Athenodorus

ON ST. ATHENODORUS, BISHOP IN PONTUS, MARTYR.

AROUND THE YEAR 270.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

Athenodorus, Bishop in Pontus, Martyr (St.)

By I. B.

Section I. Two saints named Athenodorus; their feast days.

[1] Two men named Athenodorus are recorded in the Martyrologies: one who won the laurel of martyrdom in Mesopotamia under Diocletian, the other the brother of the great Gregory Thaumaturgus, [St. Athenodorus, brother of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, is venerated on November 7,] a Bishop in Pontus. Both are not celebrated on the same day by the Latins and the Greeks. For in the Menaea he is recorded on November 7 in these words: On the same day, the commemoration of the holy Martyr Athenodorus, brother of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus.

From the earth the Intelligences call Athenodorus To the Lord's gifts perceived by the intelligence.

On the same day, the commemoration of the holy Martyr Athenodorus, brother of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus.

From the earth the Intelligences call Athenodorus To the Lord's gift perceived by the intelligence.

The Menologion published by Canisius: On the same day, the commemoration of the holy Martyr Athenodorus, brother of Blessed Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus. Maximus of Cythera has the same. In the Roman Martyrology, however, he is recorded on October 18 in these words: October 18 At Neocaesarea in Pontus, St. Athenodorus the Bishop, brother of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, who, distinguished in learning, completed his martyrdom in the persecution of Aurelian. The more ancient Martyrologies do not mention him on that day, but on February 9, February 9 where the manuscript Martyrology of Ado from the monastery of St. Lawrence at Liege, and the Florarium of the Saints, have this: In the province of Pontus, St. Athenodorus the Bishop, brother of Blessed Gregory, who was also surnamed Theodorus. The same is found in our ancient manuscript which bears the name of Bede, but the last words read: who was also surnamed Theologus. The Cologne Martyrology printed in 1490: In the province of Pontus, St. Athenodorus the Bishop and Confessor, brother of Blessed Gregory. Maurolycus and the manuscript Martyrology of the Carmelites of Cologne have nearly the same. Hermann Greven, in his supplement to Usuard, adds: brother of Blessed Gregory of Nicaea. But Gregory of Nyssa was a full century younger than Athenodorus and Gregory Thaumaturgus. The manuscript Martyrology of Centula, which bears the name of Bede, also specifies the city, as the Roman Martyrology does, where he was either crowned or was especially accustomed to be venerated: In Pontus, in the city of Neocaesarea, St. Athenodorus the Bishop, brother of Blessed Gregory. Ferrarius also recorded him on this day, although he erroneously calls him Alexander instead of Athenodorus.

[2] Another Athenodorus is celebrated in the Roman Martyrology on November 11 with this eulogy: In Mesopotamia, St. Athenodorus the Martyr, who under the same Diocletian distinct from the one of November 2 and the governor Eleusius, was tortured by fire and afflicted with other torments, and finally condemned to death. When the executioner collapsed and no one else dared to strike him with the sword, he fell asleep in the Lord while praying. The Greeks venerate him on December 7, and their Menologion and Menaea commemorate his struggles at greater length, as does Galesinius on December 8. Our Matthaeus Rader, in his manuscript Notes on November 7, where the Menaea treat of St. Athenodorus the brother of Thaumaturgus, writes thus: I believe this to be the same Athenodorus, brother of Gregory Thaumaturgus, who endured the contest of martyrdom in Mesopotamia under the Emperor Diocletian. Gregory lived under the Emperor Aurelian, and not long after came Diocletian, under whose rule Athenodorus fell. The Roman Ecclesiastical Calendar treats of this Athenodorus on November 11. But this view is not easily proven to us, since Athenodorus and Gregory came from Pontus, the city of Neocaesarea, while the other Athenodorus was from Mesopotamia, as the Menaea and Menologion expressly state; moreover, the latter had from an early age followed the monastic life, which is not reported of Gregory's brother.

Section II. The homeland and learning of St. Athenodorus.

[3] One may rightly wonder why St. Gregory of Nyssa, who celebrated the deeds of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus with such an extended eulogy, nowhere mentions his brother Athenodorus. But other things about St. Gregory that more ancient writers reported were also passed over by him, such as what we shall relate below from the history of Eusebius about the Council of Antioch convened against Paul of Samosata. And Gregory of Nyssa himself writes thus near the end: There are also other miracles of the great Gregory handed down in memory to this day, which we have not added to our writings, sparing incredulous ears, lest those who think truth to be falsehood because of the magnitude of the things reported be offended. His Acts, Whether separate Acts of St. Athenodorus were written, we do not know; there is now scarcely any mention of him in ancient writers except where his brother is discussed. Nicephorus Callistus, book 6, chapter 27, writes that he was closely united to his brother in Catholic faith, words, and deeds, celebrity, and that he shone like a radiant star.

[4] His homeland, as is clear from St. Gregory of Nyssa and Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chapter 22, was Neocaesarea, a famous city of Pontus Polemoniacus, which his brother Gregory, along with the entire surrounding region, converted to Christ — homeland, perhaps with Athenodorus himself also as a companion and helper, at least before he assumed the government of his own bishopric. parents; Their parents, as the same Gregory of Nyssa testifies, erred and were deluded in the worship of idols. He implies that they had died when Gregory was still quite young, for he relates that Gregory (whom, since all writers always mention him first, it is entirely probable was the elder and the leader of his brother in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue), though orphaned of his parents at a youthful age and deprived of the care of relatives, nevertheless applied his mind to learning wisdom. But St. Jerome, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 65, under Theodore or Gregory, states that they were taught by Origen at Caesarea for five years and then sent back to their mother, where Martin Lipsius, Prior of the Canons Regular at Louvain, thought one should read "to their homeland," which is how Suidas also writes under Gregory. Socrates at the cited passage writes thus: And after this he returned to his homeland, summoned by his parents. This could indeed have been known more certainly by St. Gregory of Nyssa, himself also a Cappadocian, unless he neglected the chronology, as he also seems to have expressed less accurately the place where the two brothers studied.

[5] Concerning their studies, St. Jerome in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 65, relates the following: Theodore, who was afterwards called Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea in Pontus, when quite young, on account of his study of Greek and Latin letters, went from Cappadocia to Berytus and to Caesarea in Palestine, studies of letters, including Latin, together with his brother Athenodorus. When Origen saw their excellent natural abilities, he urged them to philosophy, in which, gradually introducing the faith of Christ, he also made them his followers. After being taught by him for five years, they were sent back to their mother, etc. Suidas writes the same, except that he does not mention the study of philosophy being urged upon them, and says they returned from Caesarea to their homeland, not to their mother. From St. Jerome we learn that they came from Cappadocia to Berytus, that from Berytus they went to Caesarea, that there, on Origen's advice, they began to study philosophy, and that by this occasion they were imbued by him with the mysteries of the faith, and thence returned to their homeland. Socrates, book 4, chapter 22, writes that Gregory studied at Athens: at Athens? For he (Gregory), when he had left the schools of Athens, studied law at Berytus, and when he learned that Origen was interpreting the Sacred Scriptures at Caesarea, he hastened there, and when he had heard the sublime science of the Sacred Scriptures, he bade farewell to Roman law and was inseparable from him thereafter, and having been taught by him the true philosophy, etc.

[6] One might suspect from reading this that they were first educated at Athens in polite literature and oratory, at Berytus, where there was a school of law? then returned to Pontus, and from there went to Berytus, the chief city of Phoenicia Prima, to devote themselves to the study of law. Even a century after their time, Berytus flourished in the study of law and jurisprudence, as may be learned from the Life of St. Xenophon, who lived at the beginning of the fifth century under Theodosius the Younger, as we said on January 26, where the following is read: Since he also wished them to have knowledge of the laws, he sent them to the city of Berytus, for that city at that time flourished most greatly with men most learned in the laws. Gregory himself, in the oration which he delivered to Origen himself when about to return to his homeland from Caesarea, speaks thus of Berytus: A city somewhat more Roman, and believed to be the school of these laws. In that oration, however, he does not hint that he had lived at Athens, but says that as a very young man he set out for Palestine with his sister, who was going to her husband, an assessor of the governor of Palestine. He then indicates that, having passed by Berytus, he came directly to Caesarea and there encountered Origen, who then persuaded him and, naturally, his brother as well at Caesarea under Origen; to devote themselves to philosophy, and gradually instilled in their minds the knowledge and love of the Christian religion — and indeed, as Suidas writes, to each one separately, lest if one perhaps gave less ear and attention to the sacred teaching, he might also turn the other away from it, who was not yet sufficiently confirmed in it.

[7] But St. Gregory of Nyssa disagrees with the narrative of St. Jerome and of Thaumaturgus himself, stating that Gregory had already become a disciple of the Gospel before he came to Origen, and that he had spent time in Egypt in the great city of Alexandria, to which studious youth flocked from everywhere for the pursuit of philosophy and medicine; and that finally, having gone through all the disciplines of wisdom, he encountered a certain Firmilian, a Cappadocian patrician, where he was converted to the faith by Origen; and disclosed to him, as a friend, his intention and plan of life — namely, that his mind's eyes were already directed toward God. And when he learned that Firmilian was turning over similar plans in his mind, he abandoned all study of external philosophy, and together with him came to the one who at that time was the chief of Christian philosophy — that is, Origen, whose fame is celebrated on account of his writings. It seems that Gregory of Nyssa, reading that Gregory had been a disciple of Origen and that Origen taught at Alexandria, supposed that it was there that he had come under Origen's instruction. If, however, Gregory was at Alexandria — as was the case with Gregory the Theologian and Basil, Nyssa's own brother, and perhaps Gregory of Nyssa himself and others from the same Cappadocia — it is probable (since he is said to have pursued philosophical studies there) that he went there at some point with his brother on Origen's advice, so that, having observed there the discipline of Christian philosophers and their holy way of life, they might be confirmed in their desire to receive the faith; and that from there, together with St. Firmilian (afterwards Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, whom we shall treat on October 28), they returned to Palestine and were baptized. Baronius, at the year 233, number 11, writes that when Gregory had returned to Neocaesarea from Alexandria, in memory of Origen, whom he had sampled at Alexandria, he betook himself to Palestine with his brother and Firmilian, to be instructed by him in sacred literature. Gregory himself refutes this, writing about the occasion on which he came to Palestine and was taught by Origen, who was not even known to him by reputation beforehand. whether he was at Alexandria and studied there? The same Baronius marvels that St. Jerome did not mention his journey to Egypt; but is it not more remarkable that Gregory of Nyssa makes absolutely no mention of the journey to Palestine or of his brother Athenodorus? Nicephorus, book 6, chapter 17, writes that he devoted himself to Origen at Alexandria and learned both sacred and profane letters with distinction.

[8] That they were certainly disciples of Origen at Caesarea and were led by him to the faith of Christ is attested not only by the cited Socrates and Suidas and by St. Jerome, a contemporary of Gregory of Nyssa, but by Eusebius — far more ancient than either — who was Bishop of Caesarea and diligently pursued everything pertaining to Origen. He writes in book 6, chapter 23, as follows: To Origen, who was performing the customary duties of instruction, not only many natives but also virtually countless disciples from foreign provinces came, leaving their homeland. Among these the most distinguished that we know were Theodore — who is the same Gregory so celebrated among our bishops — and his brother

Athenodorus. Since their minds were exceedingly inflamed with the desire for liberal learning, both Greek and Latin, Origen instilled in them the love of divine philosophy and by his exhortation led them from their former studies to the study of sacred literature. Having spent five full years in his school, they made such progress in the sacred eloquence of God that, while both were still young men, they were made bishops of churches

in Pontus. So Eusebius, in agreement with what Thaumaturgus himself wrote about his own journey to Palestine.

Section III. The episcopate of St. Athenodorus.

[9] Bellarmine, in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers, writes this about Gregory: He flourished in the time of Alexander Severus, in whose tenth year Cardinal Baronius writes in volume 2 of the Annals, at the year 233, that he was made Bishop. St. Athenodorus was not made bishop in the 10th year of Alexander; At that year, Baronius treats of Origen's departure to Palestine, and on that occasion of Gregory Thaumaturgus's arrival to see him, whom he says was elevated to the see of Neocaesarea shortly after. Origen came to Palestine in the 10th year of the Emperor Alexander, which was the year of Christ 231, as Eusebius states in book 6, chapter 20: The tenth year of the said empire (namely of Alexander) was now passing when Origen, fleeing from Alexandria to Caesarea, left to Heraclas the school of catechesis that was there. Athenodorus and Gregory, his brothers, came to him at Caesarea; in what year, is not established. They listened to him for five years, and then, having returned to their homeland, were made bishops shortly after.

[10] Rufinus, the translator of Eusebius, seems to imply that they were made bishops under Gallienus, after Valerian had already been captured by the Persians — which happened in the year of Christ 259 — for he writes in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 17, as follows: nor in the 6th year of Gallienus; At that same time, while Xystus still presided over the Roman priesthood and Demetrianus over Antioch, and Firmilian still survived at Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory — who was previously called Theodore, one of Origen's disciples — together with his brother Athenodorus, took over the governance of the churches of Pontus. But it is not probable that they first came to Origen around the year of Christ 253 or even later, which would, however, be the consequence, since the same Rufinus writes about them in book 6, chapter 22: And they, devoting themselves to the word of God under him (Origen) for a period of five years, attained such proficiency in divine learning and knowledge, and so distinguished themselves by the merit of their life and cultivation of character, that both were snatched from his school at a still immature age to the episcopal priesthood of the province of Pontus. If they were snatched from school to the priesthood only after Valerian was captured, then they did not come to those schools until the year 253 or 254. But Firmilian came with them, and he was a bishop before the reign of Gallienus. This is clear from Eusebius, who writes in book 6, chapter 20: Not long after (Origen's departure from Egypt), Demetrius, Bishop of the Church of Alexandria, after having held the priesthood for 43 full years, died; Heraclas succeeded him. At which time Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, flourished with great celebrity of name. since St. Firmilian, his fellow student, was bishop in the time of Gordian; Heraclas died in the third year of the Emperor Philip, having sat for 11 years, as the same Eusebius writes in book 6, chapter 28. Now that year was 247 of Christ. Therefore he had been made bishop in the year 236, the first of Maximinus. Whether Firmilian was ordained bishop in the same year as Heraclas or shortly after, he was at least already celebrated during his lifetime. Since moreover it is established from St. Gregory of Nyssa that St. Gregory Thaumaturgus came to Origen together with Firmilian, and at a time when he was only a candidate for the Christian religion, it is manifest that this happened not shortly before the year 247 but perhaps around the year 232 or 233, although it is not established whether Firmilian himself also listened to Origen for five years. At any rate, he held Origen in such esteem, as Eusebius testifies in book 6, chapter 20, that he sometimes invited him to his region for the benefit of the churches, and at other times himself traveled to see him in Judaea and spent some time with him to be more fully and perfectly instructed in divine matters. But more on this in the Life of Firmilian himself. Rufinus, however, writes that Heraclas sat for only six years, in book 6, chapter 26: In the third year of his (Philip's) reign, Heraclas died at Alexandria in the sixth year of his episcopate. Therefore he was raised to the episcopate in the year 241, the third year of Gordian. But at the same time that he became bishop, as the same Rufinus writes in book 6, chapter 19, Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia was distinguished among the bishops. Therefore Firmilian was a bishop some time before that third year of Philip, and so too were Gregory and Athenodorus, who together with him placed themselves under Origen's instruction, but at least before the reign of Decius, and yet were elevated to the episcopal throne while still young. Moreover, St. Troadius, at whose martyrdom St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, already a bishop, was present in spirit, is said to have suffered under Decius. This could, however, be understood of Valerian's persecution, which is frequently found called that of Decius. Of which see, however, St. Athenodorus was bishop, we have read nowhere.

Section IV. The Council against Paul of Samosata.

[11] The times during which these most holy bishops administered the churches entrusted to them were not uniform. The supreme serenity that had shone under the Philips was succeeded by a foul tempest under Decius, which, after abating somewhat, soon broke out more severely around the year of Christ 257. But two years later, Valerian, captured by the Persians, paid the dreadful penalties for his cruelty by the just judgment of God. Gallienus, taught by his father's misfortune, ceased persecuting Christians. The labors of St. Athenodorus against Paul of Samosata; But another storm then fell upon the churches from the nefarious doctrines of Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch. In the controversy over the baptism of heretics — which Firmilian, together with about fifty other Asian bishops, rejected, rebaptizing those who had been baptized in heresy — we do not find explicitly recorded how these two brothers conducted themselves; it is likely that they did not depart from the tradition of the elders and the right rule of faith.

[12] Concerning the Samosatene, St. Epiphanius writes thus in Heresy 65: He was born at Samosata, a city of Mesopotamia on the Euphrates, and was placed over the Church of Antioch under the reigns of Aurelian and Probus. But it is clear that Epiphanius is mistaken in his chronology. He was expelled from his see in the time of Aurelian — indeed by an edict obtained through the Orthodox bishops. Now Aurelian assumed the empire in the year of Christ 270 and held it for five years. Probus became Emperor in 276 and was killed in 282, and Paul did not hold the see of Antioch at all until his reign. Eusebius expressed the time of Paul's accession in his Chronicle: When Valerian was taken captive by the Persians, who became Bishop of Antioch around the year 260, Gallienus restored peace to our people. At Antioch, Paul of Samosata was established as the fifteenth Bishop. And in book 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 22: When Xystus had governed the Roman Church for eleven years, Dionysius — namesake of the one who then governed the Church of Alexandria — obtained the Roman pontificate. At that time also, Demetrianus, Bishop of Antioch, having died, Paul, a native of Samosata, took charge of that church. But from what the same Eusebius relates at length about St. Stephen, the predecessor of Xystus, it is clear that there is an error in the number of years that Xystus II is said to have sat, as we shall show on the feast day of St. Xystus himself, August 6. Valerian was captured in the sixth year of his reign, in the year of Christ 259 or the beginning of 260, in which year Paul was likewise elevated to the see of Antioch.

[13] Having attained so eminent a dignity, he soon disgraced it with the foul stain of heresy, whether he had already conceived in his mind doctrines contrary to the orthodox faith, which he then dared to profess openly once established in his eminent position, or whether his crimes drove him headlong into error, as scarcely anyone falls into heresy unless already weakened by other vices. The Fathers of the second Council of Antioch, convened against him, enumerate his crimes in their synodal letter sent to Pope Dionysius, Maximus of Alexandria, and other bishops throughout the world: with wealth ill-gotten, namely, how from the utmost destitution and beggary (since he had received no wealth from his parents and had acquired nothing by any art or profession) he reached the greatest abundance of riches through wicked crimes, sacrileges, and gifts fraudulently extorted from those entangled in lawsuits who implored his assistance — which he amply promised but then by no means provided; how he insolently exalted himself and, imitating the ways and pride of secular magistrates, flew through the forum attended by a great retinue of attendants, with secular pride, using a haughty gait, so that on account of his pride and arrogance, "our faith," the Fathers say, "incurred immense envy and hatred." Then how, by various tricks and follies, he pursued the shadows of vain glory, even in ecclesiastical councils, winning the admiration of the ignorant; how he set up a lofty throne for himself, as secular princes are accustomed to do, and called it by his own name; how, sitting upon it, with insolence of manners, forgetful of his person and sacred dignity, he was accustomed to strike his thigh with his hand and kick his throne with his foot; how he most vainly sought the applause of his audience, sharply rebuking those who listened modestly and reverently to the speaker and did not shamefully applaud and acclaim him in the manner of actors; how he insolently ranted from the pulpit against interpreters of the divine word who were already dead, with contempt for the ancient Fathers, boasting great things about himself like some sophist or charlatan; how he permitted himself to be publicly praised from the pulpit by neighboring bishops and priests, and allowed songs composed in his own praise, in which he was called an angel sent down from heaven, to be recited in his presence; with love of praise, how he rejected the psalms and hymns that were customarily sung in honor of Jesus Christ as new compositions by recent authors; how he prepared female singers to celebrate him with vain hymns in the middle of the church on the solemn day of Easter — hymns that anyone hearing would shudder at; how he allowed priests and deacons to keep women with them, with neglect of discipline, whom the Antiochenes call "women brought in together," from whose company an occasion of scandal was offered to those men, or suspicion to others; how he overlooked other crimes of those same priests, lest they dare to rebuke him, infamous through association with women, since he himself had such women at home — and indeed women in the bloom of youth and of elegant appearance, whom he took with him wherever he went. But these and other deeds of his, as the same Fathers say, since he has been ejected from the Church, need not be examined further.

[14] Is it any wonder that one covered with such crimes fell into the abyss of heresy, or if he had already conceived the poison of corrupt opinions in his mind, that he then produced such destructive fruits? made a heretic Nicephorus Callistus, book 6, chapter 27, writes that when he wished to convert Queen Zenobia, who was devoted to Jewish superstition, and applied much effort and care to properly instructing and converting her, he fell into the heresy of Artemon. And perhaps in her favor he himself did not reject the doctrines of the Jews. Eusebius, book 7, chapter 22, explains his heresy by saying that he held a most base and abject opinion of Christ, contrary to ecclesiastical teaching, namely that Christ was merely a man of common nature. But the Fathers of the Antiochene Council, in the synodal letter already cited, which is found in the same Eusebius, book 7, chapter 24, state that he refused to confess that the Son of God descended from heaven, he denied the divinity of Christ, but that he had his origin from the earth, and that this was clearly evident from his writings. Concerning the same doctrine of Paul, an ancient author recently published by our Sirmond under the name of Praedestinatus writes in book 1: The forty-fourth heresy, he says, was invented by Paul of Samosata, and made for itself a Paulian people. They say that Christ did not always exist but began from Mary, and that he was nothing more than a man. This heresy was formerly that of Artemon, and when it had died out, it was restored by this Paul of Samosata. Indeed, he also abolished the Trinity of persons in the Godhead, as St. Epiphanius explains in Heresy 65 in these words: This is his opinion. God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God. The Word of God and his Spirit are in God perpetually, just as we see a man's own word residing in his heart. and the most holy Trinity, The Son of God has no subsistence of his own but subsists in God — which also pleased Sabellius, and Novatus, and Noetus, and some others, although his view differs from theirs in a certain way. Furthermore, the Word of God, descending to earth, dwelt in Jesus, who was a mere man. Thus, he says, God is one: the Father is not Father, nor the Son Son, nor the Holy Spirit Holy Spirit. Rather, God is one Father, and his Son is in him, as speech is in a man. So Epiphanius, who, after refuting these errors of Paul, adds at the end: This heretic, together with his sect, applying himself to all kinds of schools, and adhered to other sects; makes himself as similar as possible to them. For he imposed upon himself the name of Christ and professes the doctrine of the Jews; and although he confesses that Christ is the Word, he does not inwardly hold him to be so. In short, he exposes himself in most matters without any shame. But as for what St. Epiphanius says about Novatus having held the same views on the Trinity as Sabellius and Paul, some rightly suspect that this name has crept in erroneously, since it is established that the Novatians, as far as the Trinity is concerned, held views consistent with the Catholics, as Baronius shows at the year 265, number 5, who also deduces other errors of Paul — such as concerning the corruptible blood of Christ in the Eucharist, etc. — from the letter of St. Dionysius of Alexandria against him. On these matters, Philastrius may also be consulted, as well as the Praedestinatus cited above.

[15] While Paul was doing and teaching these things, all good men grieved and groaned within themselves, yet fearing his power and tyranny, they did not dare to accuse him. At last the priests of Antioch and the neighboring bishops, as they declare in the oft-cited synodal letter, implored the help of other bishops: We have sent and summoned, they say, many bishops even far distant from us, against whom a council was held at Antioch, to bring a remedy for this deadly doctrine — such as Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilian of Cappadocia, bishops of blessed memory. Of these, the latter wrote to Antioch, yet he did not deign to address the leader of the error himself with a personal letter or even a greeting, but wrote to the whole Church. Firmilian, however, came here twice, and reproved the innovations made by this man, as we who were present know and testify, and many others who are aware of the same matter with us. But when Paul promised that he would change his views, Firmilian believed him and, conceiving hope that the entire controversy could be conveniently settled without any verbal dispute, acquiesced, having been deceived by one who had denied his own Lord and had by no means kept the faith he had previously held.

[16] Such was the outcome of the first synod convened against the Samosatene. Firmilian, therefore, who did not attend the second synod, and yet was twice at Antioch on this account, either came there before the first synod and admonished Paul privately, or came after it, when word was brought that Paul had already returned to his vomit. The first synod was held in the year of Christ 264 or 265. in the year 264 or the beginning of 265. For St. Dionysius of Alexandria, having been invited to it, pleaded old age and bodily weakness and did not attend, but set forth to the Fathers by letter what he thought about Paul's teaching. Now he, as Eusebius testifies in book 7, chapter 22, and St. Jerome in his book On Writers, chapter 69, died in the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, which was the year of Christ 264. Furthermore, Hymenaeus, Bishop of Jerusalem, attended the same council, yet, as the same Eusebius writes in his Chronicle, he assumed that episcopate in the twelfth year of Gallienus, whence it is perfectly clear that the council was not held before that year.

[17] Who, moreover, attended that council together with St. Athenodorus (on whose account all these things have been related), and what they did, the same Eusebius records in the cited book, chapter 22: The other pastors of the churches hastened to Antioch from all sides, as if against a plague and pestilence of the flock of Christ. Among these, the most distinguished and preeminent above the rest were Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and the brothers Gregory and Athenodorus, at which St. Athenodorus was present as one of the principal bishops, pastors of the churches in Pontus. After them, Helenus, Bishop of Tarsus (Rufinus makes him Bishop of Sardis), Nicomas of Iconium, Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Caesarea near Jerusalem. Moreover, Maximus, who excellently presided over the brethren at Bostra. Although one could scarcely enumerate the almost innumerable other bishops, together with priests and deacons, who assembled at that time in the said city for that purpose, yet these were the most distinguished of all. When therefore all of them met together frequently, as was fitting, various discussions were held and questions debated at each meeting, both by the Samosatene himself and by those who favored him

and strove to conceal and cover up his alien doctrine, and by those who endeavored with all zeal to reveal and bring into the open his heresy and blasphemy against Christ. Then what we have already related from the synodal letter of the later council came about: the cunning heretic, having promised to retract his errors, made fools of the Fathers; and as Rufinus writes in book 7, chapter 25, they often assembled and departed without accomplishing anything.

Section V. The death of St. Athenodorus.

[18] When the impostor of Samosata, having once been convicted, again went about with the utmost license Paul relapsed into heresy and spread his nefarious doctrines, a council of many bishops was again convened at Antioch. Eusebius in his Chronicle confused the two councils, for he writes at the thirteenth year of Gallienus, which corresponds in part to the year of Christ 265: Paul of Samosata, departing from the preaching of all, revived the heresy of Artemon; in his place, Domnus was ordained as the sixteenth bishop of the Church of Antioch. But he made a distinction in his History and writes that the later council was held under Aurelian, who assumed the empire in March of the year of Christ 270. deposed in the second Council of Antioch, When Paul, says the same Eusebius in chapter 24, had lost his episcopate along with the orthodox faith, Domnus was substituted for him. But since the same Paul refused to leave the house of the Church, the Emperor Aurelian was appealed to and decreed piously and rightly concerning him — namely, that the house should be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy and the city of Rome should prescribe by letter that it should be given. Thus at last he was thoroughly expelled from the Church with the greatest disgrace and ejected from the house of the Church by a rescript of Aurelian by the authority of the secular government. Such was the disposition that Aurelian showed toward us at that time; but as time went on, having conceived a different opinion of us and driven by the counsels of certain persons, he moved a persecution against us. From this it can be clearly inferred that the second council was held at the beginning of his reign. The three bishops mentioned above — Firmilian, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and Athenodorus — did not attend it. And concerning Firmilian, the Fathers write thus in the cited synodal letter: Firmilian was about to come to Antioch now also, and had already reached Tarsus, having taken sufficient experience of the impiety by which Paul had denied God. St. Athenodorus did not attend that council; But while we were assembling and summoning him and awaiting his arrival, he departed this life. As for Gregory of Neocaesarea, some report that he died shortly after the first synod, although the Greek Menologion says he flourished under Aurelian. The same may be conjectured about Athenodorus — that he either departed from life before the second synod, or was perhaps prevented by illness from being able to attend it.

[19] Baronius, at the year of Christ 275, the fifth of Aurelian, number 9, writes thus: But also in the neighboring region of Pontus, while the same Emperor was persecuting Christians, Athenodorus, the brother of the great Gregory Thaumaturgus, a bishop greater than him in this respect — that in extreme old age, whether he was crowned with martyrdom? after having endured immense and unceasing labors both against the pagans and against heretics, he won the palm of glorious martyrdom on the 15th day before the Kalends of November. But he cites no writer whose testimony would confirm the martyrdom of Athenodorus; and it would indeed be remarkable if he suffered martyrdom and yet none of the ancients recorded it in writing. He is indeed called a Martyr in some Martyrologies, as we have shown above, but in others a Confessor. And Gregory Thaumaturgus, his brother, although he is venerated by the Church as a Confessor, is nevertheless called a Martyr by Rufinus in book 7, chapter 25: The faith of Gregory the Martyr, he says, and Bishop of Neocaesarea — because, namely, he had endured many harsh things for the cause of the faith. Perhaps for the same reason Athenodorus too was called a Martyr. Our Peter Halloix mentions St. Athenodorus in his Life of Origen, book 1, chapter 14.

ON SS. ALEXANDER AND AMMONIUS AND TWENTY OTHER MARTYRS IN CYPRUS.

Alexander, Martyr in Cyprus (St.) Ammonius, Martyr in Cyprus (St.) Twenty other Martyrs in Cyprus

By G. H.

[1] Three men named Ammonius, or Amonius, Ammones, or Amones are venerated on this day; the first was a companion of St. Alexander, with whom we deal here. The ancient Roman Martyrology in manuscript, which is called St. Jerome's, These Martyrs at Cyprus, has the following: On the 5th day before the Ides of February, at Cyprus, the birthday of Alexander, Ammonius, and twenty others. In the old Martyrology of Reichenau, or Augia Dives near Constance: At Cyprus, Alexander, Amonius, and twenty others. The manuscript Martyrology of St. Lambert at Liege: The birthday of SS. Alexander and Ammon.

[2] Others add the place of martyrdom. The printed Bede: At Suevus in Cyprus, the birthday of St. Alexander, Ammonius. Galesinius, Rabanus, Notker, the manuscript Bede of the Richenberg monastery, and the manuscript Martyrology of Aachen have the same, at a place called Suevus or Suenus, but the name Ammon is generally given to the companion in these. The manuscript Martyrologies of Laetium, of St. Martin at Tournai, and of Cologne ad Gradus: At Suenus, or Suevus, in Cyprus, the birthday of SS. Alexander, Amonis or Ammonis, and Didymus — which Didymus is joined below to the African Martyrs along with a second Ammon. Usuard, with the order of Martyrs changed, has it thus: At Suevus in Cyprus, SS. Ammon, Alexander. Various other manuscript and printed Martyrologies generally follow, in which this place in Cyprus is written as Suevus, Suenus, Swenus, Snenus, Sienus, or Duenus.

[3] Bellinus, printed at Venice in 1498, diverges from the others: not in Egypt. At Suevus in Egypt, he says, SS. Ammon and Alexander. This reading is corrected in the Paris edition of 1521 as follows: At Suevus in Cyprus, SS. Ammon and Alexander. An earlier edition of Maurolycus gave rise to the error, so that he wrote: At Syene in Egypt, SS. Ammon and Alexander. Syene, or Syena, is indeed a most ancient and famous city of Egypt, but he had recourse to it without solid reason.

[4] In the Roman Martyrology the following is read: At Soli in Cyprus, the holy Martyrs Ammonius and Alexander. On which Baronius observes: Bede, Usuard, at Soli in Cyprus? and all others treat of the same on this day, and the ancient manuscripts agree, although some put Egypt in place of Cyprus, and others have Soli in place of Suevi, and in my judgment this is the more correct reading. Soli is the name of a city in Cyprus, concerning which Strabo writes in book 14, and others. So Baronius. We shall treat of St. Auxibius, Bishop of Soli, on February 19. But we have found no manuscript codex in which these Martyrs are said to have died either in Egypt or at Soli in Cyprus. Furthermore, where this place called Suevus, Suenus, or Duenus was, we have not yet read elsewhere.

[5] In the same Roman Martyrology another Alexander is brought forward in these words: At Rome, the holy Martyrs Alexander and thirty-eight others. And Baronius notes whether the Roman Martyr Alexander is different from this one that they are restored from an ancient manuscript codex of the monastery of St. Cyriacus. Therefore Ferrarius observes in his Catalogue of the Saints of Italy that of these holy Martyrs only the memorial survives in the Roman Martyrology, recently inserted by Cardinal Baronius from an ancient codex of the monastery of St. Cyriacus. The words of this Martyrology for February 9 are as follows: On the 5th day before the Ides of February, the birthday of Alexander and thirty-eight others. On the same day, the edification of Blessed Benedict the Abbot, in the codex of St. Cyriacus, and of St. Sena the Virgin. Only this is read in the manuscript of St. Cyriacus. The monastic Martyrologies are silent about the edification of Blessed Benedict the Abbot, and St. Sena the Virgin, as unknown or of uncertain credibility, was omitted by Baronius. Perhaps she is St. Xene, a Roman Virgin also called Eusebia, who died at Mylasa in Caria, whose Life we have given on January 24. But, to the point, only one Alexander is named by the others

as a Martyr in Cyprus with Ammonius and twenty companions. Those who are joined to him in the manuscript of St. Cyriacus as thirty-eight companions confused with a class of other Martyrs? are the same African Martyrs killed with St. Ammon and others at Membresa, joined in that Martyrology by a scribal error, with the place of martyrdom also omitted — which Baronius conjectured to have been Rome.

[6] The manuscript Martyrology of Utrecht adds to the Martyr Alexander an Ammon the Confessor in these words: At Cyprus, Alexander the Martyr, whether St. Ammonius the Martyr is confused with the younger Ammonius, and Ammon the Confessor. Maurolycus, having sent SS. Alexander and Ammon the Martyrs off to Egypt, adds: Likewise at Cyprus, Ammonius the Confessor, a disciple of Origen. In the desert of Scetis, according to Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 30, and Nicephorus, book 11, chapter 37, there flourished Origen the Elder, one of the disciples of Anthony the Great, and Didymus and Cronion. Indeed, this Origen is reported to have been a priest and steward of Abbot Pambo in the Historia Lausiaca, chapter 10. Concerning Ammonius, a disciple or fellow student of this Origen, Peter de Natali treats in book 3, chapter 109, under this title: On St. Ammonius, Confessor and Abbot, confused with the Egyptian Abbot? and gives this epitome of his Life: Ammonius the Confessor, a most learned man, disciple of Origen and Didymus. From his youth until death he never ate anything except toasted bread. He was never seen angry, or swearing, or lying, or uttering a vain, harsh, or feeble word. Traveling with Bishop Athanasius to Rome and returning, he reported that he had seen no building or notable work of the city except the churches of the Apostles and the Lateran. Once elected bishop, he cut off his own ear, so that, being maimed and mutilated, he might be judged unworthy of the episcopate. And when they still absolutely insisted on the election despite this, he protested that he would cut out his tongue, and was released. Taking fire from the neighbors' house and having nothing prepared in which to carry it, he carried the coals in the folds of his garment against his body. He rested in peace at Cyprus on the 5th day before the Ides of February, where he was also buried. So that account, drawn from Sozomen and Nicephorus at the cited passages, and from Palladius, chapters 12 and 117, where on account of his severed ear he is surnamed Parotius. But in the Paradise of Heraclides, chapter 2, he is said to have used raw food from his youth until his death, and sometimes bread as well. But none of these authors said that he died in Cyprus on February 9 and was considered a Saint, so that he seems to have been substituted for St. Ammonius the Martyr.