Achillas

ON ST. ACHILLAS, BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA IN EGYPT,

IN THE YEAR 312

Achillas, bishop of Alexandria in Egypt. (S.)

BY P. P.

[1] The history of Achillas, sketched by Sollerius, cannot yet be completed. Our Sollerius, when in his learned chronological history of the Patriarchs of Alexandria he had reported that Achillas, the successor of St. Peter the martyr, was excluded from the number of the saints by certain Monophysites, because he had allowed Arius to be advanced to the diaconate, added this: "This excessive scruple of the Copts and Abyssinians can detract nothing whatever from the sanctity of Achillas, as will be demonstrated expressly at the time when his deeds are to be set out at greater length" Acta Sanctorum, June vol. V, p. 36 *. Would that that most learned man were here, so that he might himself carry out what he promised with so untroubled a mind. For the documents which, writing thus, he was perhaps confident would meanwhile come to light, oblivion has not restored; nor can we today add anything certain to the history which he once sketched.

[2] That he was a teacher at Alexandria Eusebius testifies Concerning Achillas there exists the very well-known testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea: καθ᾽ ὃν (that is, under bishop Theonas) ἐπὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἐπὶ ταὐτὸν τῷ Πιερίῳ πρεσβυτερίου ἠξιωμένος, Ἀχιλλᾶς ἐγνωρίζετο, τῆς ἱερᾶς πίστεως τὸ διδασκαλεῖον ἐγκεχειρισμένος, οὐδενὸς ἧττον σπανιώτατον φιλοσοφίας ἔργον καὶ πολιτείας εὐαγγελικῆς τρόπον γνήσιον ἐπιδεδειγμένος [under whom, at Alexandria, Achillas, deemed worthy of the presbyterate at the same time as Pierius, was well known, having been entrusted with the school of the sacred faith, and having displayed, no less than anyone, a most rare work of philosophy and a genuine manner of evangelical life] [Historia ecclesiastica, bk. VII, ch. 32, 32; ed. Schwartz (Leipzig, 1908), p. 730]. Eusebius could have said the same things more clearly. For he left it uncertain whether Achillas was a master in the most celebrated school of the catechumens [Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. II, 2 (Leipzig, 1904), p. 68], or exercised the office of teaching in some church. But Epiphanius, among the rectors of churches who, when the Arian storm was already imminent, had turned the minds of the faithful of Alexandria to themselves, did not name Achillas Κατὰ αἱρέσεων, LXIX, 2; ed. Dindorf, vol. II (Leipzig, 1861), pp. 144 – 45. What was the reason why in this place he passed over a theologian by far the most illustrious in doctrine and learning? Perhaps because Achillas had taught not the faithful in a church, but catechumens in a school in some manner external to the church. Which also could have been the reason why Eusebius studiously noted that Achillas had been made equal to Pierius in the presbyterate. For the mastership of that most illustrious διδασκαλείου, as the example of Origen shows, did not properly pertain to a priest. It is, however, by no means clear that the silence of Epiphanius was deliberate, who a little before affirmed in passing that Alexander succeeded Peter the martyr, likewise neglecting our Achillas Haereses, LXVIII, 3; Dindorf, p. 133.

[3] He is also said to have been a companion of Peter the martyr Achillas is mentioned both by the scarcely genuine Acts of St. Peter of Alexandria [In Greek in J. Viteau, Passions des saints Écatérine et Pierre d'Alexandrie (Paris, 1897), pp. 69 – 85; in Syriac, P. Bedjan, Acta martyrum et sanctorum, vol. V (Paris, 1895), pp. 543 – 61; in Coptic, H. Hyvernat, Les Actes des martyrs de l'Égypte (Paris, 1886), pp. 263 – 83; in Armenian, vol. II (Venice, 1874), pp. 218 – 27; in Latin see BHL 6692 – 6698], and by a certain panegyric of the same saint, ascribed to bishop Alexander, which rests wholly on those Acts and is partly preserved in a Coptic copy Hyvernat, at the place cited, pp. 247 – 62. In it indeed Alexander is imagined speaking thus Ibid., p. 258: He (Diocletian) shed much blood for the name of Christ, in Africa, Mauretania, Egypt and the East. Wherefore St. Peter fled into Mesopotamia, with me as companion, with my father Achillas. That there is no credit in this narrative there is scarcely need to note.

[4] and designated by him in prison to take his place. Nor is the story inserted in the Acts of St. Peter more like the truth; take its substance in a few words. When the holy bishop was awaiting his last day in prison, Alexander and Achillas were sent to him by Arius, already then an exile from the Church, with other priests and clerics, to beg off the sentence passed against him. Their intercession being repulsed, the archbishop again cursed Arius in the gravest words. But when he saw those standing by stirred with grief, εἰσελθὼν μέσον τοῦ κλήρου καὶ κατασχὼν δύο τῶν πρεσβυτέρων γέροντας, Ἀχιλλᾶν ὀνόματι καὶ Ἀλέξανδρον, τῇ μὲν δεξιᾷ Ἁχιλλᾶν, τῇ δὲ εὐωνύμῳ Ἀλέξανδρον, λαβὼν αὐτοὺς ἐν μέρει τῆς φυλακῆς ἀνήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς ὁ μακάριος καὶ ἤδη Χριστοῦ μάρτυς λέγων οὕτως· &ldquogr;Ἐμὲ μέν, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐνδυναμοῦντος ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μαρτυρίῳ τελειωθῆναι δεῖ· τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ ἔγνων. Σὺ δὲ μετ᾽ ἐμέ, Ἀχιλλᾶ πρεσβύτερε, τῆς ἱερατείας καὶ τοῦ θρόνου γίνῃ διάδοχος· μετὰ δέ σε, εἰς τὸν ἀδελφόν μου Ἀλέξανδρον κατὰ διαδοχὴν ὁ θρόνος καταντήσει. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἐδηλώθη μοι&rdquogr; [going into the midst of the clergy and taking hold of two of the elder presbyters, Achillas by name and Alexander, Achillas with his right hand and Alexander with his left, taking them aside into a part of the prison, the blessed man, already a martyr of Christ, announced to them, speaking thus: "I, God strengthening me, must be consummated in this martyrdom; for this too I have learned. But you, presbyter Achillas, after me become successor of the priesthood and of the throne; and after you the throne will come down by succession to my brother Alexander. For so it has also been revealed to me."] Viteau, p. 71. Then he disclosed to them that he had received a command from Christ himself in a vision to keep Arius, the author of a most wicked heresy, perpetually away from the Church, and to warn his successors never to communicate with him. This, indeed, is what the Passion of St. Peter has about Achillas, which Sollerius also promised would be examined expressly on the 25th day of November Historia Patriarcharum Alexandrinorum (Acta Sanctorum, June vol. V, p. 35 *). I do not know, however, whether the one to whom that province falls will find the matter plainly concluded and settled Cf. Harnack, Chronologie, at the place cited, p. 74, note 4.

[5] Made bishop of Alexandria, That Achillas succeeded the holy martyr Peter in ruling the church of Alexandria is too certain to be demonstrated against Epiphanius by bringing witnesses See above, no. 2, p. 338. But in what year this happened, very learned and very acute men have wished to draw out from the wonderful variety of the numbers which the authors have handed down, by comparing, choosing, taking away, adding, divining [Sollerius, at the place cited, p. 36; Eusèbe Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum iacobitarum (Paris, 1713), pp. 65 – 66; Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique, vol. VI (Brussels, 1732), pp. 91, 315 – 16; A. von Gutschmid, Verzeichniss der Patriarchen von Alexandrien (Kleine Schriften, vol. II, Leipzig, 1890), pp. 426 – 427]: a most unhappy kind of disputation. Harnack entered on a safer way when he showed by historical reasons that the persecution of Maximinus, in whose renewed fervour Peter was taken off, broke out at the very end of the year 311 Chronologie, at the place cited, p. 71, note 2. Further, if the constant and not lightly to be spurned recollection of the church of Alexandria holds the truth,

that "last of the martyrs" died on the 25th day of November. Gelasius of Cyzicus writes that the see of the slain bishop was vacant for about a year [Τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ σύνοδον πραχθέντων σύνταγμα, bk. II, ch. 1; P. G., vol. LXXXV, col. 1225]. or some time after Peter's slaying. His testimony seems to be opposed by the canons of Eusebius of Caesarea, if indeed the Armenian translator reported them, and reported them properly [That the last leaf of the mutilated Armenian codex of Eusebius' chronicle in John Baptist Aucher (Eusebii Pamphili chronicon bipartitum, vol. II, Venice, 1818, pp. 303 – 304) was restored from the extracts of Samuel of Ani, a chronographer of the twelfth century, the learned Alfred von Gutschmid either did not notice or took too lightly (Kleine Schriften, at the place cited, p. 426). For granting that Samuel's chronological arrangement followed the canons of Eusebius faithfully, it is established that Samuel himself was badly treated by copyists. In the copy which Aucher used, the episcopate of Achillas is placed at the third year of the 273rd olympiad, which is the year of Christ 315; in another at the year 316 (, ed. Arsacius Ter-Mikelian, Vagharshapat, 1893, p. 64), in another finally at the years 317 – 318 (Brosset, Samouel d'Ani. Tables chronologiques, in Collection d'historiens arméniens, vol. II, Saint Petersburg, 1876, p. 369; cf. the same, Samouel d'Ani. Revue générale de sa chronologie, in Bulletin de l'Académie de Saint-Pétersbourg, vol. XVIII, 1873, col. 402 and following, and below, note 10)], whom Samuel of Ani is believed to have followed. For he records at the same year in one continuous sentence that Peter the martyr fell and that after him Achillas was made bishop of Alexandria [Ter-Mikelian, at the place cited; cf. Aucher, Chronicon, and Brosset, Tables chronologiques, at the places cited; both of which copies count seven months ()]: : At Alexandria Peter suffered, and the seventeenth to take up the episcopate was Achillas, for five months (otherwise seven). But what this Armenian version of Eusebius' book presented in this place it is wearisome to track down with wavering conjectures, since we can perhaps be taught it clearly by inspecting that codex of the monastery of Etchmiadzin, from which, as Mommsen demonstrated, all the copies of that version, as many as exist, were derived [Die armenischen Handschriften der Chronik des Eusebius, Hermes, vol. XXX (1895), pp. 321 – 38; cf. A. Schöne, Die Weltchronik des Eusebius (Berlin, 1900), p. 257, note 1]. About this, therefore, that our duty might be more than amply satisfied, we have asked a learned man of this monastery by letter, and have not yet received an answer.

[6] or within a narrower span The same opinion as Gelasius perhaps, but corrupted by a trifling computation, was reported by Eutychius of Alexandria, patriarch of the Melkites in the tenth century, who affirms that Achillas was made bishop in the fifth year after the martyrdom of Peter [Annales, ed. L. Cheikho (Beirut, 1906; Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Scriptores arabici, Textus, ser. 3, vol. VI), p. 117] So the codices, at this place: "And after Peter, patriarch of Alexandria, was slain, in the fifth year Achillas his disciple was created patriarch." How present the danger of erring was, especially for a writer ill-advised and rash in the reckoning of times, appears to one reading the chronicle of Jerome, where from the slaying of Peter to the episcopate of Alexander no fewer than ten years are counted, although it is established that Achillas, who alone came between the two, sat only a very short time [A. Schoene, Eusebii chronicorum canonum quae supersunt, vol. II (Berlin, 1866), pp. 189, 191; cf. Harnack, Chronologie, at the place cited, p. 79].

[7] or with no delay interposed, However the matter stands, most Alexandrian authors narrate the election of Achillas as if it had happened a short time after the see was widowed. Or what cause of a longer delay did they think stood in the way, who kept saying that Achillas had been designated by Peter himself [See above, no. 4. Further, in our own age Porphyry Uspensky, in a posthumous work, following an author who I confess has escaped me, narrates the matter thus: "When Peter had died, the bishops assembled, having led Achillas to the episcopal throne, put on him the omophorion taken from the saint" , ed. Chr. Loparev, St Petersburg, 1898, p. XI)]? Indeed Peter ibn Rahib, when he narrates that Achillas was created on a Saturday, having reported a little before that Peter died on the 25th day of November, a Friday [Peter ibn Rahib, Chronicon orientale, ed. L. Cheikho (Beirut, 1903: Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium. Scriptores arabici. Textus. Ser. 3, vol. I), p. 110], certainly signifies that both these things happened within the space of two days, as the number of days by which the same writer measures Achillas' episcopate clearly shows See no. 10; cf. Tillemont, at the place cited, pp. 91, 316.

[8] He was harassed by the Meletians, Of the things which Achillas did as bishop, we find only two handed down. Athanasius indeed accuses the Meletians of having behaved insolently and seditiously κατὰ τοῦ μακαρίου Πέτρου τοῦ μάρτυρος, καὶ μετ᾽ αὐτὸν τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀχιλλᾶ [Apologia ad Constantium imperatorem, no. 23; P. G., vol. XXV, col. 592; cf. Contra Arianos, no. 11, ibid., p. 268; no. 59, p. 356], and the same is reported by Socrates Historia Ecclesiastica, bk. I, ch. 6; ed. Hussey, vol. I (Oxford, 1853), p. 24 and others after him. Achillas prepared a cause of greater calumnies against his name when he restored Arius, penitent more in face than in mind, to the order of deacons, and even initiated him into the priesthood: and because of excessive clemency toward Arius, for both things are clearly affirmed by the most expert expositor of the Arian disturbance, Hermias Sozomen Historia ecclesiastica, bk. I, ch. 15; ed. Hussey, vol. I (Oxford, 1860), p. 72: Ἐπεὶ δὲ Πέτρος ἐμαρτύρησε, συγγνώμην αἰτήσας Ἀχιλλᾶν (Ἄρειος), ἐπετράπη διακονεῖν [Cf. above, no. 1. That Arius was created deacon by our Achillas at the entreaty of the people was understood by Severus ibn al-Mokaffa: (Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, ed. Chr. Fr. Seybold, Beirut, 1904: Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, ser. 3, vol. IX, p. 63)] καὶ πρεσβυτερίου ἠξιώθη. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα καὶ Ἀλέξανδρος ἐν τιμῇ εἶχεν αὐτόν. [But when Peter had suffered martyrdom, (Arius), having asked pardon of Achillas, was permitted to serve as deacon and was deemed worthy of the presbyterate. And after this Alexander too held him in honour.] Otherwise, however, Gelasius of Cyzicus, in whose own words it is pleasing to report the praise with which he embraced the whole episcopate of St. Achillas Σύνταγμα bk. II, ch. 1; P. G., at the place cited, cols. 1225 – 27: Μετὰ δὲ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν See above, no. 5 χειροτονεῖται εἰς τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου μάρτυρος Πέτρου Ἀχιλλᾶς, ἀνὴρ στιβαρὸς καὶ μεγαλοφυής, ἀξιόφρων, εὐλαβείᾳ ὁμοῦ καὶ σοφίᾳ πλείστῃ ὅσῃ διαπρέπων, καθὼς ἡμῖν τὰ παλαιὰ καὶ ἀπλανῶς ἔχοντα διηγοῦνται συγγράμματα. Ὃς πολλὰ παρακληθεὶς ὑπεδέξατο τὸν Ἄρειον εἰς τὴν διακονίαν. Τοῦτο δὲ ἐπιβιώσαντος μῆνας πέντε μόνον, ὑποδέχεται τὴν τῆς ἱεροσύνης ἀρχὴν τῆς αὐτόθι τῶν Ἀλεξανδρέων ἐκκλησίας Ἀλέξανδρος κτλ. [And after the year, Achillas is ordained to the throne of the holy martyr Peter himself, a sturdy and highly gifted man, of worthy mind, excelling in piety together with the very greatest wisdom, as the old and unerring writings narrate to us. He, having been entreated much, received Arius into the diaconate. And when he had survived only five months, Alexander receives the government of the priesthood of the church of the Alexandrians there, etc.]

[9] after a short episcopate, The episcopal see, which he is said to have held as an old man Cf. no. 4: δύο τῶν πρεσβυτέρων γέροντας, Achillas obtained for a very short time. That he presided over his church for five months we have just heard from Gelasius of Cyzicus; likewise five or seven from Eusebius or his Armenian translator No. 5. But Eutychius of Alexandria Annales, ed. L. Cheikho, p. 117, Severus ibn al-Mokaffa Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum, Seybold, p. 63 and others whom it is irksome to list will have it that he sat six months. Peter ibn Rahib uses the same words; who, however, adds more definitely that he discharged the office for two hundred days Chronicon orientale, Cheikho, at the place cited, p. 110. He, however, used a false calculation, so as to write. and he died on the nineteenth day of the month of Baounah, a Tuesday: for the Ides of June could not fall on a Tuesday except in the year of the Lord 310 or 321 [Tillemont already noted this very aptly, at the place cited, p. 316; cf. Sollerius, Acta Sanctorum, at the place cited, p. 36 *].

[10] that he was taken off by the judgment of God That Achillas was snatched away by a hastened end, because he had pardoned Arius more kindly perhaps than prudently, the Alexandrian writers of a later age seem to themselves to have learned for certain Peter ibn Rahib, Eutychius, Severus, others. An error of names may have underlain their spiteful and foolish oracle. For among the followers of Arius, now openly attacking the Church, there appeared another Achillas, a deacon, against whom bishop Alexander, is commonly believed, our saint's successor, inveighs in two letters [Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander, in Theodoret, Historia Ecclesiastica, bk. I, ch. 4; ed. Gaisford (Oxford, 1854), pp. 9, 30; to the bishops of the catholic Church, in Socrates, bk. I, ch. 6; Hussey, p. 14]. Perhaps they persuaded themselves that this man was the very bishop who was once reported to have connived too easily with Arius when he begged off a lesser penalty; by which likeness both of names and of facts we have seen a learned man deceived even quite recently [L. B. Radford, Three teachers of Alexandria: Theognostus, Pierius and Peter (Cambridge, 1908), p. 1, note]. more foolishly, surely, than truly. The memory of Achillas was darkened, knowingly or unknowingly, also by the writer, whoever he was, of the Acts of St. Peter the martyr, when he invented that vision which we recorded above No. 4. For it necessarily followed that that bishop, rather incautious, should seem to have done with greater levity and graver fault what he was thought to have been warned by heavenly power not to do. From whatever source, finally, others drew a worse opinion of St. Achillas, let the judgment of Athanasius, Eusebius and Gelasius be our rule of judging.

[11] His cult in the Greek church This, however, profited him little. Of the synaxaria of the Greek church, besides the ancient Patmos copy, only a few codices of one and not very approved origin mention Achillas (whom they call pope of Rome and Alexandria) briefly on the third day of June Synaxarium of the Church of Constantinople, pp. 725 – 26: surely in place of the thirteenth Cf. above, no. 9. Others, by far the most, have wholly neglected him. almost unknown Into the calendars of the Latins he was brought by Ado of Vienne, or by the writer, whoever he was, of the little Roman martyrology Cf. above, no. 9: who found his elogium not in some Greek calendar, but took it from the same place of the histories of Eusebius, from which he drew out the mention of St. Pierius for the fourth day of November, and for the second that of Theodotus of Laodicea, an Arian bishop [Historia ecclesiastica, VII, 32, 23, 26 – 27; 30; ed. Schwartz, pp. 726, 728, 730. On Theodotus, cf. Acta Sanctorum, November vol. I, p. 420; on St. Pierius, ibid., vol. II, 1, pp. 254 – 64]; which our Sollerius has already learnedly noted [Martyrology of Usuard, Acta Sanctorum, June vol. VII, pp. 656 – 657; cf. Quentin, Les martyrologes historiques, pp. 612 – 13]. Now since we see these three names distributed within a few days,

we are surely forced to suspect that for these invented commemorations a place was given by a shameless man, among all the parts of the year, the first that chance offered. He began the Latin ones. Let no one, therefore, think it was done by fitting design when he sees Pierius and Achillas, men of the same age, homeland, study and praise, joined by the nearness of their feasts; but let him look at that heretic Theodotus, whom catholic antiquity nowhere received among the saints, introduced into the same neighbourhood from the same place by the same road; nor will he any longer hope that more can be confidently explored about the cult of St. Achillas.