that he wrote about the
calculation of Easter to Victor of Rome,
Maximus (i.e. Maximinus) of Antioch
and Gabius or Agapius of Jerusalem.
Eutychius relates that from Mark to Demetrius there was but one see in Egypt,
that Demetrius was the first to establish three other bishoprics, and that his
successor Heraclas made twenty more.
At all events Demetrius is the first Alexandrian bishop of whom anything
is known.
John Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Gary Mros
This extract is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
d. 552, feastday: August 25
d. 1st century, feastday.
Of noble birth and learned in the sciences, when only eighteen years
old, Catherine presented herself to the Emperor Maximinus who was violently persecuting
the Christians, upbraided him for his cruelty and endeavoured to prove how iniquitous
was the worship of false gods. Astounded at the young girl's audacity, but incompetent
to vie with her in point of learning the tyrant detained her in his palace and
summoned numerous scholars whom he commanded to use all their skill in specious
reasoning that thereby Catherine might be led to apostatize. But she emerged from
the debate victorious. Several of her adversaries, conquered by her eloquence,
declared themselves Christians and were at once put to death. Furious at being
baffled, Maximinus had Catherine scourged and then imprisoned. Meanwhile the empress,
eager to see so extraordinary a young woman, went with Porphyry, the head of the
troops, to visit her in her dungeon, when they in turn yielded to Catherine's
exhortations, believed, were baptized, and immediately won the martyr's crown.
Soon afterwards the saint, who far from forsaking her Faith, effected so many
conversions, was condemned to die on the wheel, but, at her touch, this instrument
of torture was miraculously destroyed. The emperor, enraged beyond control, then
had her beheaded and angels carried her body to Mount Sinai where later a church
and monastery were built in her honour. So far the Acts of St. Catherine.
Unfortunately we have not these acts in their original form, but transformed
and distorted by fantastic and diffuse descriptions which are entirely due to
the imagination of the narrators who cared less to state authentic facts than
to charm their readers by recitals of the marvellous. The importance attached
throughout the Middle Ages to the legend of this martyr accounts for the eagerness
and care with which in modern times the ancient Greek, Latin and Arabic texts
containing it have been perused and studied, and concerning which critics have
long since expressed their opinion, one which, in all likelihood, they will never
have to retract. Several centuries ago when devotion to the saints was stimulated
by the reading of extraordinary hagiographical narrations, the historical value
of which no one was qualified to question, St. Catherine was invested by Catholic
peoples with a halo of charming poetry and miraculous power.
Ranked with St. Margaret and St. Barbara as one of the fourteen most
helpful saints in heaven, she was unceasingly praised by preachers and sung by
poets. It is a well known fact that Bossuet dedicated to her one of his most beautiful
panegyrics and that Adam of Saint-Victor wrote a magnificent poem in her honour:
"Vox Sonora nostri chori", etc. In many places her feast was celebrated with the
utmost solemnity, servile work being suppressed and the devotions being attended
by great numbers of people. In several dioceses of France it was observed as a
Holy Day of obligation up to the beginning of the seventeenth century, the splendour
of its ceremonial eclipsing that of the feasts of some of the Apostles. Numberless
chapels were placed under her patronage and her statue was found in nearly all
churches, representing her according to medieval inconography with a wheel, her
instrument of torture. Whilst, owing to several circumstances in his life, St.
Nicholas of Myra, was considered the patron of young bachelors and students, St.
Catherine became the patroness of young maidens and female students. Looked upon
as the holiest and most illustrious of the virgins of Christ, it was but natural
that she, of all others, should be worthy to watch over the virgins of the cloister
and the young women of the world.
The spiked wheel having become emblematic of the saint, wheelwrights
and mechanics placed themselves under her patronage. Finally, as according to
tradition, she not only remained a virgin by governing her passions and conquered
her executioners by wearying their patience, but triumphed in science by closing
the mouths of sophists, her intercession was implored by theologians, apologists,
pulpit orators, and philosophers. Before studying, writing, or preaching, they
besought her to illumine their minds, guide their pens, and impart eloquence to
their words. This devotion to St. Catherine which assumed such vast proportions
in Europe after the Crusades, received additional eclat in France in the beginning
of the fifteenth century, when it was rumoured that she had appeared to Joan of
Arc and, together with St. Margaret, had been divinely appointed Joan's adviser.
Although contemporary hagiographers look upon the authenticity of
the various texts containing the legend of St. Catherine as more than doubtful,
it is not therefore meant to cast even the shadow of a doubt around the existence
of the saint. But the conclusion reached when these texts have been carefully
studied is that, if the principal facts forming the outline are to be accepted
as true, the multitude of details by which these facts are almost obscured, most
of the wonderful narratives with which they are embellished, and the long discourses
that are put into the mouth of St. Catherine, are to be rejected as inventions,
pure and simple. An example will illustrate. Although all these texts mention
the miraculous translations of the saint's body to Mount Sinai, the itineraries
of the ancient pilgrims who visited Sinai do not contain the slightest allusion
to it. Even in the eighteenth century Dom Deforis, the Benedictine who prepared
an edition of Bossuet's works, declared the tradition followed by this orator
in his panegyric on the saint, to be in a great measure false, and it was just
at this time that the feast of St. Catherine disappeared from the Breviary of
Paris. Since then devotion to the virgin of Alexandria has lost all its former
popularity.
Leon Glugnet, ed.
Transcribed by: Carolyn Hust
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Bishop of Alexandria from about 283 to 301 (Eusebius, "Chronicle", Ann. Abr. 2299, St. Jerome's version). In his time Achillas, who had been appointed presbyter at Alexandra, at the same time with Pierius, became celebrated (Euseb., "Hist. eccl.", III, xxxii). The celebrated letter of Theonas to Lucianus, chamberlain to Diocletian, which has often been quoted as giving such a lifelike description of the position of a Christian in the imperial Court has been pronounced, first by Batiffol and then by Harnack, to be a forgery. Their verdict is endorsed by Bardenhewer. It was first published from what purported to be a transcript made by Jerome Vignier, by Dacherius in his "Spicilegium". Theonas is commemorated in the Roman Martyrology on 27 August. St. Athanasius in his apology to Constantinus speaks of a church dedicated by his predecessor, St. Alexander, to Theonas. The same church is alluded to in the "Act of SS. Pachomius and Theodorus".
F.J. Bacchus, ed.
Transcribed by: Thomas M. Barrett
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
d. 491, feastday: September 11
CANOPUS (Ancient city) EGYPT
Sts. Cyrus and John. Celebrated martyrs of the Coptic Church, surnamed thaumatourgoi
anargyroi because they healed the sick gratis (Nilles, Kallendarium utriusque
Ecclesiae, Innsbruck, 1896, I, 89). Their feast day is celebrated by the Copts
on the sixth day of Emsir, corresponding to 31 January, the day also observed
by the Greeks; on the same day they are commemorated in the Roman Martyrology,
regarding which see the observation of Cardinal Baronio (Martyrologium Romanum,
Venice, 1586). The Greeks celebrate also the finding and translation of the relics
on 28 June (see "Menologium Basil." and "Menaia"). The principal source of information
regarding the life, passion and miracles of Sts. John and Cyrus is the encomium
written by Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. 638). Of the birth, parents,
and first years of the saints we know nothing. According to the Arabic "Synaxarium"
(Forget, Synax. Alexandrinum, Beirut, 1906, II, 252), compiled by Michael, Bishop
of Athrib and Malig, Cyrus and John were both Alexandrians; this, however, is
contradicted by other documents in which it is said that Cyrus was a native of
Alexandria and John of Edessa. Cyrus practised the art of medicine, and had a
work-shop (ergasterium) which was afterwards transformed into a temple dedicated
to the three boy-saints, Ananias, Misael, and Azarias. He ministered to the sick
gratis and at the same time laboured with all the ardour of an apostle of the
Faith, and won many from pagan superstition. This took place under the Emperor
Diocletian. Denounced to the prefect of the city he fled to Arabia of Egypt where
he took refuge in a town near the sea called Tzoten. There, having shaved his
head and assumed the monastic habit, he abandoned medicine and began a life of
asceticism.
John belonged to the army, in which he held a high rank; the "Synaxarium"
cited above adds that he was one of the familiars of the emperor. Hearing of the
virtues and wonders of Cyrus, he betook himself to Jerusalem in fulfillment of
a vow, and thence passed into Egypt where he became the companion of St. Cyrus
in the ascetic life. During the persecution of Diocletian three holy virgins,
Theoctista (Theopista), fifteen years old, Theodota (Theodora), thirteen years
old, and Theodossia (Theodoxia), eleven years old, together with their mother
Athanasia, were arrested at Canopus and brought to Alexandria. Cyrus and John,
fearing lest these girls, on account of their tender age, might, in the midst
of torments, deny the Faith, resolved to go into the city to comfort them and
encourage them in undergoing martyrdom. This fact becoming known they also were
arrested and after dire torments they were all beheaded on the 31st of January.
The bodies of the two martyrs were placed in the church of St. Mark the Evangelist
where they remained up to the time of St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria (412-444).
At Menuthis (Menouthes or Menouthis) near Canopus there existed at that time a
pagan temple reputed for its oracles and cures which attracted even some simple
Christians of the vicinity. St. Cyril thought to extirpate this idolatrous cult
by establishing in that town the cultus of Sts. Cyrus and John. For this purpose
he transferred thither their relics (28 June, 414) and placed them in the church
built by his predecessor, Theophilus, in honour of the Evangelists. Before the
finding and transfer of the relics by St. Cyril it seems that the names of the
two saints were unknown; certain it is that no written records of them existed
(Migne, P.G., LXXXVII, 3508 sq.). In the fifth century, during the pontificate
of Innocent I, their relics were brought to Rome by two monks, Grimaldus and Arnulfus—this
according to a manuscript in the archives of the deaconry of Santa Maria in the
Via Lata, cited by Antonio Bosio (Roma Sotterranea, Rome, 1634, p. 123). Mai,
however, for historical reasons, justly assigns a later date, namely 634, under
Pope Honorius and the Emperor Heraclius (Spicilegium Rom., III, V). The relics
were placed in the suburban church of St. Passera (Abbas Cyrus) on the Via Portuense.
In the time of Bosio the pictures of the two saints were still visible in this
church (Bosio, op. cit., ib.) Upon the door of the hypogeum, which still remains,
is the following inscription in marble:
Corpora sancta Cyri renitent hic atque Joannis
Quae quondam Romae dedit Alexandria magna
(Bosio, ib.; Mai, Spic. Rom., loc. cit.). At Rome three churches were dedicated
to these martyrs, Abbas Cyrus de Militiis, Abbas Cyrus de Valeriis, and Abbas
Cyrus ad Elephantum—all of which were transformed afterwards by the vulgar pronunciation
into S. Passera, a corruption of Abbas Cyrus; in the Coptic Difnar, Apakiri, Apakyri,
Apakyr; in Arabic, 'Abaqir, 'Abuqir (see Armellini, Le Chiese di Roma, Rome, 1891,
179 sq., 563 sq., 681, 945 sq.).
P.J. Balestri, ed.
Transcribed by: Paul Streby
This text is cited Oct 2005 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
ALEXANDRIA (Ancient city) EGYPT
Arius or Areius (Areios), the celebrated heretic, is said to have been a native
of Libya, and must have been born shortly after the middle of the third century
after Christ. His father's name appears to have been Ammonius. In the religious
disputes which broke out at Alexandria in A. D. 306, Arius at first took the part
of Meletius, but afterwards became reconciled to Peter, bishop of Alexandria,
and the opponent of Meletius, who made Arius deacon. After this Arius again opposed
Peter for his treatment of Meletius and his followers, and was in consequence
excommunicated by Peter. After the death of the latter, Achillas, his successor
in the see of Alexandria, not only forgave Arius his offence and admitted him
deacon again, but ordained him presbyter, A. D. 313, and gave him the charge of
the church called Baucalis at Alexandria (Epiphan. Haeres. 68. 4). The opinion
that, after the death of Achillas, Arius himself wanted to become bishop of Alexandria,
and that for this reason he was hostile to Alexander, who became the successor
of Achillas, is a mere conjecture, based upon the fact, that Theodoret accuses
Arius of envy against Alexander. The official position of Arius at Alexandria,
by virtue of which he interpreted the Scriptures, had andoubtedly gained for him
already a considerable number of followers, when in A. D. 318, the celebrated
dispute with bishop Alexander broke out. This dispute had a greater and more lasting
influence upon the development of the Christian religion than any other controversy.
The accounts respecting the immediate occasion of the dispute differ, but all
agree in stating that Alexander after having heard some reports respecting Arius's
novel views about the Trinity, attacked them in a public assembly of presbyters.
Hereupon Arius charged the bishop with being guilty of the errors of Sabellius,
and endeavoured defend his own opinions. He maintained that the Son of God had
been created by God, previous to the existence of the world and of time, by an
act of God's own free will and out of nothing; that therefore the Son had not
existed from all eternity; and that consequently in this respect the Son was not
perfectly equal to the Father, although he was raised far above all men. This
first dispute was followed by a circular letter from Alexander to his clergy,
and by a second conference, but all had no effect. As in the meantime the number
of Arius's followers was rapidly increasing, and as both the clergy and laity
of Egypt, as well as several bishops of Syria and Asia Minor, were favourably
disposed towards Arius, partly because his doctrines resembled those of Lucian,
who had died a martyr about ten years before, and partly because they were captivated
by Arius's insinuating letters addressed to them, Alexander, in A. D. 321, convened
at Alexandria a synod of nearly one hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops. The influence
of Alexander, of course, prevailed at this synod: Arius was deposed, and he and
his followers were excommunicated. In order to insure the proper effect of this
verdict, Alexander addressed numerous letters to foreign bishops, in which he
announced to them the judgment passed upon Arius, endeavoured to refute his doctrines,
and urged them to adopt his own views of the case, and not to afford any protection
to the heretic. Two of these letters are still extant.
It was owing to these letters and to the extensive exertions of Arius
to defend his doctrines and to win more followers, that the possibility of an
amicable settlement of the question diminished more and more every day. At Alexandria
the Arians regularly withdrew from the church, and had their separate places of
worship; and in Palestine, whither Arius had fled from Egypt, he found a favourable
reception. Here he addressed a letter, still extant (Epiphan. Hacres. 69. 6; Theodoret.
H. E. i. 5), to his friend, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedeia, the most influential
bishop of the time, and who himself bore a grudge against Alexander of Alexandria.
Eusebius in his answer, as well as in a letter he addressed to Paulinus, bishop
of Tyre, expressed his perfect agreement with the views of Arius (Athanas. de
Synod.17; Theodoret. H. E. i. 6), and even received Arius into his own house.
During his stay at Nicomedeia, Arius wrote a theological work called Thaleia (Thaleia),
which is said to have been composed in the effeminate style of Sotades, and to
have been written in part in the so-called Sotadic metre. He also addressed a
letter to bishop Alexander, in which he entered into an explanation of his doctrines,
and which was signed by the clergy who had been excommunicated with him. Of his
Thaleia we possess only some abstracts made by his enemy Athanasius, which are
written in a philosophical and earnest tone; but they contain statements, which
could not but be offensive to a believer in the divinity of Christ. These things,
when compared with the spirit of Arius's letters, might lead to the belief that
Athanasius in his epitome exaggerated the statements of Arius; but we must remember
that Arius in his letters was always prudent and moderate, to avoid giving offence,
by not shewing how far his theory might be carried. On the whole, the controversy
between Arius and Alexander presents no features of noble generosity or impartiality;
each is ambitious and obstinate. Arius was as zealous in endeavouring to acquire
new followers as Alexander was fierce and stubborn in his persecution. At last,
in A. D. 323, Eusebius and the other bishops who were in favour of Arianism, assembled
in council in Bithynia, and issued a circular to all the bishops, requesting them
to continue their ecclesiastical communion with Arius. and to use their influence
with Alexander on his behalf. But neither this step nor the permission granted
by several bishops to Arius to resume his functions, as presbyter, so far as it
could be done without encroachment upon the rights of Alexander, was calculated
to restore peace; on the contrary, the disputes for and against Arianism spread
so much both among the laity and clergy of Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, that
in A. D. 324, the emperor Constantine thought it necessary to write a letter to
Arius and Alexander in common, in which he declared the controverted point of
little importance, exhorted the disputants to a speedy reconciliation, and left
it to each to hold his own opinions, provided he did not disturb the outward union
of the church (Euseb. De Vit. Const. M. ii. 64, &c.). This letter was carried
to Alexandria, whither Arius had returned in the meantime, by Hosius, bishop of
Corduba, who was also to act as mediator. But Hosius soon adopted the views of
Alexander, and his mission had no effect.
The disputes became more vehement from day to day, and Constantine
at last saw himself obliged to convoke a general council at Nicaea, A. D. 325,
at which upwards of 300 bishops were present, principally from the eastern part
of the empire, and among them Arius, Alexander, and his friend Athanasius. Each
defended his own opinions; but Arius being the accused party was in a disadvantageous
position, and a confession of faith, which he presented to the council, was torn
to pieces in his presence. Athanasius was the most vehement opponent of Arius,
and after long debates the council came to the resolution, that the Son of God
was begotten, not made, of the same substance with the Father, and of the same
essence with him (homoousios). Arius was condemned with his writings and followers.
This verdict was signed by nearly all the bishops present. Eusebius and three
others, who refused to sign, were compelled by the threats of the emperor to follow
the example of the rest: only two bishops, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of
Ptolemais, had courage enough to share the fate of Arius and accompanied him to
Illyricum whither he was exiled. At the same time an edict was issued, commanding
every one, under the penalty of death, to surrender the books of Arius, which
were to be burnt, and stigmatizing the Arians with the name of Porphyrians -(from
Porphyrius, a heathen opponent of Christianity, who had nothing to do with the
Arian question). The Arians at Alexandria, however, remained in a state of insurrection,
and began to make common cause with the Meletians, a sect which had likewise been
condemned by the council of Nicaea, for both had to regard Alexander, and his
successor Athanasius, as their common enemies.
Arius remained in Illyricum till A. D. 328, when Eusebius of Nicomedeia
and his friends used their influence at the court of Constantine, to persuade
the emperor that the creed of Arius did not in reality differ from that established
by the council of Nicaea. In consequence of this Arius was recalled from his exile
by very gracious letters from the emperor, and in A. D. 330, had an audience with
Constantine, to whom he presented a confession of faith, which consisted almost
entirely of passages of the scriptures, and apparently confirmed the representation
which Eusebius had given of his opinions. The emperor thus deceived, granted to
Arius the permission to return to Alexandria. On the arrival of Arius in Alexandria,
A. D. 331, Athanasius, notwithstanding the threats of Eusebius and the strict
orders of the emperor, refused to receive him into the communion of the church;
for new outbreaks took place at Alexandria, and the Meletians openly joined the
Arians (Athanas. Apolog.59). Eusebius, who was still the main supporter of the
Arian party, had secured its ascendancy in Syria, and caused the synod of Tyre,
in A. D. 335, to depose Athanasius, and another synod held in the same year at
Jerusalem, to revoke the sentence of excommunication against Arius and his friends.
The attempt of Arius to re-establish himself at Alexandria failed notwithstanding,
and in A. D. 336, he travelled to Constantinople to have a second interview with
the emperor. He again presented his confession of faith, which was apparently
orthodox. Hereupon Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, who had hitherto refused
recognising Arius as a member of the orthodox church, received orders from the
emperor to administer to Arius, on the Sunday following, the holy communion. When
the day came, Arius accompanied by Eusebius and other friends, went in a sort
of triumph through the streets of Constantinople to the church. On his way thither
he went aside for a moment to relieve a physical want, but he never returned:
he was seized by a fainting fit and suddenly died, and his corpse was found by
his friends and buried. His sudden death in such a place and at such a moment,
naturally gave rise to a number of strange suspicions and surmises; the orthodox
regarded it as a direct judgment from heaven, while his friends supposed that
he had been poisoned by his enemies.
Arius must have been at a very advanced age when he died, since he
is called the old Arius at the time when he began his disputes with Alexander,
and he was undoubtedly worn out and exhausted by the continued struggles to which
his life had been exposed. He is said to have been unusually tall, pale, and thin,
of a severe and gloomy appearance, though of captivating and modest manners. The
excellence of his moral character seems to be sufficiently attested by the silence
of his enemies to the contrary. That he was of a covetous and sensual disposition,
is an opinion unsupported by any historical evidence. Besides the works already
referred to in this article, Arius is said to have written songs for sailors,
millers, and travellers; but no specimen or fragment of them is now extant.
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
Arius. An heresiarch, born about A.D. 250; died 336. He is said to have been a Libyan by descent. His father's name is given as Ammonius. In 306, Arius, who had learnt his religious views from Lucian, the presbyter of Antioch, and afterwards the martyr, took sides with Meletius, an Egyptian schismatic, against Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. But a reconciliation followed, and Peter ordained Arius deacon. Further disputes led the Bishop to excommunicate his restless churchman, who, however, gained the friendship of Achillas, Peter's successor, was made presbyter by him in 313, and had the charge of a well-known district in Alexandria called Baucalis. This entitled Arius to expound the Scriptures officially, and he exercised much influence when, in 318, his quarrel with Bishop Alexander broke out over the fundamental truth of Our Lord's divine Sonship and substance. (See ARIANISM.) While many Syrian prelates followed the innovator, he was condemned at Alexandria in 321 by his diocesan in a synod of nearly one hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops. Deprived and excommunicated, the heresiarch fled to Palestine. He addressed a thoroughly unsound statement of principles to Eusebius of Nicomedia, who yet became his lifelong champion and who had won the esteem of Constantine by his worldly accomplishments. In his house the proscribed man, always a ready writer, composed in verse and prose a defence of his position which he termed "Thalia". A few fragments of it survive. He is also said to have published songs for sailors, millers, and travellers, in which his creed was illustrated. Tall above the common, thin, ascetical, and severe, he has been depicted in lively colours by Epiphanius (Heresies, 69, 3); but his moral character was never impeached except doubtfully of ambition by Theodoret. He must have been of great age when, after fruitless negotiations and a visti to Egypt, he appeared in 325 at Nic&aea, where the confession of faith which he presented was torn in pieces. With his writings and followers he underwent the anathemas subscribed by more than 300 bishops. He was banished into Illyricum. Two prelates shared his fate, Tehonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais. His books were burnt. The Arians, joined by their old Meletian friends, created troubles in Alexandria. Eusebius persuaded Constantine to recall the exile by indulgent letters in 328; and the emperor not only permitted his return to Alexandria in 331, but ordered Athanasius to reconcile him with the Church. On the saint's refusal more disturbance ensued. The packed and partisan Synod of Tyre deposed Athanasius on a series of futile charges in 335. Catholics were now persecuted; Arius had an interview with Constantine and submitted a creed which the emperor judged to be orthodox. By imperial rescript Arius required Alexander of Constantinople to give him Communion; but the stroke of Providence defeated an attempt which Catholics looked upon as sacrilege. The heresiarch died suddenly, and was buried by his own people. He had winning manners, an evasive style, and a disputatious temper. But in the controversy which is called after his name, Arius counted only at the beginning. He did not represent the tradition of Alexandria but the topical subtleties of Antioch. Hence, his disappearance from the scene neither stayed the combatants nor ended the quarrel which he had rashly provoked. A party-theologian, he exhibited no features of genius; and he was the product, not the founder, of a school.
William Barry, ed.
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Arianism. A heresy which arose in the fourth century, and denied the Divinity of Jesus Christ.
St. Alexander's Deposition of Arius and his companions, and Encyclical Letter
on the subject.
Alexander of Alexandria, Epistles on the Arian Heresy
and the Deposition of Arius
usually called Origen. A learned Christian Father, born at Alexandria in A.D. 185. He was converted to Christianity by Clement of Alexandria, and after the martyrdom of his father, Leonides, Origen opened a school in which at first he taught Greek literature only, but soon after Christian doctrine also. Being made head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, he became distinguished for his severe asceticism as for his profound learning, not only in theology, but also in Greek philosophy and Hebrew, which he learned at Rome. In A.D. 228, during a visit to Palestine, he was ordained presbyter, but Bishop Demetrius of Alexandria refused his assent to this both as not being given by himself as diocesan bishop and because Origen, through a fanatical interpretation of Matt. xix. 12, had castrated himself. Later, the controversy which began over this decision led to a close investigation of Origen's theological views, and these were condemned by a synod in A.D. 231. Many Eastern bishops, however, supported him, and he reopened his school at Caesarea. During the later persecutions of the Christians by Maximinus and Decius he suffered greatly, so that, his health breaking down, he died at Tyre in A.D. 254. His most controverted teachings were those on the subject of the ultimate salvation of all, as he taught that even the devils would finally be redeemed--a doctrine known as Restorationism. His writings in all numbered some 6000, of which comparatively few have been preserved. An important one (the De Principiis) survives only in a Latin version by Rufinus. There are also a treatise on martyrdom and a defence of Christianity against Celsus; and of his Hexapla--an edition of the Old Testament in six parallel columns in Hebrew, Hebrew transliterated in Greek letters, and the four versions by Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint, and Theodotion--a number of fragments remain.
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
Ecclesiastical writer and author of a number of homilies well known
in the sixth and seventh centuries and of much ascetical and dogmatic value. There
has been much dispute regarding the details of his life and the age in which he
lived. Galland (Vet. Patr. Biblioth., VIII, 23) says: "de Eusebio qui vulgo dicitur
episcopus Alexandr? incerta omnia" (Concerning Eusebius, commonly called bishop
of Alexandria there is nothing sure). His writings have been attributed to Eusebius
of Emesa, Eusebius of C?sarea, and others. According to an old biography said
to have been written by his notary, the monk John, and discovered by Cardinal
Mai, he lived in the fifth century and led a monastic life near Alexandria. The
fame of his virtues attracted the attention of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, who
visited him with his clergy, and in 444, when dying, had him elected his successor,
and consecrated him bishop, though much against his will. Eusebius displayed great
zeal in the exercise of his office and did much good by his preaching. Among those
he converted was a certain Alexander, a man of senatorial rank. After having ruled
his see for seven or, according to another account, for twenty years, he made
Alexander his successor and retired to the desert, whence Cyril had summoned him
and there died in the odor of sanctity.
While Mai seems to have established the existence of a Eusebius of
Alexandria who lived in the fifth century, it had been objected than neither the
name of Eusebius or his successor Alexander, appears in the list of the occupants
of that ancient see. Dioscurus is mentioned as the immediate successor of Cyril.
Nor does the style of the homilies seem on the whole in keeping with the age of
Cyril. It may be noted, however, that the biographer of Eusebius expressly states
that the Cyril in question is the great opponent of Nestorius. Various solution
of the difficulty have been proposed. Thilo (Ueber die Schriften des Eusebius
v. Alexandrian U. des Eusebius von Emesa, Halle, 1832) thinks that the authorship
of the homilies is to be assigned either to a certain monk ? one of four brothers
3 of the fifth century, or to a presbyter and court chaplain of Justinian I, who
took an active part in the theological strifes of the sixth century. Mai suggests
that after the death of Cyril, there were two bishops at Alexandria, Dioscurus,
the Monophysite leader, and Eusebius, the head of the Catholic party. The homilies
cover a variety of subjects, and the author is one of the earliest patristic witnesses
to the doctrine regarding the descent of Christ into Hell. A list of homilies
with the complete text is given by Mai (Spicilegium Romanum IX). They may also
be found in Migne, P.G., LXXXVI. The "Sermo de Confusione Diaboli" was published
with an introduction by Rand in "Modern Philology", II, 261.
H.M. Brock, ed.
Transcribed by: C.A. Montgomery
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Hierocles, a Roman proconsul at first of Bithynia, and afterwards at Alexandria, in the time
of Diocletian, A. D. 284-305. It is said that this emperor was instigated to his
persecution of the Christians, in A. D. 302, mainly by Hierocles, who was a man
of great philosophical acquirements, and exerted all his powers to suppress the
Christians and their religion, and raise the polytheistic notions of the Pagans
by attributing to them a profound meaning, which had only been misunderstood and
mistaken by the vulgar (Lactant. Instit. Div. v. 2, de Mort. Persecut. 16). With
this object in view, he published a work against the Christians, in which he attempted
to point out contradictions in the Scriptures in the historical as well as in
the doctrinal portions. It bore the title Gogoi philaletheis pros tous Christianous,
and consisted of two books the work itself is lost, but we may still form an idea
of it from the notice which Lactantius takes of it (Div. Instit. l. c.), and more
especially from the refutation which Eusebius wrote of it. We there see that Hierocles
attacked the character of Jesus Christ and his apostles, and put him on an equality
with Apollonius of Tyana.
Athanasius (Athanasios), of Alexandria, a presbyter of the church in that city, was a son of Isidora, the sister of Cyril of Alexandria. He was deprived of his office and driven out of Alexandria and Egypt by the bishop, Dioscurus, from whom he suffered much persecution. There is extant a small work of his, in Greek, against Dioscurus, which he presented to the council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451.
Cyrus (called also in some editions Syrus), a native of Alexandria, who lived in the fifth century after Christ. He was first a physician and philosopher, and afterwards became a monk. He is said to have been an eloquent man, and to have written against Nestorius. (S. Gennadius, de Illustr. Vir. c. 81.)
Esaias of Egypt. Palladius in the biographical notices which make up what is usually termed his
Lausiac History, mentions two brothers, Paasius (Paesios) and Esaias, the sons
of a merchant, Spanodromos. by which some understand a Spanish merchant. Upon
the death of their father they determined to quit the world; one of them distributed
his whole property to the poor, the other expended his in the foundation of a
monastic and charitable establishment. If the Orations mentioned below are correctly
ascribed to the Esaias of Palladius, the first oration (which in the Latin version
begins "Qui mecum manere vultis, audite," &c.) enables us to identify him as the
brother that founded the monastery. Rufinus in his Lives of the Fathers, quoted
by Tillemont, mentions an anecdote of Esaias and some other persons of monastic
character, visiting the confessor Anuph or Anub (who had suffered in the great
persecution of Diocletian, but had survived that time) just before his death.
If we suppose Esaias to have been comparatively young, this account is not inconsistent
with Cave's opinion, that Esaias flourished A. D. 370. Assemanni supposes that
he lived about the close of the fourth century. He appears to have lived in Egypt.
There are dispersed through the European libraries a number of works
in MS. ascribed to Esaias, who is variously designated "Abbas", "Presbyter", "Eremita",
"Anachoreta". They are chiefly in Greek. Some of them have been published, either
in the original or in a Latin version. Assemanni enumerates some Arabic and several
Syriac works of Esaias, which, judging from their titles, are versions in those
tongues of the known works of this writer. It is not ascertained whether Esaias
the writer is the Esaias mentioned by Palladius. Cardinal Bellarmin, followed
by the editors of the Bibliotheca Patrum, places the writer in the seventh century
subsequent to the time of Palladius; but the character of the works supports the
opinion that they belong to the Egyptian monk.
(1.) Chapters on the ascetic and peaceful life (Kephalaia peri askeseos kai hesuchias),
published in Greek and Latin in the Thesaurus Asceticus of Pierre Possin, Paris,
1684. As some MSS. contain portions of this work in connexion with other passages
not contained in it, it is probable that the Chapters are incomplete. One MS.
in the King's Library at Paris is described as "Esaiae Abbatis Capita Ascetica,
in duos libros divisa, quorum unusquisque praecepta centum complectitur".
(2.) Precepta seu Consilia posita tironibus, a Latin version of sixty-eight Short
Precepts, published by Lucas Holstenius, in his Codex Regularum Monasticarum (Augsburg,
1759).
(3.) Orationes. A Latin version of twentynine discourses of Esaias was published
by Pietro Francesco Zini, with some ascetic writings of Nilus and others, Venice,
1574, and have been reprinted in the Bibliotheca Patrum. They are not all orations,
but, in one or two instances at least, are collections of apophthegms or sayings.
Some MSS. contain more than twentynine orations: one in the King's Library at
Paris contains thirty, wanting the beginning of the first ; and one, mentioned
by Harless, is said to contain thirty-one, differently arranged from those in
the Bibliotheca Patrum.
(4.) Dubitationes in Visionem Ezechielis. A MS. in the Royal Library of the Escurial
in Spain, is described by Montfaucon (Bibliotheca Bibliiothecarum) as containing
Sermones et Dubitationes in Visionem Ezechielis, by "Esaias Abbas". Of the Dubitationes
no further account is given; but the subject, as far as it is indicated by the
title, renders it very doubtful if the work belongs to the Egyptian Monk.
The Ascetica and Opuscula of Esaias, described in Catalogues, are perhaps portions
or extracts of the works noticed above. This is probably the case with the passages
given by Cotelerius among the "Sayings of the Fathers".
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Dec 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Euthalius (Euthalios), bishop of Sulce, lived, according to some, at the time
of the great Athanasius; and Cave, in the London edition of his Hist. Lit., places
him in A. D. 398, whereas, in the Basle edition, he places him about A. D. 458.
The latter supposition agrees with a statement of Euthalius himself, in his Introduction
to the Life of St. Paul. When Euthalius was yet a young man, he divided the Epistles
of St. Paul into chapters and verses; and after his elevation to the bishopric,
he did the same with the Acts of the Apostles and the Catholic Epistles. The Epistles
of St. Paul, however, had been divided in that manner before him, about A. D.
396; but Euthalius added the argumenta of the chapters, indexes, and the passages
of Scripture to which allusions are made in the Epistles. This work he afterwards
sent to Athanasius the younger, who was bishop of Alexandria in A. D. 490. A portion
of it was first published by cardinal Ximenes, in 1514. Erasmus, in his several
editions of the New Testament, incorporated the Argumenta to the Epistles of St.
Paul and the Acts. The Prologue on the Life of St. Paul. with at prefatory Epistle,
was first edited by J. H. Boeclerus at the end of his edition of the New Testtament,
Argentorat. 1645 and 1660, from which it was afterwards often reprinted. All the
works of Euthalius were edited by L. Zaccagni, in his Collectanca monum. vet.
Eccles. Graecae, Rome, 1698. Whether Euthalius also wrote a commentary on the
Gospel of St. Luke and on the Acts, is uncertain, at least there is no distinct
mention of them, and no MSS. are known to exist.
Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria and later Bishop of Sulca. He lived towards the middle of
the fifth century and is chiefly known through his work on the New Testament in
particular as the author of the "Euthalian Sections". It is well known that the
divisions into chapters and verses with which we are familiar were entirely wanting
in the original and early copies of the New-Testament writings; there was even
no perceptible space between words. To obviate the manifest inconveniences arising
from this condition of the text, Ammonius of Alexandria, in the third century,
conceived the idea of dividing the Four Gospels into sections varying in size
according to the substance of the narrative embodied in them, and Euthalius, following
up the same idea, extended a similar system of division to the other books of
the New Testament with the exception of the Apocalypse. So obvious were the advantages
of the scheme that it was soon adopted throughout the Greek Church. As divisions
of the text these sections have no longer any intrinsic value. But as they were
at a given period adopted in nearly all the Churches, and noted by the copyists,
they are valuable as chronological indications, their presence or absence being
an important circumstance in determining the antiquity of a manuscript.
Other labours of Euthalius in connexion with the text of the New Testament
refer to the larger sections or lessons to be read in the liturgical services,
and to the more minute divisions of the text called, or verses. The custom of
reading portions of the New Testament in the public liturgical services was already
ancient in the Church, but with regard to the choice and delimitation of the passages
there was little or no uniformity, the Churches having, for the most part, each
its own series of selections. Euthalius elaborated a scheme of divisions which
was soon universally adopted. Neither the Gospels nor the Apocalypse enter into
this series, but the other portions of the New Testament are divided into 57 sections
of varying length, 53 of which are assigned to the Sundays of the year, while
the remaining four refer probably to Christmas, the Epiphany, Good Friday, and
Easter.
The idea of dividing the Scriptures into, or verses, did not originate
with Euthalius. It had already been applied to portions of the Old Testament,
especially to the poetical parts, and even to some parts of the New. Here, as
with regard to the other divisions, Euthalius only carried out systematically
and completed a scheme which had been but partially and imperfectly realized by
others, and his work marks a stage of that progress which led finally to punctuation
of the text. These were of unequal length, either containing a few words forming
a complete sense, or as many as could be conveniently uttered with one breath.
Thus, for instance, the Epistle to the Romans contained 920 of these verses; Galatians,
293; Hebrews, 703; Philemon, 37, and so on.
Besides these textual labours Euthalius framed a catalogue of the
quotations from the Old Testament and from profane authors which are found in
the New- Testament writings. He also wrote a short "Life of St. Paul" and a series
of "Argumenta" or short summaries which are placed by way of introduction to the
different books of the New Testament. Of Euthalius' activities as a bishop little
or nothing is known. Even the location of his episcopal see, Sulca, is a matter
of doubt. It can hardly be identified with the bishopric of that name in Sardinia.
More likely it was situated somewhere in Egypt, and it has been conjectured that
it is the same as Psilka, a city of the Thebaid in the neighbourhood of Syene.
After having long lain in oblivion, the works of Euthalius were published in Rome,
in 1698, by Lorenzo Alessandro Zaccagni, Prefect of the Vatican Library.
James F. Driscoll, ed.
Transcribed by: W. G. Kofron
This text is cited Dec 2005 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
