Listed 100 (total found 549) sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for wider area of: "TURKEY Country EUROPE" .
IERAPOLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
A Christian apologist, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia in the second century. He became famous for his polemical treatises against the heretics of his day, whose errors he showed to be entirely borrowed from the pagans. He wrote two books against the Jews, five against the pagans, and two on "Truth." In 177 he published an eloquent "Apologia" for the Christians, addressed to Marcus Aurelius, and appealing to the Emperor's own experience with the "Thundering Legion", whose prayers won him the victory over the Quadi. The exact date of his death is not known, but it was probably while Marcus Aurelius was still Emperor. None of his writings is extant. His feast is kept 8 January.
T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: WGKofron
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Claudius Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia (A. D. 170 and onwards), wrote an " Apology for the Christian faith" (logoi huper tes pisteos apologias) to the emperor M. Antoninus. He also wrote against the Jews and the Gentiles, and against the heresies of the Montanists and the Eneratites, and some other works, all of which are lost. (Euseb. H. E. iv. 27, v. 19; Hieron. de Vir. Illust. 26, Epist. 84; Nicephorus, iv. 11; Photius, Cod. 14; Theodoret. de Haeret. Fab. iii. 2; Chronicon Paschale)
VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY
Mammas (Gregorius) or MELISSENUS (GREGORIUS), a monk of the latest Byzantine period.
We first read of him as negotiator in reconciling the brothers of the emperor
Joannes II. Palaeologus. IIe was one of the Greek ecclesiastics, who accompanied
the emperor, A. D. 1433, to the synod of Ferrara, and then held the office of
Pneumatikos, "Pneumaticus", "Pater Spiritualis", or Confessor to the Emperor.
He appears to have gone unwillingly; and Sguropulus (not, however, a very trustworthy
witness) has recorded a saying of his to one of his confidential friends, "If
I go there, I will work all manner of evil." At first, after his arrival in Italy,
he was most vehement in his declarations of hostility to the Latin church; but
he was led, apparently by a quarrel with Marcus Eugenicus, archbishop of Ephesus,
and the great champion of the Greek church, and by a present or a pension from
the pope (Sgurop. viii. 6) to pass over to the opposite side, and become a warm
advocate of the union of the churches. Just before the removal of the synod from
Ferrara to Florence, the emperor conferred on him the post of protosyncellus;
and in A. D. 1446 he was appointed patriarch of Constantinople; but this was against
His will; and after holding that dignity for about five years, he escaped from
Constantinople, where his Latinizing opinions and his support of the union made
him odious, and the fall of which he foresaw must soon take place, and fled into
Italy. He died at Rome A. D. 1459, and was buried there. His memory is held in
great reverence by the Roman Catholics; and it has even been asserted that miracles
were wrought at his tomb. Sguropulus generally calls Gregorius by his name and
title of office, without his surname. Phranza calls him Gregorius Melissenus (ho
Melissenos), but states that others called him Strategopulus (Strategopoulos),
a name which, as Phranza elsewhere (ii. 2) states, many members of the illustrious
family of the Melisseni had derived from Alexius Strategopulus, who had recovered
Constantinople out of the hands of the Latins. The name Mammas (ho Mamme) is given
him by the author of the Historia Politica in the Turco-Graecia of Crusius. (Sguropulus,
Hist. Concil. Florent. iii. 20, v. 15, vi. 23, 24, vii. 14, viii. 6, &c.; Phranza,
Annales, ii. 12, 15, 19, iii. 1; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. i. col. 309.)
The works of Gregorius are as follows: 1. Apologia Gregoriou hieromonachou
tou megalou protosunkellou, tou pneumatikou, tou husteron chremathisantos patriarchou,
kai en Hpome taphentos kai Thaumatourgountos, eis ten tou Ephesou epistolen ek
diaphoron hagion, Gregorii Hieromonachi, Magni Protosyncelli et a Confessionibus,
qui postmodum creatus est Patriarcha, et Romae sepultus coruscavit Miraculis,
Responsio ex variis Sanctorum Sententiis ad Epistolam Marci Ephesii. This answer
was translated into Latin by Joannes Matthaeus Caryophilus, and subjoined by him
to the second volume of the Acta Concilii Florentini: it is reprinted in some
editions of the Concilia, e. g. in the last vol. of that of Binius, in vol. xiii.
of that of Labbe, and in that of Hardouin, vol. ix. col. 601-670. This work is
twice mentioned by Fabricius; first as Antirrheticus adversus Marci Ephesii Epistolam,
and then as Apologia s. Responsio ad Epistolam Ephesii, as if he was speaking
of two distinct works. 2. Gregoriou protosunkellou patriarchou Konstantinoupoleos
pros ton Basilea Trapezountos, Gregorii Protosyncelli, Patriarchae Constantinopolitani,
ad Imperatorem Trapezuntis. This is given in the Graecia Orthodoxa of Allatius,
vol. i. p. 419, 4to. Rome, 1652, with a Latin version by the editor. These are
the only works of Gregory which have been published; but there are extant in MS.:
3. Apologia eis ten tou Ephesou homologian, Apologia in Confessionem Marci Ephesii.
This is in the libraries of Florence and Munich. 4. Pragmateia, Tractatus, sc.
de Synodo Florentino, mentioned by Gregory himself in his Apologia (Concil. vol.
ix. col. 658, c. ed. Hardouin), and described by Fabricius as Apologia pro quinque
Capitibus Florentini Coneilii. Many Epistolae of Gregory are, or were, extant
in the Vatican library. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xi. p. 393; Cave, Hist. Litt.
(Appendix) ad ann. 1440, vol. ii. Appendix, p. 152, ed. Oxford, 1740-42; Bandini,
Catalog. Codd. MSS. Biblioth. Medic. Laur. vol. i. pp. 483, 484; Aretin s. Hard,
Catalog. Codd. M Storum Biblioth. Reg. Bavar. vol. i. pp. 146, 147.)
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
EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
M. Eugenicus, a brother of Joannes Eugenicus, who was a celebrated ecclesiastical
writer, none of whose works, however, has yet appeared in print. (Fabric. Bibl.
Graec. vol. xi.) M. Eugenicus was by birth a Greek, and in early life he was engaged
as a schoolmaster and teacher of rhetoric. But his great learning and his eloquence
raised him to the highest dignities in the church, and about A. D. 1436 he succeeded
Josephus as archbishop of Ephesus. Two years later, he accompanied the emperor
Joannes Palaeologus to the council of Florence, in which he took a very prominent
part; for he represented not only his own diocese, but acted as proxy for the
patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem. He opposed the Latin church with as much
bitterness as He defended the rights of the Greek church with zeal. In the beginning
of the discussions at the council, this disposition drew upon him the displeasure
of the emperor, who was anxious to reunite the two churches, and also of the pope
Eugenius. This gave rise to most vehement disputes, in which the Greeks chose
Eugenicuis as their spokesman and champion. As he was little acquainted with the
dialectic subtleties and the scholastic philosophy, in which the prelates of the
West far surpassed him, he was at first defeated by the cardinal Julian; but afterwards,
when Bessarion became his ally, the eloquence of Eugenicus threw all the council
into amazement. The vehemence and bitterness of his invectives against the Latins,
however, was so great, that a report was soon spread and believed, that he was
out of his mind; and even Bessarion called him an evil spirit (cacodaemon). At
the close of the council, when the other bishops were ready to acknowledge the
claims of the pope, and were ordered by the emperor to sign the decrees of the
council, Eugenicus alone steadfastly refused to yield, and neither threats nor
promises could induce him to alter his determination. The union of the two churches,
however, was decreed. On his return to Constantinople, he was received by the
people with the greatest enthusiasm, and the most extravagant veneration was paid
him. During the remainder of his life he continued to oppose tile Latin church
wherever he could; and it was mainly owing to his influence that, after his death,
the union was broken off. For, on his death-bed in 1447, he solemnly requested
Georgius Scholarius, to continue the struggle against the Latins, which he himself
had carried on, and Georgius promised, and faithfully kept his word. The funeral
oration on Eugenicus was delivered by the same friend, Georgius.
M. Eugenicus was the author of many works, most of which were directed
against the Latin church, whence they were attacked by those Greeks who were in
favour of that church, such as Joseph of Methone, Bessarion, and others. The following
are printed either entire or in part. 1. A Letter to the emperor Palaeologus.
in which lie cautions the Greeks against the council of Florence, and exposes
the intrigues of the Latins. It is printed, with a Latin version and an answer
by Joseph of Methone, in Labbeus, Concil. vol. xiii. 2. A Circular, addressed
to all Christendom, on the same subject, is printed in Labbeus, l. c, with an
answer by Gregorius Protosyneellus. 3. A Treatise on Liturgical Subjects, in which
he maintains the spiritual power of the priesthood. It, is printed in the Liturgiae,
ed. Paris, 1560. 4. A Profession of Faith, of which a fragment, with a Latin translation,
is printed in Allatins, de Consensu iii. 3.4. 5. A Letter to the emperor Palaeologus,
of which a fragment is given in Allatius, de Synolo Octaxa, 14. His other works
are still extant in MS., but have never been published. A list of them is given
by Fabricius. (Bibl. Graec. vol. xi.; comp. Cave, Hist Lit. vol. i. Appendix)
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
KESSARIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Arethas, archbishop of Caesareia in Cappadocia at an uncertain time (A. D. 540,
according to Coccius and Cave), appears to have succeeded Andreas. He wrote a
commentary on the Apocalypse (sulloge exegeseon ek diaphoron hagion andron eis
ten Ioannou tou agapemenou kai euangelistou Apokalupsin), which, as its title
implies, was compiled from many preprevious works, and especially from that of
Andreas. It is usually printed with the works of Oecumenius.
NIKOMIDIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Georgius, of Nicomedeia. He held the office of chartophylax (record-keeper) in
the Great Church at Constantinople, whence he is sometimes called Georgius Chartophylax
(but he must not be confounded with Georgius Chartophylax Callipolitanus, and
was afterwards archbishop of Nicomedeia. He lived in the latter part of the ninth
century, and was the friend of Photius, many of whose letters are addressed to
him. Combefis has confounded him with Georgius Pisida, and has placed him in the
reign of Heraclius, two centuries before his proper period. Several of his Homiliae
are ptliished in the Novum Auctarium, of Combefis, vol. i. Three Idiomela (hymns
or pieces set to music peculiar to them), written by him, are contained in the
same collection, and a Latin translation of several of his Homiliae, and of two
of his Idiomela, one of them in praise of St. John Chrysostom, the other in praise
of the Nicene Fathers, are contained in the Bibliotheca Patrum (vol. xii., ed.
Lyon., 1677). Beside the homilies in Combefis, ascribed to George of Niconmedeia,
another in the same collection On the Natirity of the Virgin, aseribed there to
Andreas of Crete, is supposed to be by him. Among his many unpublished works a
Chronicon is enumerated; but there is difficulty in distinguishing between the
Chronica of the various Georges. A homily or tract by Athanasius On the Presentation
of Christ in the Temple is in some MSS. ascribed to George of Nicomedeia. (Allatius,
Ibid.; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. viii., vol. x.; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. ii.)
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
ADRIANOUPOLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Germanus, of Constantinople, was bishop of Adrianople, and a friend of the emperor
Michael Palaeologus, at whose solicitation he was elected patriarch of Constantinople
by a synod held A. D. 1267. He unwillingly accepted the office; and resigned it
within a few months, and retired to a monastery, in consequence of the opposition
made to his appointment, either on the ground of some irregularity in his translation,
or more probably of his holding the patriarchate, while his deposed predecessor,
Arsenius, was living. He was a learned man, of mild disposition, polished manners,
and irreproachable morals. He was afterwards one of the ambassadors of the emperor
to the fourteenth General Council, that of Lyon (A. D. 1277), and there supported
the union of the Greek and Latin churches. He does not appear to have left any
writings, but the Decreta of Germanus II. of Constantinople, contained in the
Jus Graeco-Romanum of Leunclavius, have been sometimes improperly ascribed to
him. (Niceph. Gregor. Hist. Byzant. iv. 5, 8; Georg. Phranza, Chronicon, i. 3;
Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi., &c., L'Art de Verifier les Dates.)
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
Lucius (Loukios) of Adrianople or Hadrianople, was bishop of that city in the fourth century, succeeding, though Tillemont doubts if immediately, St. Eutropius. He was expelled from his see by the Arian party, then predominant in the East, under the emperor Constantius II., the son of Constantine the Great; and went to Rome to lay his cause before the pope, Julius I., apparently in the year 340 or 341. Several other bishops were at Rome on a similar errand, about the same time; and the pope, having satisfied himself or their innocence and of their orthodoxy, sent them back to their respective churches, with letters requiring their restoration, and other letters rebuking their persecutors. The Oriental bishops appear to have rejected the pope's authority, and sent him back a remonstrance against his rebukes. Lucius, however, recovered his see by the authority of the emperor Constantius, who was constrained to restore him by the threats of his brother Constans, then emperor of the West. This restoration is placed Tillemont before the council of Sardica, A. D. 347. When the death of Constans (A. D. 350) was known in the East, the Arian party, whom Lucius had provoked by the boldness and severity of his attacks, deposed him, bound him neck and hands with irons (as they had done at least once before), and in that condition banished him. He died in exile. The Romish church commemorates him as a martyr on the eleventh of February. (Athanas. Apolog. de Fuga sua, c. 3, and Hist. Arianor. ad Monach. c. 19; Socrat. H. E. ii. 15, 23, 26; Sozomen. H. E. iii. 8, 24, iv. 2; Theodoret, H. E. ii. 15; Tillemont, Memoires, vols. vi. and vii.; Bolland, Acta Sanctorum Februarii, vol. ii. p. 519, Epistolae Julii Papae et Orient. Episc. apud Concilia, vol. ii. col. 475, &c. ed. Labbe.)
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
AMIDA (Ancient city) TURKEY
A bishop of Amida, distinguished for piety and charity in having
sold church-plate, etc., to redeem 7000 Persian prisoners on the Tigris, in Mesopotamia.
His death is commemorated in the Latin Church on April 9th.
St. Acacius, bishop of Amida. Feastday: April 9
ANGYRA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Basilius, (Basileios and Basilios), commonly called Basil. Bishop of Ancyra (A. D. 336-360),
originally a physician, was one of the chief leaders of the Semi-Arian party,
and the founder of a sect of Arians which was named after him. He was held in
high esteem by the emperor Constantius, and is praised for his piety and learning
by Socrates and Sozomen. He was engaged in perpetual controversies both with the
orthodox and with the ultra Arians. His chief opponent was Acacius, through whose
influence Basil was deposed by the synod of Constantinople (A. D. 360), and banished
to Illyricum. He wrote against his predecessor Marcellus, and a work on Virginity.
His works are lost. (Hieron. de Vir. Illust. 89 ; Epiphan. Haeres. lxxiii. 1;
Socrates, H. E. ii. 30, 42; Sozomen, H. E. ii. 43.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
ANTIOCHIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Acacius, a Syrian by birth, lived in a monastery near Antioch, and, for his active defence of the Church against Arianism, was made Bishop of Berrhoea, A. D. 378, by St. Eusebius of Samosata. While a priest, he (with Paul, another priest) wrote to St. Epiphanius a letter, in consequence of which the latter composed his Panarium. (A. D. 374-6). This letter is prefixed to the work. In A. D. 377-8, he was sent to Rome to confute Apollinaris before Pope St. Damasus. He was present at the Oecumenical Council of Constantinople A. D. 381, and on the death of St. Meletius took part in Flavian's ordination to the See of Antioch, by whom he was afterwards sent to the Pope in order to heal the schism between the churches of the West and Antioch. Afterwards, he took part in the persecution against St. Chrysostom (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. vi. 18), and again compromised himself by ordaining as successor to Flavian, Porphyrius, a man unworthy of the episcopate. He defended the heretic Nestorius against St. Cyril, though not himself present at the Council of Ephesus. At a great age, he laboured to reconcile St. Cyril and the Eastern Bishops at a Synod held at Berrhoea, A. D. 432. He died A. D. 437, at the age of 116 years. Three of his letters remain in the original Greek, one to St. Cyril, (extant in the Collection of Councils by Mansi, vol. iv. p. 1056,) and two to Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Evagrius, of Antioch, was a native of Antioch, the son of a citizen of that place,
named Pompeianus, and a presbyter apparently of the church of Antioch. lie travelled
into the west of Europe, and was acquainted with Jerome, who describes him as
a man "acris ac ferventis ingenii." During the schism in the patriarchate
of Antioch, he was chosen by one of the parties (A. D. 388 or 389) successor to
their deceased patriarch Paulinus, in opposition to Flavianus, the patriarch of
the other party. According to Theodoret, the manner of his election and ordination
was altogether contrary to ecclesiastical rule. The historians Socrates and Sozomen
state that Evagrius survived his elevation only a short time; but this expression
must not be too strictly interpreted, as it appears from Jerome that he was living
in A. D. 392. He was perhaps the Evagrius who instructed Chrysostom in monastic
discipline, though it is to be observed that Chrysostom was ordained a presbyter
by Flavianus, the rival of Evagrius in the see of Antioch. Evagrius had no successor
in his see, and ultimately Flavianus succeeded in healing the division.
Evagrius wrote treatises on various subjects (diversarum hypotheseon
traclatus). Jerome says the author had read them to him, but had not yet published
them. They are not extant. Evagrius also translated the life of St. Anthony by
Athanasius from Greek into Latin. The very free version printed in the Benedictine
edition of Athanasius (vol. i. pars ii.) and in the Acta Sanctorum (Januar. vol.
ii.), professes to be that of Evagrius, and is addressed to his son Innocentius,
who is perhaps the Innocentius whose death, A. D. 369 or 370, is mentioned by
Jerome. (Epist. 41 ad Rufinum.) Tillemont receives it, and Bollandus (Acta Sanct.
l c.) and the Benedictine editors of Athanasius (l. c.) vindicate its genuineness;
but Cave affirms that "there is more than one reason for doubting its genuineness
;" and Oudin decidedly denies the genuineness both of the Greek text and
the version. In the library of Worcester Cathedral is a MS. described as containing
the life of St. Antony, written by Evagrius and translated by Jerome: there is
probably an error, either in the MS. itself, or in the description of it. (Catal.
MSS. Angliae et Hib. vol. ii.)
Tillemont has collected various particulars of the life of Evagrius
of Antioch. Trithemius confounds him with Evagrius of Pontus. (Socrates, Hist.
Eccles. v. 15; Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. vii. 15 ; Theodoretus, Hist. Eccles. v.
23; Hieronymus (Jerome) de Viris Illust. 25; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. xii.; Cave,
Hist. Lit. vol. i., ed. Ox. 1740-43; Oudin, de Scriptor. et Scriptis Eccles. vol.
i. col. 882; Trithemius, de Scriptor. Eccles. c. 85; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol.
vii., vol. x.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Flavianus, of Antioch. According to Evagrius he was originally a monk of Tilmognon,
in Coele-Syria ; and, as appears from Theophanes, afterwards became a presbyter
and apocrisiarius of the church at Antioch. He was promoted to the see of Antioch
by the emperor Anastasius I. on the death of Palladius, in the year 496, or 497,
or 498, according to calculations or statements of Baronius, Victor Tununensis,
and Pagi respectively : the last date, which is also given by Tillemont, is probably
correct. The church throughout the whole Byzantine empire was divided by the Nestorian
and Eutychian controversies and the dispute as to the authority of the Council
of Chalcedon : and the impression that Flavian rejected the authority of that
council may perhaps have conduced to his elevation, as the emperor countenanced
the Eutychian party in rejecting it. But if Flavian was ever opposed to the council,
he gave up his former views after his elevation to the bishopric.
His period of office was a scene of trouble, through the dissensions
of the church, aggravated by the personal enmity of Xenaias or Philoxenus, bishop
of Hierapolis, in Syria, who raised the cry against him of favouring Nestorianism.
Flavian endeavoured to refute this charge by anathematizing Nestorius and his
doctrine; but Xenaias, not satisfied, required him to anathematize a number of
persons now dead (including Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret
of Cyrus, and others), who were suspected, justly or not, of Nestorianism, declaring
that if he refused to anathematize them, he must remain subject to the imputation
of being a Nestorian himself. Flavian refused for a time to comply; but pressed
by the enmity of Xenaias and his supporters, and anxious to satisfy the emperor,
who supported his opponents. he subscribed the Henoticon or Edict of Union of
the late emperor Zeno; and having assembled the bishops of his province, he drew
up a synodal letter, and sent it to the emperor, owning the authority of the three
councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and silently passing over that
of Chalcedon, and pronouncing the required anathema against the prelates enumerated
by Xenaias. He also sent to the emperor a private assurance of his readiness to
comply with his wishes. (A. D. 508 or 509.) Victor Tununensis states that Flavian
and Xenaias presided over a council at Constantinopie A. D. 499, when the obnoxious
prelates and the Council of Chalcedon itself were anathematized : but his account
seenis hardly trustworthy.
The ememies of Flavian were not, however, satisfied. They required
him distinctly to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, and all who held the
doctrine of the two natures. This he refused to do, and in a confession of faith
which he drew up, supported the authority of the council in the repudiation both
of Nestorius and Eutyches, but not in its definition of the true faith. The cry
of Nestorianism was again raised against him; and new disturbances were excited;
and the Isaurian, and apparently some other Asiatic churches, broke off from communiion
with Flavian. A synod was held A. D. 510 at Sidon, to condemn the Council of Chalcedon
and depose its leading supporters; but Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem managed
to prevent its effecting anything. Flavian still hoped to appease his opponents,
and wrote to the emperor, expressing his readiness to acknowledge the first three
councils, and pass over that of Chalcedon in silence; but his efforts were in
vain; a tumultuous body of monks of the province of Syria Prima assembled at Antioch,
and frightened Flavian into pronouncing an open anathema against the Council of
Chalcedon, and against Theodore of Mopsuestia and the other bishops whom Xenaias
had already obliged him to condemn. The citizens were not equally compliant; they
rose against the monks, and killed many of them : and the confusion was renewed
by the monks of Coele-Syria, who embraced the side of Flavian, and hasted to Antioch
to defend him. These disturbances, or some transactions connected with the Council
of Sidon, gave the emperor a ground or pretext for deposing Flavian (A. D. 511)
and putting Severus in his place. Victor Tununensis places the deposition of Flavian
as early as the consulship of Cethegus, A. D. 504. Flavian was banished to Petra
in Arabia, where he died. His death is assigned by Tillemoint, on the authority
of Joannes Moschus, to A. D. 518. In Vitalian's rebellion (A. D. 513 or 514) his
restoration to his see was one of the demands of that rebel. Flavian is (at least
was) honoured in the Greek Church as a confessor, and was recognised as such by
the Romish Church, after long opposition. (Evagr. Hist. Ecc. iii. 23, 30, 31,
32; Theophan. Chronog., ed. Bonn; Marcellin, Chron. (Paul. et Musc. Cass.); Vict.
Tun. Chiron. (ab Anast. Aug. Cos. ad Cet/heg. Cos.); Baron. Annal. Eccles. ad
Ann. 496 et 512; Pagi, Critice in Baron. ; Tillemont, Mem. vol. xvi.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Gregorius, of Antioch, was originally a monk in one of the convents of Constantinople,
or in a convent called the convent of the Byzantines, which Valesius supposes
to have been somewhere in Syria. Here he became eminent as an ascetic at an early
age, and was chosen abbot of the convent. From Constantinople, he was removed
by the emperor Justin II. to the abbacy of the convent of Mount Sinai. Here he
was endangered by the Scenite (or Bedouin) Arabs, who besieged the monastery;
but he succeeded in bringing them into peaceable relations to its inmates. On
the deposition of Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, about A. D. 570 or 571 (Baronius
erroneously places it in 573), he was appointed his successor; and in that see,
according to Evagrius, he acquired, by his charity to the poor and his fearlessness
of the secular power, the respect both of the Byzantine emperor and the Persian
king. When Chosroes I., or Khosru, invaded the Roman empire (A. D. 572), he sent
the intelligence of his inroad to the emperor.
Anatolius, an intimate friend of Gregory, having been detected in the practice
of magic, in sacrificing to heathen deities, and in other crimes, the populace
of Antioch regarded the patriarch as the sharer of his guilt, and violently assailed
him. The attention of the emperor Tiberius II. was drawn to the matter, and he
ordered Anatolius to be sent to Constantinople, where he was put to the torture:
but the culprit did not accuse Gregory of any participation in his crimes, and
was,after being tortured, put to death, being thrown to the wild beasts of the
amphitheatre, and his body impaled or crucified.
Though delivered from this danger, Gregory soon incurred another.
He quarrelled with Asterius, count of the East; and the nobles and populace of
Antioch took part against him, every one declaring that he had suffered some injury
from him. He was insulted by the mob; and though Asterius was removed, his successor,
Joannes or John, was scarcely less hostile. Being ordered to inquire into the
disputes which had taken place, he invited any who had any charge against the
bishop to prefer it; and Gregory was in consequence accused of incest with his
own sister, a married woman, and with being the author of the disturbances in
the city of Antioch. To the latter charge he expressed his willingness to plead
before the tribunal of count John, but with respect to the charge of incest, he
appealed to the judgment of the emperor, and of an ecclesiastical council. In
pursuance of this appeal he went to Constantinople, taking Evagrius, the ecclesiastical
historian, with him as his advocate. This was about A. D. 589. A council of the
leading prelates was convened; and Gregory, after a severe struggle with those
opposed to him, obtained an acquittal, and returned to Antioch, the same year.
When the mutinous soldiers of the army on the Persian frontier had driven away
their general Priscus, and refused to receive and acknowledge Philippicus, whom
the emperor Maurice had sent to succeed him, Gregory was sent, on account of his
popularity with the troops, to bring them back to their duty: his address, which
is preserved by Evagrius, was effectual, and the mutineers agreed to receive Philippicus,
who was sent to them. When Chosroes II. of Persia was compelled to seek refuge
in the Byzantine empire (A. D. 590 or 591), Gregory was sent by the emperor to
meet him. Gregory died of gout A. D. 593 or 594, having, there is reason to believe,
previously resigned his see into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anastasius.
He was an opponent of the Acephali, or disciples of Severus of Antioch, who were
becoming numerous in the Syrian desert, and whom he either expelled or obliged
to renounce their opinions. The extant works of Gregory are, 1. Demogoria pros
ton Straton, Oratio ad Exercitum, preserved, as noticed above, by Evagrius, and
given in substance by Nicephorus Callisti. 2. Logos eis tas Murophorous Oratio
in Mulieres Unguentiferas, preserved in the Greek Menaeu, and given in the Novum
Auctarium of Combefis, Paris, 1648, vol. i. Both these pieces are in the twelfth
vol. of the Bibliotheca Patrum of Gallandius. Various memorials, drawn up by Evagrius
in the name of Gregory, were contained in the lost volume of documents collected
by Evagrius. (Evagr. H. E. v. 6, 9, 18, vi. 4-7, 11-13, 18, 24; Niceph. Callist.
H. E. xvii. 36, xviii. 4, 12-16, 23, 26; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. xi. ; Cave, Hist.
Litt. vol. i., &c.; Galland. Bibl. Patr. vol. xii. Proleg. cxiii.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
CHALKIDON (Ancient city) TURKEY
Heraclianus, (Erakleianos), bishop of Chalcedon, an ecclesiastical writer of uncertain
date. He wrote a work against the Manichaeans, in twenty books, Kara Manichaion
en biblioir k. Photius, from whom alone we learn any thing of the work and its
author, describes it as written in a concise and elevated, yet perspicuous, style.
It was addressed to one Achillius (Achillior), at whose request it was written;
and was designed to refute the so-called Gospel (enangelion) of the Manichaeans,
and the Giganteior Biblur, and the Thesauroi, works of note among the members
of that sect. (Phot. Bibl. Codd. 85, 231; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i., ed. Oxon.
1740-43; Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. x.)
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
DORYLEON (Ancient city) TURKEY
Eusebius of Dorylaeum, born at the end of the fifth century, began his public
life as a layman, and held an office about the imperial court of Constantinople,
which gave him the title of Agens in Rebus. One day, as Nestorius, then bishop
of Constantinople, was preaching against the propriety of applying the term Theotokos
to the Virgin Mary, and waits maintaining at once the eternal generation of the
divine Logos, and the human birth of the Man Jesus, a voice cried out, "No,
the Eternal Word Himself submitted to the second birth." scene of great confusion
followed, and an active opposition to the Nestorian doctrine began. There is little
doubt that the voice proceeded from Eusebius. On another occasion, he produced
in church an act of accusation against Nestorius, whom he denounced as reviving
the heresies of Paul of Samosata. (Leontius, contra, Nestorian. et Eutych. iii.)
The interest which he took in this controversy probably induced him to alter his
profession, and to enter into holy orders. He afterwards became bishop of Dorylaeum,
a town in Phrygia on the river Thymbrins (a feeder of the Sangarius), not far
from the Bithynian frontier. In this office he was among the first to defend against
Eutyches the doctrine of Christ's twofold nature, as he had already maintained
against Nestorius the unity of His person. He first privately admonished Eutyches
of his error; but, as he failed in convincing him, lie first denounced him at
a synod summoned by Flavius, bishop of Constantinople, and then proceeded to the
council which Theodosius had summoned to meet at Ephesus, to declare the Catholic
belief on the point mooted by Eutyches. The assembly met A. D. 449 under the presidency
of Dioscurus, bishop of Alexandria, a partizan of Eutyches. It was disgraced by
scenes of the greatest violence, which gained for it the title of sunodos leistrike,
and besides sanctioning the monophysite doctrine, it decreed the deposition of
Eusebius. But Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, interfered and prevailed upon Marcian,
the successor of Theodosius, to convene another general council to revise the
decrees of this disorderly assembly. It met at Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and Eusebius
presented a petition at it addressed to Marcian and his colleague Valentinian.
He was restored to his see, and the doctrine of Eutyches finally condemned. A
Contesltaio adverusus Nestorium by Eusebius is extant in a Latin translation amongst
the works of Marius Mercator, part ii. There are also a Libellsus adversns Eutycheten
Synodo Contantinopolitano oblatus (Concil. vol. iv.), Libellus adversus Dioscurum
Synodo Chalcedonensi oblatus, and Epistola ad Marcianum Imperatorem (ib. p. 95),
(Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. ii. 4; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Neander, l. c. and vol.
ii.)
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
EFESSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Bishop of Ephesus (444-448). As a priest of Ephesus the charities of Bassianus so won the affection of the people that his bishop, Mennon, aroused to jealousy, sought his removal by promoting him to the Bishopric of Evaza. Bassianus repudiated the consecration to which he was violently forced to submit, an attitude approved by Mennon's successor, Basil. On the latter's death (444) Bassianus succeeded him and though popular enthusiasm disregarded canonical procedure his election was confirmed by Theodosius II and reluctantly by Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople. Bassianus reigned undisturbed for four years. At the Easter celebration in 448 he was seized by a mob and imprisoned. The emperor was importuned to remove him, and the case was referred to Pope Leo I and the Bishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, who declared the election invalid. Stephen, whom Bassianus called the ringleader of his opponents, was elected in his stead. The Council of Chalcedon on 29 October, 451, considered the plea of Bassianus for reinstatement and was disposed to favour him, but owing to the complex irregularities of the case it was deemed advisable to declare the see vacant. Bassianus and Stephen were retired on a pension with episcopal dignity. During the process Stephen cited Pope Leo's letter deposing Bassianus, a document unfortunately lost.
John B. Peterson, ed.
Transcribed by: Susan Birkenseer
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
IERAPOLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Alexander Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, flourished A. D. 253. He was the author of a book entitled, On the new things introduced by Christ into the world ti kainon eisenenke Christos eis ton kosmon. keph. th; not extant. (Suid.)
Alexander, Bishop of Hierapolis, A. D. 431. He was sent by John, bishop of Antioch, to advocate the cause of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus. His hostility to St. Cyril was such, that he openly charged him with Apollinaranism, and rejected the communion of John, Theodoret, and the other Eastern bishops, on their reconciliation with him. He appealed to the pope, but was rejected, and was at last banished by the emperor to Famothis in Egypt. Twenty-three letters of his are extant in Latin in the S/ynodicon adversus Tragoediam Irenaci ap. Novam Collectionem Conciliorum a Baluzio, Paris, 1683.
IRENOUPOLIS (Ancient city) ISAVRIA
Basilius, (Basileios and Basilios), commonly called Basil. Of Cilicia (ho Kilix), was the author of a history of the Church, of which Photius
gives a short account (Cod. 42), a work against John of Scythopolis (Phot. Cod.
107), and one against Archelaus, bishop of Colonia in Armenia. (Suidas, s. v.)
He lived under the emperor Anastasius, was presbyter at Antioch about 497 A. D.,
and afterwards bishop of Irenopolis in Cilicia.
KESSARIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Bishop of that see in Cappadocia, assigned by Krumbacher to the first
half of the sixth century, though he is yet variously placed by others from the
fifth to the ninth century.
His principal work is a commentary on the Apocalypse, important as
the first commentary on the book that has come down to us, also as the source
from which most of its later commentators have drawn. The writer differs from
most of the Byzantine commentators by reason of his extensive acquaintance with
early patristic literature.
A.T. Maas, ed.
Transcribed by: John Orr
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Andreas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, probably about 500 A. D., wrote a Commentary on the Apocalypse, which is printed in the principal editions of Chrysostom's works. He also wrote a work entitled " Therapeutica Spiritualis," fragments of which are extant in the " Eclogae Asceticae" of John, patriarch of Antioch. (Nessel, Cat. Vindob. Pt.i., cod. 276, No. 1.)
Acacius The One-eyed (ho Monophthalmos), the pupil and successor in the See of Caesarea of Eusebius A. D. 340, whose life he wrote. (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii. 4.) He was able, learned, and unscrupulous. At first a Semi-Arian like his master, he founded afterwards the Homoean party and was condemned by the Semi-Arians at Seleucia, A. D. 359. (Socrates, Hist. Eccl. ii. 39. 40 ; Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. 23.) He subsequently became the associate of Aetius [AETIUS], the author of the Anomoeon, then deserted him at the command of Constantius, and, under the Catholic Jovian, subscribed the Homoousion or Creed of Nicaea. He died A. D. 366. He wrote seventeen Books on Ecclesiastes and six of Miscellanies. (St. Jerome, Vir. Ill. 98.) St. Epiphanius has preserved a fragment of his work against Marcellus (c. Haer. 72), and nothing else of his is extant, though Sozomen speaks of many valuable works written by him.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Archelaus, bishop of Caesareia in Capadocia, wrote a work against the heresy of the Messalians, which is referred to by Photius (Cod. 52). Cave places him at 440 A. D. Hist. Lit. sub. ann.)
Helladius. Bishop of Caesareia, in Cappadocia, succeeded his master, Basil the
Great, in that see. A. D. 378, and was present at the two councils of Constantinople
in A. D. 381 and 394. His life of St. Basil is quoted by Damascenus (Orat. de
Imag. i. ), but the genuineness of the work is doubtful. (Sozom. H. E. viii. 6;
Tillemont, Mem. Eccles. vol. ix.; Cave, Hist. Lit. s. a. 378; Fabric. Bibl. Graec.
vol. ix.)
KYMI (Ancient city) TURKEY
Alexander, Carbonarius (Alexandros ho Anthrakeus), flourished in the third century.
To avoid the dangers of a handsome person, he disguised himself and lived as a
coal-heaver at Cumae, in Asia Minor. The see of this city being vacant, the people
asked St. Gregory Thaumaturgus to come and ordain them a bishop. He rejected many
who were offered for consecration, and when he bade the people prefer virtue to
rank, one in mockery cried out, " Well, then ! make Alexander, the coal-heaver,
bishop!" St. Gregory had him summoned, discovered his disguise, and having arrayed
him in sacerdotal vestments, presented him to the people, who, with surprise and
joy, accepted the appointment. He addressed their in homely but dignified phrase,
and ruled the church till the Decian persecution, when he was burnt, A. D. 251
(S. Greg. Nyssen. Vit . S. Greg. Thaumaturg. 19, 20).
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
MYLASSA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Ephraem. Ephrem, bishop of Mylasa in Caria. The time when he lived is uncertain ; but religious honours were paid to his memory in the fifth century at Leuce (near Mylasa), where his body was buried. (Acta Sanctorum, S. Eusebae Vita, cap. 3, Januar. vol. ii.)
NIKOMIDIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Eusebius, of Nicomedeia, the friend and protector of Arius, was maternally connected,
though distantly, with the emperor Julian, and born about A. D. 324. He was first
bishop of Berytus (Beyrout) in Syria, and then of Nicomedeia, which Diocletian
had made his residence, so that it was in fact the capital of the Eastern empire
till Constantine fixed his court at Byzantium. He first comes under the notice
of history by taking the part of Arius after his excommunication by Alexander,
bishop of Alexandria. He wrote a defence of the heretic to Paulinus, bishop of
Tyre, and the letter is preserved in Theodoret (i. 6). Eusebius states in it his
belief that there is one Being Unbegotten and one Begotten by Him, but not from
his substance, having no share in the nature or essence of the Unbegotten, but
yet pros teleian homoioteta diatheseos te kai dunameos tou Pepoiekotos genomenon.
So warmly did Eusebius take part with Arius, that the Arians were
sometimes called Eusebians; and at the Nicene council he exerted himself vigorously
against the application of the term homoousios to the Son. But his opposition
was unsuccessful, the Homoousians triumphed, and Eusebius joined his namesake
of Caesareia in affixing his signature to the Creed, though he took the word in
a sense which reduces it merely to homoios kat ousian.
He declined, however, to sign the anathema which the council issued
against Arius, though not, as he says in the petition which he afterwards presented
to the bishops, "because he differed from the doctrine as settled at Nicaea,
but because he doubted whether Arius really held what the anathema imputed to
him." (Soezom. ii. 15.) But very soon after the council had broken up, Eusebius
shewed a desire to revive the controversy, for which he was deprived of his see
and banished into Gaul. On this occasion Constantine addressed a letter to the
people of Nicomedeia, censuring their exiled bishop in the strongest manner, as
disaffected to his government, as the principal supporter of heresy, and a man
wholly regardless of truth. (Theodor. Hist. Eccl. i. 20.) But he did not long
remain under the imperial displeasure. Constantia, the emperor's sister, was under
the influence of an Arian presbyter, and was thereby induced to plead in favour
of that party with her brother, and one result of her interference was the restoration
of Eusebius to his see; and he soon so completely regained Constantine's favour,
as to be selected to administer baptism to him in his last illness. His Arian
feelings however broke out again. He procured the deprivation ot Eustathius, bishop
of Antioch, and, if we may believe Theodoret (i. 21), by suborning a woman to
bring against him a false accusation of the most infamous kind He was an active
opponent of Athanasius, and exerted himself to procure the restoration of Arius
to the full privileges of churchmanship, menacing Alexander, bishop of Constantinople,
with deposition unless he at once admitted him to the holy communion, in which
he would have succeeded but for the sudden death of Arius. Soon after this Alexander
died, and Eusebius managed to procure his own election to the vacant see, in defiance
of a canon against translations agreed to at Nicaca. IIe died about A. D. 342.
Though Eusebius lies under the disadvantage of having his character
handed down to posterity almost entirely by the description of theological enemies,
yet it is difficult to imagine that lie was in any way deserving of esteem. His
signature to the Nicene creed was a gross evasion, nor can he be considered to
have signed it merely as an article of peace, since he was ever afterwards a zealous
oppotent of its principles. It can scarcely be doubted that he was worldly and
ambitious, and if Theodoret's story above referred to be true, it would be horrible
to think that a Christian bishop should have been guilty of such gross wickedness.
At the same time, considering the entire absence of the critical element in the
historians of that age, the violent bitterness of their feelings on subjects of
theological controversy, and the fact that Theodoret wrote many years after Eusebius's
death, we shall be slow to believe in such an accusation, which rests only on
the authority of the most vehement of the church historians of the time, while
Socrates, the most moderate and least Orednlous, merely says (i. 18), that Eustathius
was deposed nominally for Sabellianism, " though some assign other causes;"
and Sozomen (ii. 18) tells us, that some accused Eustathius of leading an irregular
life, but does not hint that this charge rested on a wicked contrivance of Eusebius.
Athanasius himself gives another cause for the deposition of Eustathius--that
Eusebius had accused him of slandering Helena, the mother of Constantine. (Athan.
Hst. Ari. § 5.) We regret in this instance, as in others, that we have not the
complete work of Philostorgius, the Arian historian, who, however, in one of his
remaining fragments, does not hesitate to attribute miracles to Eusebius. (Waddington,
Church Hist. ch. vii.) Athanasius (Orat. ii.) considers him as the teacher rather
than the disciple of Arius; and afterwards, when the Arians were divided among
themselves into parties, those who maintained the perfect likeness which the substance
of the Son bore to that of the Father (Homoiousians) against the Consubstantialists,
on the one hand, and the pure Arians, or Anomoians, on the other, pleaded the
authority of this Eusebius. The tenets of this party were sanctioned by the Council
of Seleuceia, A. D. 359. (Theodor. l. c. ; Sozom. l. c.; Socrates, ii. 5; Cave,
Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Neander, Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii.; Tillemont, sur les Ariens,
art. 66; see also an encyclical letter from the synod of Egyptian bishops to be
found in Athan. Apol. c. Ar. § 10.)
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
Gerontius, bishop of Nicomedeia. He was ordained or acted as deacon at Milan under Ambrose, but having asserted that he had in the night seen the she-daemon Onoscelis (i. e. " the ass-legs," so called from her form), had seized her, shaved her head, and set her to grind in the mill, Ambrosius, deeming the relator of such tales unfit for the deaconship, ordered him to remain at home for some time, and purify himself by penitence or penance. Gerontius, instead of obeying, went to Constantinople, and being a man of winning address, made friends at the court there, and obtained by their means the bishoprick of Nicomedeia, to which he was ordained by Helladius, bishop of Caesareia in Cappadocia, for whose son he had, by his interest, procured a high military appointment at court. Ambrose, hearing of his appointment, wrote to Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople (who held that see front A. D. 381 to 397) to depose Gerontius, and so prevent the continuance of so glaring a violation of all ecclesiastical order. Nectarius, however, could effect nothing; but when Chrysostom, two years after his accession to the patriarchate, visited the Asiatic part of his province (A. D. 399), Gerontius was deposed. The people of Nicomedeia, to whom his kindness and attention, shown alike to rich and poor, and the benefits of his medical skill, for which he was eminent, had endeared him, refused to acknowledge his successor, Pansophius, and went about the streets of Nicomedeia and of Constantinople, singing hymns and praying for the restoration of Gerontius. They served to swell the number of the enemies of Chrysostom; and in the synod of the Oak (A. D. 403), Gerontius appeared as one of his accusers. (Sozom. H. E. viii. 8; Phot. Bibl. cod. 59.)
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
Himerius. Bishop of Nicomedeia, where he succeeded Nestorius, but was deposed by Maximian, in A. D. 432. (Murat. in the Anecdot. Graec. ad Ep. Firmi.)
SAMOSATA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Andreas, bishop of Samosata, about 430 A. D., took part in the Nestorian controversy against Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, in answer to whose anathemas he wrote two books, of the first of which a large part is quoted by Cyril, in his Apol. adv. Orientales, and of the second some fragments are contained in the Hodeyus of Anastasius Sinaita. Though prevented by illness from being present at the council of Ephesus (A. D. 431), he joined Theodoret in his opposition to the agreement between Cyril and John, and, like Theodoret, he changed his course through fear, but at a much earlier period. About 436 he yielded to the persuasions of John, and joined in the condemnation of Nestorius. Eight letters by him are extant in Latin in the " Epistolae Ephesinae" of Lupus.
SELEFKIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Basilius, (Basileios and Basilios), commonly called Basil. Bishop of Seleuceia
in Isauria from 448 till after 458, distinguished himself by taking alternately
both sides in the Eutychian controversy. His works are published with those of
Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the Paris edition of 1622. He must not be confounded
with Basil, the friend of Chrysostom, as is done by Photius. (Cod. 168, ed. Bekker.)
SELEFKIA SIDIRA (Ancient city) TURKEY
SEVASTIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Eustathius. Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia, who, together with Basilius of Ancyra, was the author of the sect of the Macedonians. (Suid. s. v. Eustathios.) He was originally a monk, and is said to have been the first who made the Armenians acquainted with an ascetic life. For this reason some persons ascribed to him the work on Ascetics, which is usually regarded as the production of St. Basilius. He must have been a contemporary of Constantine the Great, for Nicephorous states, that although he had signed the decrees of the council of Nicaea, he yet openly sided with the Arians. (Epiphan. lxxv. 1, &c.; Sozomen. iii. 13; Nicephor. ix. 16.)
SIDI (Ancient port) TURKEY
Amphilochius, bishop of Side in Pamphylia, who was present at the council of Ephesus, in which Nestorius was condemned, A. D. 421, and who was probably the author of some homilies that go under the name of Amphilochius of Iconium. (Phot. Cod. 52, Cod. 230; Labbeus, de Script Eccl. vol. i.)
SMYRNI (Ancient city) TURKEY
Cyrus, an Egyptian, belonging to the fifth century, afterwards bishop of Smyrna, according to the testimony of Theophanes. His poetical talents procured him the favour of the empress Eudocia. Under Theodosius the Younger he filled the office of governor of the praetorium, and exarch of the city of Constantinople. When Eudocia withdrew to Jerusalem, A. D. 44.5, he fell under the emperor's displeasure. This led to his retirement from civil offices and his joining the clerical order. It is the express testimony of Theophanes that, by order of Theodosius, he was made bishop of Smyrna. After he was elevated to the episcopal dignity, he is said to have delivered a discourse to the people on Christmas day, in which he betrayed gross ignorance of divine things. He lived till the time of the emperor Leo. Suidas says, that on his retirement from civil authority he became episkopos ton hieron en Koruaeioi tes Psrugias; but whether this means bishop of Cotyaeia in Phrygia is uncertain. It is not known whether he wrote anything. (Cave, Histor. Literar. vol. i.; Suidas, s. v.)
TARSOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Helladius. Bishop of Tarsus, originally a monk, flourished about A. D. 431, and
was remarkable for his attach ment to Nestorius, through which he lost his bishopric.
He was afterwards reconciled to the church, but he was compelled to join in the
anathema upon Nestorius. Six letters of his are extant. (Cave, Hist. Lit. s. a.
431.)
TRALLIS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Asclepiades, a bishop of Tralles, who lived about A. D. 484. A letter of his and ten anathematismi against Fullo are printed with a Latin translation in Labbeus, Concil. iv. Another letter of his is still extant in the Vienna and Vatican libraries in MS. This Asclepiades must be distinguished from an earlier Christian writer of the same name, who is mentioned by Lactantius. (vii. 4)
SINOPI (Ancient city) TURKEY
Marcion (Markion,) one of the most celebrated of the so-called heretics of the
second century. He was a native of Pontus. The account, prevalent in the days
of Epiphanius, of which there is no reason to doubt the correctness, made him
a native of Sinope in Hellenopontus. Tertullian repeatedly calls him a ship-master,
nauclerus (Adv. Marc. i. 18, iii. 6, iv. 9, &c.), and, according to one MS. and
the version of Rufinus, Rhodon, a writer of the latter part of the second century
(apud Euseb. H. E. v. 13), calls him the seaman Marcion. Some moderns have doubted
whether so learned a man could have been in such an occupation, but we see no
reason to question the statement, nor does his learning appear to have been great.
His father was bishop of a Christian church (probably at Sinope), but there is
reason to think that Marcion had grown up before his father's conversion, for
Tertullian intimates (De Praescrip. Hereticor. c. 30) that he had been a stoic,
and speaks of his " finding out God" (Adv. Marcion, i. l), expressions which indicate
that he had not been brought up as a Christian, but had become a convert in an
adult age, after inquiry, and on his own conviction. Be this as it may, he appears
to have been a sincere and earnest believer, characterised by the severity of
his ascetic practices; nor does he at first seem to have entertained, at least
he did not avow, any opinions at variance with the usual belief of the church
with which he was in full communion.
The course of his life was, however, altogether altered by his excommunication.
The occasion of this is, in the spurious addition to one of the works of Tertullian
(De Praescrip. Haeret. c. 51 ), and by Epiphanius, stated to have been his seduction
of a girl; but the silence of Tertullian in his genuine works, and of the other
early opponents of Marcion, ready as they would have been to lay hold on anything
unfavourable to him, throws,as Beausobre and Lardner have shown, considerable
doubt on the accusation. Beausobre and Neander suppose that he was cut off from
the church on account of his having already begun to propagate his obnoxious sentiments
as to the Mosaic dispensation and the Old Testament generally. Even if the charge
brought against him by Epiphanius be credited, there is no reason to regard his
delinquency as an evidence of habitual licentiousness: it stands in marked contrast
with the rigour of his system and with the ordinary tenor of his life, and at
a later period he himself excommunicated Apelles, one of his disciples, for a
similar, perhaps even a less heinous, offence. (Tertull. ibid. c. 30.) Epipbanius
further adds, that his first desire after his fall was to be restored to the communion
of the church, and that, in order to this, he professed penitence; but that his
father, by whom he ad been excommunicated, refused to restore him, being angry
at the shame which had fallen upon himself by his son's fall; or possibly (if
there be any truth in the story at all), from an apprehension that his near connection
with the offender might incline hinm, or make him suspected of inclining, to undue
lenity. Failing to obtain his readmission, and unable to bear the opprobrium which
his conduct had incurred, Marcion went to Rome. Epiphanius says that he arrived
there after the decease of Pope Hyginus, a statement which is subject to considerable
doubt, and of which, in any case, the uncertainty of the early Papal chronology
prevents our fixing the date. Tillemont places the pope's death and Marcion's
arrival in A. D. 142; but if Justin Martyr wrote his First Apology in which Marcion's
residence at Rome, and his teaching his heretical views are mentioned (Justin.
Apol. Prima, c26), in A. D. 139. Marcion must have settled at Rome some years
earlier.
According to Epiphanius, Marcion's first care, on his arrival at Rome,
was to apply to be admitted into communion with the church, but he was refused.
Epiphanius adds, that he had aspired to succeed to the vacant bishopric,--a statement
too absurd to merit refutation, especially taken in conneetion with the story
of his previous incontinence ; and that disappointed ambition stimulated him to
unite himself with the Syrian Gnostic Cerdon, then at Rome, to adopt and propagate
his opinions, and to carry out the threat with which he parted from the elders
of the Roman church on their refusal to receive him, that "he would cause a perpetual
schism among them." Imputation of motives is so easy and so common, that it has
little weight, especially when the writer is so credulous and uncharitable as
Epiphanius; nor is his statement of facts in accordance with Tertullian, who tells
us (De Praescrip. Haeret. c. 30) that Marcion was in communion with the Roman
church, and professed to hold the general belief; under tile episcopate of Eleutherius,
but that on account of the ever-restless curiosity with which lie pursued his
inquiries, he was repeatedly (semel atque iterum) excommunicated, the last time
finally (in perpetuum discidium relegatus). It is possible that lie may, on his
final ejection, have uttered some such threat as that attributed to him by Epiphanius,
yet in that case Tertullian would have hardly forborne to mention it; and it may
be observed that Marcion's repeated reconciliation with the church, and retractation
or concealment of his opinions, indicate a greater pliancy of temper and a more
anxious desire to avoid a schism than it has been usual to impute to him. Tertullian
is, indeed, by some critics, yet we think on insufficient ground, supposed to
have confounded Marcion with Cerdon, of whom Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. iii. 4) gives
a somewhat similar account.
We have seen that Marcion was at Rome, and engaged in the propagation
of his views which implies his separation from the church, in A. D. 139, when
Justin wrote his First Apology. Whether he travelled intodistant provinces to
diffuse his opinions is very doubtful. Most modern critics, including Tillemont,
Beausobre, and Lardner, think that he did; but the passages cited from the ancients
in support of the supposition are quite insufficient. That views similar to his
were widely diffused in various parts, especially of the East, is indisputable,
but that the diffusion was owing to his personal exertions and influence is by
no means clear; and we do not know of any distinct evidence that he ever left
Rome after his first arrival there. The passages from Tertullian and Ephrem Syrus
are mere declamatory expressions, and the passage usually cited from Jerome (Epist.
cxxxiii. ad Ctesiphont. c. 4, Opera, vol. i. col. 1025, ed. Vallarsii), if it
has any foundation in truth, is most naturally referred to Marcion's first journey
from Sinope to Rome; and it was probably on that same journey that he became acquainted
with the venerable Polycarp, whom he afterwards met, apparently at Rome, and who,
when Marcion asked if he knew him, replied, "I know thee as the first-born of
Satan." (Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. iii. 3.) This anecdote of Marcion's anxiety to
claim acquaintance with that venerable man is in accordance with his desire to
be reconciled to the Catholic Church, a desire which continued to the close of
his life, for after all his misbelief, the ministers, apparently of the Roman
church, agreed to restore him on condition of his bringing back with hin those
whim he had led into error. This colldition seems to show that his own immediate
disciples were not numerous, and that the widely diffused body that held similar
views, and was called by his name, had rather followed an independent course of
thougllt than been influenced by him. His compliance with the condition of his
restoration was prevented by his death, the time of which is quite unknown. (Tertullian,
de I'raescript. Haeret. c. 30.)
The doctrinal system of Marcion was of remarkable character. Its great
feature was the irreconcileable opposition which it supposed to exist between
the Creator and the Christian God, and between the religious systems, the Law
and the Gospel, which it was believed they had respectively founded. Whether he
held two or three original principles is not clear. Rhodon (apud Euseb. H. E.
v. 13) and Augusitin (de Haeres. c. 22) say he held two, Epiphanius charges him
with holding three, --one, nameless and invisible, the Supreme, whom Marcion termed
"the Good"; another "the visible God, the Creator"; the third, "the Devil," or
perhaps matter, the source of evil. Theodoret says he held four "unbegotten existences",
--the good God. the Creator, matter, and the evil ruler of matter, meaning, apparently,
the Devil. That he held matter to be eternal is admitted; the doubtful point is
whether he really held the Creator to have been a principle, or to have been in
some way derived from the good God. That he regarded them as independent first
principles is tile most natural inference from the strong opposition which he
conceived to exist between them, and which formed the prominent feature in his
doctrinal system. He was probably led to the belief of this opposition by the
difficulty he found in reconciling the existence of evil, so prevalent in the
world, with the attribute of goodness in the Deity, which was so distinctly manifested
in the gospel. This is Tertullian's account of the origin of his heresy (Adr.
Marcion. i. 2), and it is apparently tile true one; nor will it materially differ
from the account of Neander, that Marcion could not perceive in nature or in the
Old Testament the same love which was manifested in the Gospel of Christ. He accordingly
made the Creator, the God of the Old Testament, the author of evils, "malorum
factored," according to the statement of Irenaeus (Adv. Haeres. i. 29), by which
he meant that he was the author, not of moral evil, but of suffering. The old
dispensation was, according to him, given by the Creator, who chose out the Jews
as his own people, and promised to them a Messiah. Jesus was not this Messiah,
but the son of the " unseen and unnamed" God, and had appeared on earth in the
outward form of man, possibly a mere phantasm, to deliver souls, and to upset
the dominion of the Creator; and Marcion further supposed that, when he descended
into Hades, he had delivered, not those who in the Old Testament were regarded
as saints, such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, &c., who were apprehensive
of some delusion and would not believe, but rather those who had rejected or disobeyed
the Creator, such as Cain, Esau, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
The other doctrines of Marcion were such as naturally flowed from
this prominent feature of his system. He condemned marriage, and admitted none
who were living in the married state to baptism; for he did not think it right
to enlarge, by propagation, a race born in subjection to the harsh rule of the
Creator. (Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 3.) His followers did not hesitate to brave
martyrdom, and boasted of the number of their martyrs. He denied the resurrection
of the body; and, according to the very questionable authority of Epiphanius,
believed in transmigration. He admitted persons to baptism, Epiphanius says, three
times, apparently requiring a repetition of it after any great sin; but as Tertullian
does not notice this threefold baptism, it was probably introduced after Marcion's
time. His followers permitted women to baptize probably those of their own sex,
and allowed catechumens to be present at the celebration of the mysteries. According
to Chrysostom, when a catechumen died they baptized another person for him; but
even Tillemont supposes that this was not their original practice. They fasted
on the Sabbath, out of opposition to the Creator, who had rested on that day.
It was a necessary consequence of these views that Marcion should
reject a considerable part of the New Testament. The Old Testament he regarded
as a communication from the Creator to his people the Jews, not only separate
from Christianity, but opposed to it. He acknowledged but one Gospel, formed by
the mutilation of the Gospel of St. Luke. which, it may be reasonably supposed,
he believed he was restoring, by such mutilation, to its original purity. He rejected
the greater part of the four first chapters, commencing his gospel with the words,
"In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar God came down to Capernaum,
a city of Galilee, and he taught on the Sabbath", &c. (as in Luke, iv. 31, &c.).
He omitted all those passages in our Lord's discourses in which he recognised
the Creator as his father. He received the following Epistles of Paul:--to the
Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1
and 2 Thessalonians, and Philemon, and acknowledged certain portions of a supposed
Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans; but the Epistles which he received were, according
to Epiphanius, whose testimony in this respect there is no reason to doubt, mutilated
and corrupted. Marcion, besides his edition, if we may so term it, of the New
Testament, compiled a work entitled Antithesis, consisting of passages from the
Old and from the New Testament which he judged to be mutually contradictory. This
work was examined and answered by Tertullian, in his fourth book against Marcion.
Tertullian also cites (De Carne Christi, c. 2) an epistle of Marcion, but without
further describing it. (Justin Martyr and Irenaeus,ll. cc.; Tertullian, Adv. Marcion.
Libri V. de Praescripf. Haeret. passim; Epiphan. Panarium. Haeres. xlii; the numerous
other passages in ancient writers have been collected by Ittigius, de Haeresiarchis,
sect. ii. c. 7; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. ii. p. 266, &c.; Beausobre, Hist. de
Manicheisme, liv. iv. ch. v.--viii.; and Lardner, Hist. of Heretics, b. ii. ch.
x. See also Neander, Church History (by Rose), vol. ii. p. 119, &c.; Cave, Hist.
Litt. ad ann. 128, vol. i. p. 54, ed. Oxford, 1740-42.)
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
VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY
Eutyches, a presbyter and abbot at Constantinople, in the 5th century, who headed the party
opposed to the Nestorian doctrines [NESTORIUS]. Nestorius having maintained that
there are in Christ two persons or substances (npsosta seis), one divine (the
Logos), and one human (Jesus), but with only one aspect, and united not by nature,
but by will and affection; -Eutyches carried his opposition to this system so
far as to assert that in Christ here is but one nature, that of the Incarnate
Word. The declaration "the word was made flesh" implies, according to Eutyches,
that He so took human nature upon Him, that His own nature was not changed. From
this it follows that His body is not a mere human body, but a body of God. There
can be no doubt that this doctrine, if pushed to its logical consequences, would
he highly dangerous, since it would destroy all the practical benefits of our
belief in in the Incarnation, as it involves the denial that we have a High Priest
who can be touched with a feeling of our infirmities. If this is borne in mind,
the horror which it excited can be accounted for; and although we do not know
that Eutyches, any more than many other teachers of error, did carry out his principles
to their practical conclusions, still the means which were adopted to support
his cause were such as to prevent our feeling any sympathy with it. His opinions
became popular in the Alexandrian Church, where the doctrines of Nestorius had
been most loudly coindemned, and where the patriarch Dioscurus was eminently violent
and unscrupulous. Eutycilea was first warned of his error privately by Eusebius,
bishop of Dorylaeum, and was then denounced by him as a heretic, before a synod
which assembled at Constantinople, under the presidency of Flavian, patriarch
of that city. He was condemned, in spite of the extent of his influence at court,
where Chrysaphius, eunuch and chief chamberlain to Theodosius II., was a close
friend of Dioscurus, and godson to Eutyches. Besides this, Chrysaphis had a strong
desire to crush the partisans of Pulcheria. the emperor's sister, who was warmly
attached to Flavian. By his influence Theodosius was persuaded to declare himself
dissatisfied with the decision of Flavian's synod, and to refer the matter to
a general council, to meet at Ephesus, A. D. 449. under the presidency of Dioscurus.
This is the celebrated leistrike sunodos, an appellation which it most richly
deserved. It was composed almost entirely of partisans of Eutyches. Flavian, and
those who had judged him on the former occasion,though allowed to be present,
were not to be suffered to vote. Theodoret, the historian, who had been a friend
of Nestorius, was not to vote without the permission of Dioscurus; and a number
of frantic Egyptian monks accompanied their abbot, Barsumas, to whom, as a vigorous
opponent of Nestorius, a seat and vote in the council were assigned. For the emperor
had avowed, in his letters of convocation, that his great object was pasan diaboliken
ekkopsai pizan, meaning by this phrase the Nestorian doctrines. When the council
met, all opponents of Eutyches were silenced by the outcries of the monks, the
threats of the soldiers who were admitted to hear the deliberations, and the overhearing
violence of the president. Flavian, Eusebius, and Theodoret were deposed, and
the doctrines of Eutyches formally sanctioned; and this was regarded as a victory
gained over the Eastern church by its Alexandrian rival, which two bodies often
came into conflict from the different dogmatical tendencies prevalent in each.
The deposed prelates, however, applied for aid to Leo the Great, bishop of Rome,
who had been himself summoned to the council, but, instead of appearing there,
had sent Julius, bishop of Puteoli, and three other legates, from whom therefore
he obtained a correct account of the scenes which had disgraced it. He was ready
to interfere, both on general grounds, and from the notion, which had already
begun to take root, that to him, as the successor of St. Peter, belonged a sort
of oversight over the whole church. Things were changed too at Constantinople:
Chrysaphius was disgraced and banished, and Pulcheria restored to her brother's
favour. In the year 450, Theodosius II. died; Pulcheria married Marcian, and procured
for him the succession to the throne. A new general council was summoned at Nicaea,
and afterwards adjourned to Chalcedon, A. D. 451, which 630 bishops attended.
The proceedings were not altogether worthy of a body met to decide on such subjects;
yet, on the whole, something like decorum was observed. The result was that Dioscurus
and Eutyches were condemned, and the doctrine of Christ in one person and two
natures finally declared to be the faith of the church. We know nothing of the
subsequent fate of Eutyches, except that Leo wrote to beg Marcian and Pulcheria
to send him into banishment, with what success does not appear. There are extant
a confession of faith presented by Eutyches to the council of Ephesus (the boule
leistrike), and two petitions to the emperor Theodosius (Concil. vol. iv.); but
no works of his are in existence. This schism was continued among the monks by
Eudocia, widow of Theodosius, and to such an extent, that Marcian was obliged
to send an armed force to put it down. The followers of Eutyches, however, under
the name of Monophysites, continued to propagate their opinions, though with little
success, till the 6th century, when a great revival of those doctrines took place
under the auspices of Jacob Baradaeus, who died bishop of Edessa, A. D. 588. From
him they were called Jacobites, and under this title still constitute a very numerous
church, to which the Armenians and Copts belong.
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
KYZIKOS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Amphilochius (Amphilochios), metropolitan of Cyzicus in the middle of the ninth century, to whom Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople, wrote several letters, and whose answers are still extant in manuscript. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. viii.)
NIKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Alexius (Alexios), Metropolitan of NICAEA, composed a Canon or Hymn on St. Demetrius the Martyr. It is uncertain when he lived. The canon is in manuscript.
Eustratius, (Eustratios), one of the latest commentators on Aristotle, lived about the beginning of the twelfth century after Christ, under the emperor Alexius Comnenus, as metropolitan of Nicaea. According to a hint in the Commentary to the tenth book of the Ethica Nicotmachea (if this part of the Commentary is composed by him), he appears to have also lived at Constantinople, and to have written his commentary in this place. (Comp. ad Arist. Eth. Nic. x. 9.13, ed. Zell.) Of his life we know nothing else. Of his writings only two are extant, and these in a very fragmentary state: viz. 1. A Commentary to the second hook of the Aualytica, published by Aldus Manutius, Venice, 1534:, and translated into Latin by A. Gratarolus. (Venice. 1542, 1568, fol.) 2. A Commentary to Aristotle's Ethica Nicomachea, published in the Greek language with some other commentators on the same work, Venice, 1536, fol., and in the Latin language by J. Bernardus Felicianus, Ven. 1541, 1589, fol, Paris. 1543, Helmst. 1662, 4to. But, according to the latest researches, this commentary consists of very different materials, and great parts of it are the work of other interpreters, as Aspasius and Michael Ephesius. This has been proved chiefly by the researches of Schleiermacher, in his writings on the Greek Scholia to the Ethics of Aristotle (printed in the Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie der Wissensch. of the year 1816-1817). Schleiermacher has shewn that the author of the commentary to the first book of the Ethics cannot possibly be the same person as the author of the comnmentary to the sixth book, because very different interpretations of the Hechoterikoi Aogoi of Aristotle are given in the two passages cited. (See Stahr, Aristotelia, ii.; Schleiermacher) Probably Eustratius is only the author of the commentary to the sixth book, which is much better than the rest, and from which the commentaries to the second, third, and fourth book greatly differ. But perhaps the commentary to the first is also to be ascribed to Eustratius, and the difference on the signification of the Hechoterikoi Aogoi may have been occasioned by Eustratius himself borrowing one opinion or the other from more ancient interpreters. The commentaries of Eustratius greatly differ from similar works of elder commentators by their not being uninterrupted treatises on philosophical subjects, but commentaries in the proper sense of the word, explaining single words and things. It is this which renders them of great importance. In the middle ages Robert of Lincoln translated this commentary into Latin, and Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas made considerable use of it in their interpretation of Aristotle. (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iii.; Buhle's Aristotle, vol. 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
ANTIOCHIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Macedonius Critophagus, or Crithophagus. (ho Krithophagos.) Macedonius was a celebrated
ascetic, contemporary with the earlier years of Theodoret, who was intimately
acquainted with him, and has left an ample record of him in his Philotheus or
Historia Religiosa (c. 13). He led an ascetic life in the mountains, apparently
in the neighbourhood of Antioch; and dwelt forty-five years in a deep pit (for
he would not use either tent or hut). When he was growing old, he yielded to the
intreaties of his friends, and built himself a hut; and was afterwards further
prevailed upon to occupy a small house. lie lived twenty-five years after quitting
his cave, so that his ascetic life extended to seventy years; but his age at his
death is not known. His habitual diet was barley, bruised and moistened with water,
from which he acquired his name of Crithophagus, " the barley-eater." He was also
called, from his dwelling-place, Gouba, or Guba, a Syriac word denoting a "pit"
or " well." He was ordained priest by Flavian of Antioch, who was obliged to use
artifice to induce him to leave his mountain abode; and ordained him, without
his being aware of it, during the celebration of the eucharist. When informed
of what had occurred, Macedonius, imagining that his ordination would oblige him
to give up his solitude and his barley diet, flew into a passion ill becoming
his sanctity; and after pouring out the bitterest reproaches against the patriarch
and the priests, he took his walking staff, for he was now an old man, and drove
them away. He was one of the monks who resorted to Antioch, to intercede with
the emperor's officers for the citizens of Antioch after the great insurrection
(A. D. 387), in which they had overthrown the statues of the emperor. His admirable
plea is given by Theodoret. (H. E. v. 19.) Chrysostom notices one part of the
plea of Macedonius, but does not mention his name. (Ad Popul. Antiochen. de Statuis.
Homil. xvii. 1.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
PHILADELPHIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Charisius, a presbyter of the church of the Philadelphians in the fifth century. Shortly be fore the general council held at Ephesus, A. D. 431, Antonius and James, presbyters of Constantinople, and attached to the Nestorian party, came to Philadelphia with commendatory letters from Anastasius and Photius, and cunningly prevailed upon several of the clergy and laity who had just renounced the errors of the Quartodecimani (Neander, Kirchengesch. ii. 2,), to subscribe a prolix confession of faith tinctured with the Nestorian errors. But Charisius boldly withstood them, and therefore they proscribed him as a heretic from the communion of the pious. When the council assembled at Ephesus, Charisius accused before the fathers that composed it Anastasius, Photius, and James, exhibiting against them a book of indictment, and the confession which they had imposed upon the deluded Philadelphians. He also presented a brief confession of his own faith, harmonizing with the Nicene creed, in order that he might clear himself from the suspicion of heresy. The time of his birth and death is unknown. He appears only in connexion with the Ephesian council, A. D. 431.
The indictment which he presented to the synod, his confession of faith, a copy of the exposition of the creed as corrupted by Anastasius and Photius, the subscribings of those who were misled, and the decree of the council after hearing the case, are given in Greek and Latin in the Sacrosancta Concilia, edited by Labbe and Cossart, vol. iii. p. 673, &c., Paris, 1671.
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
VYZANTION (Ancient city) TURKEY
Josephus Hymnographus, a Greek ecclesiastic, sceuophylax, or keeper of the sacred vessels under Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, wrote Mariale, apparently a hymn or service in honour of the Virgin, of which a Latin version, with notes, was published by Ippolito Maracci, Rome, 8vo. 1662. (Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. v.p.60.)
AMASSIA (Ancient city) TURKEY
Eutychius Eutuchios), was originally a nonk of the town of Amaseia, whence he was sent by his fellow-citizens to Constantinople, as proxy for their bishop. The great talent he displayed in some theological controversy gained him general admiration, and the emperor in A. D. 553 raised him to the highest dignity in the church at Constantinople. In the same year he accordingly presided at an ecumenical synod, which was held in that city. In A. D. 564, he incurred the anger of the emperor Justinian, by refusing to give his assent to a decree respecting the incorruptibility of the body of Christ previous to his resurrection, and was expelled from his see in consequence. He was at first confined in a monastery, then transported to an island, Princepo, and at last to his original convent at Amaseia. In 578, the emperor Tiberius restored him to his see, which he henceforth retained until his death in 585, at the age of 73. There is extant by him a letter addressed to pope Vigilius, on the occasion of his elevation in A. D. 553. It is printed in Greek and Latin among the Acta Synodi quintae, Concil. vol. v. p. 425, &c. He also wrote some other treatises, which, however, are lost. (Evagr. iv. 38; Gregor. Moral. xiv. 29)
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
Anastatius I., made patriarch of Antioch A. D. 559 or 561, took a prominent part in the controversy with the Aphthartodocetae, who thought that the body of Christ before the resurrection was incorruptible. He opposed the edict which Justinian issued in favour of this opinion, and was afterwards banished by the younger Justin. (570.) In 593 he was restored to his bishopric at Antioch, and died in 599.
Anastatius II., succeeded Anastasius I. in the bishopric of Antioch, A. D. 599. He translated into Greek the work of Gregory the Great, "de Cura Pastorali," and was killed by the Jews in a tumult, 609 A. D.
Macedonius of Antioch, a Monothelite, was patriarch of Antioch from A. D. 639 or 640, till 655 or later. He was appointed to the patriarchate by the influence, if not by the nomination, of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, by whom also he was consecrated. The year of his death is not certain. Macarius, who was his successor (though perhaps not immediately), stated in his Expositio Fidei, read at the sixth general council, A. D. 681, that Macedonius was present at a synod held while Peter was patriarch of Constantinople, i e. some time from A. D. 655 to 666, which shows he could not have died before 655. Macedonius appears to have spent the whole of his patriarchate at Constantinople, Antioch being in the power of the Saracens. (Le Quien, Oriens Christian. vol. ii. col. 740, 741; Bolland. Acta Sanctor. Julii, vol. iv. Tractat. Praelim. p. 109.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Macarius of Antioch. Macarius was patriarch of Antioch in the seventh century. He held the doctrine of the Monothelites; and having attended the sixth general or third Constantinopolitan council (A. D. 680, 681), and there boldly avowed his heresy, affirming that Christ's will was " that of a God-man" (Deandriken,); and having further boldly declared that he would rather be torn limb from limb than renounce his opinions, his was deposed [p. 876] and banished. His Ekthesis etoi homologia pisteos, Expositio sive Confessio Fidei; and some passages from his Prosphonetikos pros basilea logs, Hortatorius ad Imperatorem Sermo; his Logos apostaleis Loukai presbuteroi kai monachoi toi en Aphrikei, Liber ad Lucam Presbyterumn et Monachum in Africa missus; and from one or two other of his pieces, are given in the Concilia, vol. vi. col. 743, 902, &c., ed. Labbe; vol. iii. col. 1168, 1300, &c., ed. Hardouin; vol. xi. col. 349, 512, &c., ed. Mansi. (Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 680; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii. 368.) This heretical Macarius of Antioch is not to be confounded with a saint of later date, but of the same name, " archbishop of Antioch in Armenia," who died an exile at Ghent in Flanders, in the early part of the eleventh century, and of whom an account is given by the Bollandists in the Acta Sanctorum, a. d. 10 Aprilis. Of what Antioch this later Macarius was archbishop is not determined. There is no episcopal city of Antioch in Armenia properly so called.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Oct 2006 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
NIKEA (Ancient city) TURKEY
1200 - 1273
The Catholic Encyclopedia
TRAPEZOUS (Ancient city) TURKEY
Anthimus (Anthimos), bishop of Trapezus in Pontus, was made patriarch of Constantinople by the influence of the empress Theodora (A. D. 535), and about the same time was drawn over to the Eutychian heresy by Severus. Soon after his election to the patriarchate, Agapetus, the bishop of Rome, came to Constantinople, and obtained from the emperor Justinian a sentence of deposition against Anthimus, which was confirmed by a synod held at Constantinople under Mennas, the successor of Anthimus (A. D. 536; Novell. 42; Mansi, Nova Collect. Concil. viii.; Labbe, v). Some fragments of the debate between Anthimus and Agapetus in the presence of Justinian are preserved in the Acts of the Councils.
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Thessalonica
Macedonius of Constantinople. On the death of Eusebius, patriarch of Constantinople,
better known as Eusebius of Nicomedeia, A. D. 341 or 342, the orthodox, which
appears to have been the popular party, restored the patriarch Paul, who had been
deposed shortly after his election (A. D. 339) to make room for Eusebius; while
the leaders of the Arian party elected Macedonius, who had been deacon, and perhaps
priest, of the church of Constantinople, and was already advanced in years. Jerome,
in his additions to the Chronicon of Eusebius, says that Macedonius had been an
embroiderer, "artis plumariae," an art which Tillemont supposes he might have
carried on while in his office of deacon or priest, but which Scaliger supposed
to be attributed to him, by Jerome's mistaking the meaning of the term poikilotechnos,
which perhaps some Greek writer had applied to Macedonius. According to the account
of the orthodox party, Alexander the patriarch had described Macedonius as a man
having the exterior of piety, and possessing much address in secular affairs;
but, according to the Arians, Alexander had commended his piety. He had been one
of the adversaries of Paul during the first patriarchate of that prelate.
Upon the election of Macedonius great tumults, accompanied by bloodshed,
were excited either by his partisans or those of Paul; and the attempt to put
these down by Hermogenes, magister equitum, who had been ordered by the emperor
Constantius II. to expel Paul, led to still further seditions, and to the murder
of Hermogenes. These events compelled Constantius, then at Antioch, to return
to Constantinople, and an end was put to the disturbances by the banishment of
Paul. Constantius was, however, much displeased at the unauthorized election of
Macedonius, and delayed to recognize him as patriarch, but he was allowed to officiate
in the church in which he had been ordained. These events occurred in A. D. 342.
On the departure of Constantius Paul returned, but was soon again banished, and
Macedonius and his partisans were then by the imperial officers put in possession
of the churches, though not without the loss of several hundred lives, through
the resistance of the multitude.
Macedonius retained possession of the patriarchate and the churches
till A. D. 348, when the interposition and threats of Constans obliged Constantius
to restore Paul, whose title had been confirmed by the council of Sardica (A.
D. 347), and Macedonius was only allowed to officiate in one church, which appears
to have been his own private property; but in A. D. 350, after the death of Constans,
he regained possession of his see, and commenced a vigorous persecution of his
opponents, chased them from the churches in his patriarchate, and banished or
tortured them, in some instances to death. On the re-establishment of orthodoxy
these unhappy persons were reverenced as martyrs, and their memory is still celebrated
by the Greek and Latin churches on the 30th March and the 25th Oct. respectively.
By these cruelties Macedonius became hateful even to his own party, and an unexpected
event increased the odium in which he was held. He removed the body of the emperor
Constantine the Great from the Church of the Apostles, in which it had been buried,
and which (though built only twenty years before) was in a very dilapidated state.
The removal was made in order to prevent the corpse being injured by the apprehended
fall of the church; but it led to a tumult, in which the people appear to have
been influenced by hatred of Macedonius, and many persons were killed in the church
to which the body had been removed. Constantius was very angry with Macedonius,
both for his removing the body without orders and for the serious consequences
to which his act had led ; and the emperor's displeasure prepared the way for
his downfal. At the council of Seleuceia (A. D. 359), where the Acacian or pure
Arian party and the semi-Arians were openly divided and seceded from each other,
some charges against him, apparently of cruelty, are said to have been contemplated.
He did not appear at the first sitting of the council, alleging sickness, but
he was present afterwards; and if any hostile proceedings were contemplated, no
steps appear to have been openly taken against him. In A. D. 3G0, however, in
a council held at Constantinople, he was deposed by the Acacians, who were favoured
by Constantius, on tile plea that he had been the occasion of many murders, and
because he had admitted to communion a deacon convicted of adultery; but in reality
to gratify Constantius, who was irritated against him, and perhaps also because
he would not adopt their views. Though expelled from Constantinople [p. 881] he
was not disposed to remain quiet, but sought to unite himself more closely with
the semi-Arians, in opposition to the Acacians. He appears to have resided in
the neighbourhood of Constantinople till his death, of the date of which there
is no account. Facundus asserts that he was summoned in A. D. 381 before the second
oecumenical, or first council of Constantinople, at which his obnoxious tenets
respecting the Holy Spirit were condemned; but this is probably a mistake, and
it appears likely that he did not long survive his deposition.
Macedonius is known chiefly as the leader of a sect which took its
name front him. The term "Macedonians " (hoi Makedonianoi) is applied somewhat
indeterminately in the ancient ecclesiastical writers. Its first application was
to the less heterodox division of the Arian party, commonly called the semi-Arians
(Hemiareianoi), who admitted and contended that the Son was homoiousios, "homoiousios,"
of like substance with the Father, in opposition to those who affirmed that he
was anomoios, "anomoios," of unlike substance. The latter party were known as
Acacians, from their leader Acacius of Caesareia, while the former were designated
from Macedonius, who was the most eminent among them in dignity, though he does
not appear to have fully identified himself with them until after his deposition;
and if Photius (Bibl. Cod. 257) is correct, was at his election an Anomoian or
Acacian. The two sections came into open collision at the council of Seleuceia
(A. D. 359); and the Acacians, though outnumbered in that council, succeeded,
through the favour of Constantius, in deposing several of their opponents, and
secured an ascendancy which, though interrupted in the reigns of Julian and Jovian,
was fully restored under the reign of Valens, from whose time they were known
simply as Arians, that designation being thenceforward given to them alone. Many
of the semi-Arian party, or, as they were termed, Macedonians, being persecuted
by the now triumphant Acacians, were led to approximate more and more to the standard
of the Nicene confession with respect to the nature and dignity of the Son; and
at last several of their bishops transmitted to pope Liberius (A. D. 367) a confession,
in which they admitted that the Son was " homoousios," homoousios," or" of the
same substance" as the Father, and were addressed by the pope in reply as orthodox
in that respect. Their growing orthodoxy on this point rendered their heterodoxy
with respect to the Holy Spirit, whose deity they denied, and whom they affirmed
to be a creature, more prominent. This dogma is said to have been broached by
Macedonius after his deposition, and was held both by those who remained semi-Arians
and by those who had embraced orthodox views on the person and dignity of the
Son; their only common feature being their denial of the deity of the Holy Spirit,
on account of which they were by the Greeks generally termed Pneumatomachoi, "Pneumatomachi,"
"Impugners of the Spirit." The second general or first Constantinopolitan council
(A. D. 381) anathematised the heresy of the semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi (Hemiareianon
egoun Pneumatomakon), thus identifying the two names as belonging to one great
party; from which it appears not unlikely that the same fear of persecution which
led the Macedonians, during the Arian ascendency under Valens, to court the orthodox,
by approximating towards orthodoxy, led them, now that orthodoxy was in the ascendant
under Theodosius, to draw nearer to the Arians, in order to secure their alliance
and support. The Macedonians were also sometimes called Marathonians, Marathonianoi,
from Marathonius, one of their leaders. (Socrates, H. E. ii. 6, 12, 13, 16, 22,
27, 38, 39, 40, 45, iv. 12, v. 4, 8; Sozom. H. E. iii. 3, 7, 9, iv. 2, 3, 20,
21, 22, 24, 26, 27, v. 14, vi. 10, 11, 12, 22, vii. 7, 9; Theodoret. H. E. ii.
6, v. 11; Philostorg. H. E. v. 1, viii. 17 ; Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxxi. xli.;
Athanas. Historia Arianor. ad Monach. c. 7; Pseud. Athanas. Dialog. de Trinit.
iii., and Contra Macedonianos Dialog. i. ii.; Epiphan. Panarium. Huacres. 74 (s.
ut alii, 54); Augustin. de Haeresibus, c. 52; Leontius Byzant. de Seclis. Act.
iv.; Phot. Bibl. l. c.; Theophanes, Chronograph, pp. 35-38, ed. Paris, pp. 64-70,
ed. Bonn; Tillemont, MΓ©moires, vol. vi.; Ceillier, Auteurs SacrΓ©s, vol. v. p.
594, &c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. p. 247, Concilia, vol. i. col. 809, 810,
817, 818, 819, ed. Hardouin.)
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
All articles are available at the ancient city of Antiocheia
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Thessalonica
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Alexandria
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Nazianzus
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Tarsus
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Antiocheia
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Tarsus
All articles are available at his native city, the ancient Sebasteia
Nestorius and Nestorianism
Flavianus, of Constantinople. He was chosen successor to Proclus, bishop of Constantinople, who died anno 439 Alex. era, or 446 A. D. At the time of his election he was a presbyter and keeper of the sacred vessels in the great church at Constantinople. Chrysaphius, the eunuch, a friend and supporter of the monk Eutyches, was at this time an influential person at court ; and he having a dislike to Flavian, managed to set the emperor Theodosius II. against him, from the very commencement of his episcopate. Dioscorus, who had just ascended the episcopal chair of Alexandria, and was persecuting the kinsmen of his predecessor, Cyril, was also irritated against Flavian, who had befriended the persecuted parties. Flavian was indeed befriended by Pulcheria, the emperor's sister; but her aid was more than counterbalanced by the enmity of the empress Eudocia, who was influenced by Chrysaphitus, and was, moreover, irritated by Flavian's defeating a plan to remove Pulcheria altogether from the state and the court by having her ordained a deaconess. Flavian was not, however, daunted. He assembled a synod of forty bishops, and deposed Eutyches from his office of archimandrite or abbot, and excommunicated him, on the ground of his heretical opinions. This bold step irritated the opponents of Flavian, and they prevailed on the emperor to summon a synod at Constantinople to try Flavian on a charge of falsifying the acts of the synod at which Eutyches was condemned. Flavian was acquitted, but his enemies persuaded Theodosius to summon a general council at Ephesus. At this council, over which Dioscorus presided, and which is known in history as the Council of Robbers (he leistrike)), Flavian and the other members of the synod which had condemned Eutyches were present, but were not allowed to vote, since their conduct was called in question. Their friends were overborne in an irregular manner, Eutyches was restored, and Flavian not only deposed and sentenced to banishment, but so roughly beaten and kicked by the Egyptian and other attendants of Dioscorus, that he died three days afterwards (A. D. 449). This violence probably tended to the reaction which took place in the mind of the emperor. Pulcheria regained her ascendancy; the body of Flavian was, by her order, honourably conveyed to Constantinople, and buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles. Pope Leo the Great honoured him as a confessor, and the Council of Chalcedon as a martyr; and since the time of Baronius he has been commemorated in the Martyrology of the Romish Church. A letter of Flavian to Pope Leo was published by Cotelerus (Monum. Eccles. Graec. vol. i.); and a confession of his faith presented to the emperor Theodosius, and some other pieces, are given with the acts of the Council of Chalcedon in the Concilia of Labbe and Harduin; and are also inserted in the Concilia of Mansi, vol. viii. (Evagr. Hist. Ecc. i. 8, 9, 10; Theophanes, Chronog., ed Bonn; Marcellin, Chron. (Protog. et Astur. Coss.); Vict. Tun. Chron. (Callip. ct Ardab. Coss. Post. et Zen. Coss.); Synod. Vetus, aptid Fabric. ; Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vol. ix., and vol. xii.; Tillemont, Mem. vol. xv.)
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
Anatolius (Anatolios), Patriarch of Constanrinople (A. D. 449), presided at a synod at Constantinople (A. D. 450) which condemned Eutyches and his followers, and was present at the general council of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), out of the twenty-eighth decree of which a contest sprung up between Anatolius and Leo, bishop of Rome, respecting the relative rank of their two sees. A letter from Anatolius to Leo, written upon this subject in A. D. 457, is still extant. (Cave, Hist. Lit. A. D. 449.)
St. Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople
in the time of Theodosius the Younger. The heretic Dioscurus had favoured his
appointment as patriarch, hoping for his support, but he found in Anatolius a
determined enemy, who in the Council of Chalcedon
condemned him and his followers.
How he died is disputed, but it would appear that the heretics put
him to death. Baronius says this occurred in 458 after eight years in the patriarchate.
The great annalist condemns him in a somewhat violent manner, for conniving with
Dioscurus for his appointment, to the see; for demanding in contravention of the
statutes of Nicaea, the supremacy of Constantinople over Antioch
and Alexandria; for insincerity in opposing a new formula of doctrine; for declaring
that Dioscurus was not condemned at Ephesus, on account of the faith; for removing
the meritorious Aetius from time archidiaconate, and naming the unworthy Andrew;
for weakness, if not connivance in dealing with the heretics.
All of these serious accusations are discussed by the Bollandists,
who give a verdict in favour of Anatolius. He is held by them to be a true Catholic,
a saint, and a prophet. The Pope blamed him, not for error but because he permitted
himself to be consecrated by a schismatic. One enthusiastic biographer narrates
that his miracles amid his combats equal in number the sands of the sea. He was
born at Alexandria, and before becoming patriarch distinguished himself at Ephesus
against Nestorius, and at Constantinople
against Eutyches, though the profession of faith which he drew up was rejected
by time papal legates.
When he was in danger of death he was restored to health by St. Daniel
the Stylite, who came to Constantinople
to see him. His feast is kept 3 July.
T.J. Campbell, ed.
Transcribed by: W.S. French, Jr.
This text is cited May 2003 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Gennadius. The earlier of the two was a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, and became bishop of that see, A. D. 459, on the decease of Anatolius. He was one of those who pressed the emperor Leo I., the Thracian, to punish Timothy Aelurus (or the Cat), who had occupied the see of Alexandria on the murder of Proterius, and his intervention was so far successful that Timothy was banished, A. D. 460. He also opposed Peter'Gnapheus (or the Fuller) who, under the patronage of Zeno, son-in-law of the emperor, and general of the Eastern provinces, had expelled Martyrius from the see of Antioch, and occupied his place. Gennadius honourably received Martyrius, who went to Constantinople. and succeeded in procuring the banishment of Peter, A. D. 464. Gennadius died. A. D. 471, and was succeeded by Acacius. Theodore Anagnostes (or the Reader) has preserved some curious particulars of Gennadias, whose death he seems to ascribe to the effect of a vision which he had while praying by night at the altar of his church. He saw the Evil one, who declared to him that, though things would remain quiet in his lifetime, his death would be followed by the devastation of the Church, or, as Theophanes has it, by the predominance of the Devil in the Church. (Evagr. H. E. ii. 11; Theod. Lect. H. E. excerpta apud Niceph. Callist. i. 13-26; Theophan. Chronog. vol. i., ed. Bonn.)
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. Gennadius I, Patriarch of Constantinople (458-471), has left scarcely any writings. Facundus
(Defensio, II, iv) states that he wrote against St. Cyril of Alexandria, probably
in 431-2, and quotes a passage to show that his work was more violent even than
the letter of Ibas. If St. Cyril's letter of 434 (Ep. lvi) is to the same Gennadius,
they were friends in that year. Gennadius succeeded Anatolius as Bishop of Constantinople
in 458. On 17 June, 460, St. Leo wrote to him (Ep. clxx) warning him against Timothy
Aelurus, the Monophysite who had made himself Patriarch of Alexandria. Not later,
it seems, than 459 St. Gennadius celebrated a great council of eighty-one bishops,
many of whom were from the East and even from Egypt, including those who had been
dispossessed of their sees by Aelurus. The letter of this council against simony
is still preserved (Mansi, VII, 912). About the same time St. Daniel the Stylite
began to live on a column near Constantinople, apparently without the Patriarch's
leave, and certainly without the permisslon of Gelasius, the owner of the property
where the pillar stood, who strongly objected to this strange invasion of his
land. The Emperor Leo protected the ascetic, and some time later sent St. Gennadius
to ordain him priest, which he is said to have done standing at the foot of the
column, since St. Daniel objected to being ordained, and refused to let the bishop
mount the ladder. At the end of the rite, however, the patriarch ascended to give
Holy Communion to the stylite and to receive it from him. Whether he then imposed
his hands on him is not said. Possibly he considered it sufficient to extend them
from below towards the saint. According to Theodorus Lector, Gennadius would allow
no one to become a cleric unless he had learned the Psalter by heart. He made
St. Marcian oeconomus of the Church of Constantinople.
St. Gennadius is said by Joannes Moschus to have been very mild and
of great purity. We are told by Gennadius of Marseilles that he was lingua nitidus
et ingenio acer, and so rich in knowledge of the ancients that he composed a commentary
on the whole Book of Daniel. The continuation of St. Jerome's Chronicle by Marcellinus
Comes tells us (according to some manuscripts) that Gennadius commented on all
St. Paul's Epistles. Some fragments are collected in Migne, P.G., LXXXV, chiefly
from the two catenae of Cramer on Romans; a few passages are found in the catena
of Aecumenius, and a few in the Vienna MS. gr. 166 (46). Some fragments in the
catenae of Niceohorus show that Gennadius also commented on Genesis. He is seen
to have been a learned writer, who followed the Antiochene school of literal exegesis.
He is celebrated in the Greek Menaea on 25 Aug. and 17 Nov., and on the former
day in the Roman-Martyrology.
Joah Chapman, ed.
Transcribed by: Joseph P. Thomas
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, succeeded Gennadius A. D. 471, after being at the head of the Orphan Asylum of that city. He distinguished himself by defending the Council of Chalcedon against the emperor Basiliscus, who favoured the Monophysite heresy. Through his exertions Zeno, from whom Basiliscus had usurped the empire, was restored (A. D. 477), but the Monophysites meanwhile had gained so much strength that it was deemed advisable to issue a formula, conciliatory from its indefiniteness, called the Henoticon, A. D. 482. Acacius was led into other concessions, which drew upon him, on the accusation of John Talaia, against whom he supported the claims of Peter Mongus to the See of Alexandria, the anathema of Pope Felix II. A. D. 484. Peter Mongus had gained Acacius's support by professing assent to the canons of Chalcedon, though at heart a Monophysite. Acacius refused to give up Peter Mongus, but retained his see till his death, A. D. 488. There remain two letters of his, one to Pope Simplicius, in Latin, the other to Peter Fullo, Archbishop of Antioch, in the original Greek.
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Sep 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople; Schismatic; d. 489. When Acacius first appears in
authentic history it is as the orphanotrophos, or dignitary entrusted with the
care of the orphans, in the Church of Constantinople. He thus filled an ecclesiastical
post that conferred upon its possessor high rank as well as curial influence;
and, if we may borrow a hint as to his real character from the phrases in which
Suidas has attempted to describe his undoubtedly striking personality, he early
made the most of his opportunities. He seems to have affected an engaging magnificence
of manner; was openhanded; suave, yet noble, in demeanour; courtly in speech,
and fond of a certain ecclesiastical display. On the death of the Patriarch Gennadius,
in 471, he was chosen to succeed him, and for the first five or six years of his
episcopate his life was uneventful enough. But there came a change when the usurping
Emperor Basiliscus allowed himself to be won over to Eutychian teaching by Timotheus
?lurus, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, who chanced at that time to be
a guest in the imperial capital. Timotheus, who had been recalled from exile only
a short time previously, was bent on creating an effective opposition to the decrees
of Chalcedon; and he succeeded so well at court that Basiliscus was induced to
put forth an encyclical or imperial proclamation (egkyklios) in which the teaching
of the Council was rejected. Acacius himself seems to have hesitated at first
about adding his name to the list of the Asiatic bishops who had already signed
the encyclical; but, warned by a letter from Pope Simplicius, who had learned
of his questionable attitude from the ever-vigilant monastic party, he reconsidered
his position and threw himself violently into the debate. This sudden change of
front redeemed him in popular estimation, and he won the regard of the orthodox,
particularly among the various monastic communities throughout the East, by his
now ostentatious concern for sound doctrine. The fame of his awakened zeal even
travelled to the West, and Pope Simplicius wrote him a letter of commendation.
The chief circumstance to which he owed this sudden wave of popularity was the
adroitness with which he succeeded in putting himself at the head of the particular
movement of which Daniel the Stylite was both the coryphaeus and the true inspirer.
The agitation was, of course, a spontaneous one on the part of its monastic promoters
and of the populace at large, who sincerely detested Eutychian theories of the
Incarnation; but it may be doubted whether Acacius, either in orthodox opposition
now, or in unorthodox efforts at compromise later on, was anything profounder
than a politician seeking to compass his own personal ends. Of theological principles
he seems never to have had a consistent grasp. He had the soul of a gamester,
and he played only for influence. Basiliscus was beaten.
He withdrew his offensive encyclical by a counter-proclamation, but
his surrender did not save him. His rival Zeno, who had been a fugitive up to
the time of the Acacian opposition, drew near the capital. Basiliscus, deserted
on all sides, sought sanctuary in the cathedral church and was given up to his
enemies, tradition says, by the time-serving Patriarch. For a brief space there
was complete accord between Acacius, the Roman Pontiff, and the dominant party
of Zeno, on the necessity for taking stringent methods to enforce the authority
of the Fathers of Chalcedon; but trouble broke out once more when the Monophysite
party of Alexandria attempted to force the notorious Peter Mongus into that see
against the more orthodox claims of John Talaia in the year 482. This time events
took on a more critical aspect, for they gave Acacius the opportunity he seems
to have been waiting for all along of exalting the authority of his see and claiming
for it a primacy of honour and jurisdiction over the entire East, which would
emancipate the bishops of the capital not only from all responsibility to the
sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but to the Roman Pontiff as well.
Acacius, who had now fully ingratiated himself with Zeno, induced that emperor
to take sides with Mongus. Pope Simplicius made a vehement but ineffectual protest,
and Acacius replied by coming forward as the apostle of reunion for all the East.
It was a specious and far-reaching scheme, but it laid bare eventually the ambitions
of the Patriarch of Constantinople and revealed him, to use Cardinal Hergenrother's
illuminating phrase, as "the forerunner of Photius".
The first effective measure which Acacius adopted in his new role
was to draw up a document, or series of articles, which constituted at once both
a creed and an instrument of reunion. This creed, known to students of theological
history as the Henoticon, was originally directed to the irreconcilable factions
in Egypt. It was a plea for reunion on a basis of reticence and compromise. And
under this aspect it suggests a significant comparison with another and better
known set of "articles" composed nearly eleven centuries later, when the leaders
of the Anglican schism were thridding a careful way between the extremes of Roman
teaching on the one side and of Lutheran and Calvinistic negations on the other.
The Henoticon affirmed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (i.e. the Creed of
Nicaea completed at Constantinople) as affording a common symbol or expression
of faith in which all parties could unite. All other symbola or mathemata were
excluded; Eutyches and Nestorius were unmistakably condemned, while the anathemas
of Cyril were accepted. The teaching of Chalcedon was not so much repudiated as
passed over in silence; Jesus Christ was described as the "only-begotten Son of
God . . . one and not two" (homologoumen ton monogene tou theou ena tygchanein
kai ou duo . . . k.t.l.) and there was no explicit reference to the two Natures.
Mongus naturally accepted this accomodatingly vague teaching. Talaia refused to
subscribe to it and set out for Rome, where his cause was taken up with great
vigour by Pope Simplicius. The controversy dragged on under Felix II (or III)
who sent two legatine bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople, to summon
Acacius before the Roman See for trial. Never was the masterfulness of Acacius
so strikingly illustrated as in the ascendancy he acquired over this luckless
pair of bishops. He induced them to communicate publicly with him and sent them
back stultified to Rome, where they were promptly condemned by an indignant synod
which reviewed their conduct. Acacius was branded by Pope Felix as one who had
sinned against the Holy Ghost and apostolic authority (Habe ergo cum his . . .
portionem S. Spiritus judicio et apostolica auctoritate damnatus); and he was
declared to be perpetually excommunicate -nunquamque anathematis vinculis exuendus.
Another envoy, inappropriately named Tutus, was sent to carry the decree of this
double excommunication to Acacius in person: and he, too, like his hapless predecessors,
fell under the strange charm of the courtly prelate, who enticed him from his
allegiance. Acacius refused to accept the documents brought by Tutus and showed
his sense of the authority of the Roman See, and of the synod which had condemned
him, by erasing the name of Pope Felix from the diptychs. Talaia equivalently
gave up the fight by consenting to become Bishop of Nola, and Acacius began by
a brutal policy of violence and persecution, directed chiefly against his old
opponents the monks, to work with Zeno for the general adoption of the Henoticon
throughout the East. He thus managed to secure a political semblance of the prize
for which he had worked from the beginning. He was practically the first prelate
throughout Eastern Christendom until his death in 489. His schism outlived him
some thirty years, and was ended only by the return of the Emperor Justin to unity,
under Pope Hormisdas in 519.
Cornelius Cliford, ed.
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Euphemius of Constantinople (490-496) succeeded as patriarch Flavitas (or Fravitas, 489-490), who succeeded Acacius (471-489). The great Acacian schism (484-519), therefore, lasted during his reign. The Emperor Zeno (474-491) had published a decree called the "Henotikon" (482) that forbade in the current theological discussions any other criterion but that of Nicaea-Constantinople (ignoring the decrees of Chalcedon), carefully avoided speaking of Christ's two natures, and used ambiguous formulae that were meant to conciliate the Monophysites. The "Henotikon" really satisfied no one. Consistent Monophysites disliked it as much as Catholics. But Acacius at the capital, Peter Mongus of Alexandria, and Peter Fullo (Gnapheus) of Antioch, signed it. Pope Felix III (or II, 483-492) in a Roman synod of sixty-seven bishops (484) condemned the emperor's decree, deposed and excommunicated Acacius, Peter Mongus, and Peter Fullo. Acacius retorted by striking the pope's name from his diptychs and persecuted Catholics at Constantinople. When he died, Flavitas, his successor, applied for recognition at Rome, but in vain, since he would not give up communion with Peter Mongus. Euphemius recognized the Council of Chalcedon, restored the pope's name to his diptychs, and broke with Peter Mongus, who died in the year of Euphemius's accession (490). He was therefore a well-meaning person who wanted to restore the union with the Holy See. Unfortunately he still refused to erase the names of his two predecessors (Acacius and Flavitas) from the diptychs, where they occurred among the faithful departed. The pope insisted that heretics and favourers of heresy should not be prayed for publicly in the Liturgy; so during the reign of Euphemius the union he desired was not brought about. But Euphemius was always a Catholic at heart. Before the accession of the Emperor Anastasius I (491-518) he had made him sign a Catholic profession of faith (Evagrius, H.E., III, xxxii). After the death of Pope Felix, Euphemius wrote to his successor, Gelasius I (492-496), again asking for intercommunion on any terms but the condemnation of Acacius. This time, too, the pope refused to modify his condition (Gelasii Epist. et Decret.; P.L., LIX, 13). The patriarch had already summoned a synod at Constantinople in which he confirmed the decrees of Chalcedon (Mansi, VII, 1180). Eventually he fell foul of the emperor. A war against the Bulgars and Slavs was then going on, and Euphemius was accused of treason by revealing the emperor's plans to his enemies. A soldier tried, unsuccessfully, to murder the patriarch, apparently by order of Anastasius. The emperor further wanted to have back his written profession of faith, which Euphemius refused to give up. so he was deposed (496) in spite of the resistance of the people, and Macedonius II (496-511) was appointed successor. Macedonius seems to have been unwilling to take his place and refused to wear patriarchal vestments in his presence. Euphemius was exiled to Asia Minor and died in 515 at Ancyra. He was recognized to the end as lawful patriarch by Catholics in the East (Elias of Jerusalem, Flavian of Antioch, etc.).
Adrian Fortescue, ed.
Transcribed by: Gerald M. Knight
This text is cited Jan 2006 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Macedonius of Constantinople. Macedonius, the second patriarch of Constantinople of the name, was nephew of Gennadius I., who was patriarch from A. D. 459 to 471, and by whom he was brought up. He held the office of Sceuophylax, or keeper of the sacred vessels, in the great church at Constantinople, and, on the deposition of the patriarch Euphemius or Euthymius, was nominated patriarch by the emperor Anastasius I., who probably appreciated the mildness and moderation of his temper. His appointment is placed by Theophanes in A. M. 488, Alex. era, 496 A. D. Though he himself probably recognised the council of Chalcedon, he was persuaded by the emperor to subscribe the Henoticon of Zeno, in which that council was silently passed over, and endeavoured to reconcile to the church the monks of the monasteries of Constantinople, who had broken off from the communion of the patriarch from hatred to the Henoticon; but he met with no success, although, in order to gain them over, he persuaded the emperor to summon a council of the bishops who were then at Constantinople, and to confirm, by a writing or edict, several of the things which had been sanctioned by the council of Chalcedon, without, as it appears, directly recognizing the authority of the council. Macedonius, thus baffled in his designs, still treated the monks with mildness, abstaining from any harsh measures against them. Macedonius distinguished himself by his generosity and forbearance towards his predecessor Euphemius, and towards a man who had attempted to assassinate him. But the same praise of moderation cannot be given to all his acts, if, as stated by Victor of Tunes, he held a council in which the supporters of the council of Chalcedon were condemned. He occupied the patriarchate for sixteen years, and was deposed by the emperor, A. D. 511 or 512. According to Theophanes, the cause of his deposition was his maintenance of the authority of the council of Chalcedon, and his refusal to surrender the authentic record of the acts of that council. Anastasius urgently pressed him to disavow its authority, and when lie could not prevail on him, suborned witnesses to charge him with unnatural lusts (which, from self-mutilation, he could not indulge), and with heresy. He was prevented by the fear of popular indignation from instituting an inquiry into the truth of these charges, and therefore banished him without trial, first to Chalcedon, and then to Euchaeta; and appointed Timotheus bishop or patriarch in his room; and, having thus exiled him without any previous sentence of condemnation or deposition, he endeavoured to amend the irregularity of the proceeding by appointing a day for his trial, when he had him condemned in his absence, and by judges who were themselves accusers and witnesses. Many ecclesiastics, however, throughout the empire, refused to admit the validity of his deposition ; and his restoration to his see was one of the objects of the rebellion of Vitalian the Goth (A. D. 514), but it was not effected, and Macedonius died in exile, A. D. 516. Evagrius assigns a different cause for the emperor's hostility to him, namely, his refusal to surrender a written engagement not to alter the established creed of the church, which Anastasius had given to the patriarch Euphemius, and which had been committed to the care of Macedonius, then only Sceuophylax, and which he persisted in retaining when the emperor wished to recover it. He is honoured as a saint by the Greek and Latin churches. (Evagrius, H. E. iii. 30, 31, 32; Theodor. Lector. H. E. ii. 12-36; Theophan. Chronog. pp. 120-138, ed. Paris, pp. 96-110, ed. Venice, pp. 216-249, ed. Bonn; Marcellin. Chronicon; Victor Tunet. Chronicon; Liberatus, Breviarium, c. 19; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. i. col. 220; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. xvi. p. 663, &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
Epiphanius, of Constantinople. On the death of Joannes or John II., the Cappadocian,
patriarch of Constantinople, Epiphanius, then a preshyter, was chosen to succeed
him : he had been the "syncellus" or personal attendant (the functions
of the syncellus are not determined) of his predecessor. The election of Epiphanius
is stated by Theophanes to have taken place in Feb. A. D. 512 of the Alexandrian
computation, equivalent to A. D. 519 or probably 520 of the common era; the account,
transmitted only four days after his ordination, to pope Hormisdas, by the deacon
Dioscurus, then at Constantinople, as one of the legates of the Roman see, given
by Labbe (Concilia, vol. iv.), was received at Rome on the 7th of April, A. D.
520, which must therefore have been the year of his election. He occupied the
see from A. D. 520 till his death in A. D. 535. Theophanes places his death in
June, A. D. 529, Alex. comput. = A. D. 536 of the common era, after a patriarchate
of sixteen years and three months; but Pagi shortens this calculation by a year.
Epiphanius was one of the saints of the Greek calendar, and is mentioned in the
Menologium translated by Sirletus, but not in that of the emperor Basil. He was
succeeded by Anthimus, bishop of Trapezus.
Some Letters of Epiphanius to pope Hormisdas, and of the pope to him,
are extant in Labbe's Concilia; and in the Concilia of Binius (edit. 1606); in
the latter they are given only in Latin. A decree of Epiphanius, and of a council
in which he presided (apparently the council of Constantinople in A. D. 520, during
the continuance of which he was elected tothe patriarchate), condemning and anathematizing
for heresy Severus, patriarch of Antioch, Petrus or Peter, bishop of Apamea, and
Zoaras, was read at a subsequent council of Constantinople, A. D. 536, under Menas
or Mennas, successor of Anthimius, and appears in Labbe's Concilia. Some laws
and constitutions of Justinian are addressed to Epiphanius. (Justin. Cod. 1. tit.
3. s. 42; de Episcopis et Cleris; Novellae, 3, 5).
In the library of the king of Bavaria at Munich is a Greek MS. described
(Hardt. Catalogus MSS. Graec. &c. Cod. cclvi.) as containing, among other things,
a treatise by Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople, on the separation of the
Latin and Greek churches; and a MS. in the Bodleian Library, Barocc. cxiv. (Catal.
MStorum. Angliae et Hiberniae, Oxon. 1697) contains, with other things, a work
by Epiphanius the patriarch On the excommunication of the, Latins by the Greeks
on account of the Controversy concerning the Procession of the Holy Spirit. Allatius
also (adv. Creyghtonum) cites Epiphanius Patriarcha, de Origine dissidii inter
Graecos et Latinos, probably the same work as that in the Bavarian MS. But the
subjects of these treatises shew they were of later date than our patriarch, nor
have we the means of determining their authorship. An Arabic MS. in the King's
Library at Paris (Catal. MStorum. Bibl. Regiae, vol. i., Codex cxviii.) contains
what is described as Canonum Epitome nec accurate nec antiqua, ascribed to Epiphanius.
The account of Epiphanius by Evagrius contains two errors. He makes
him the successor of Anthimius instead of the predecessor; and to have been succeeded
by Menas or Mennas, who was the successor, not of Epiphanius, but of Anthimius.
(Labbe and Binius, l. c.; Theophanes, Chronographia, ad annos citat.; Evagrius,
Hist. Eccles. iv. 36; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. viii., xii.)
This text is from: A dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology, 1873 (ed. William Smith). Cited Nov 2005 from The Perseus Project URL below, which contains interesting hyperlinks
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!
