ON ST. SAGARIS, BISHOP AND MARTYR, AT LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA, ABOUT THE YEAR 175.
SYLLOGE.
Sagaris, bishop and martyr, at Laodicea in Phrygia. (Saint)
BY C. B.
[1] The four older or classical martyrologists, namely the author of the Little or Old Roman, Ado, Usuard and Notker, The saint, who is celebrated today by the classical martyrologists, announce today St. Sagaris, bishop. And the author of the Little Roman does so in these words: Of Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea, one of the ancient disciples of the Apostle Paul; but to this announcement the martyrologist of Vienne, whom Usuard and Notker afterwards followed, added the title of Martyr, commemorating the saint thus: Of blessed Sagaris, Martyr and bishop of Laodicea, who was one of the ancient disciples of St. Paul the Apostle. In Eusebius, both pure and as altered by Rufinus's interpolation, book 4, chapter 26, and again book 5, chapter 24, mention of St. Sagaris occurs; and that this our saint underwent martyrdom is expressly asserted in the first of those two passages of Eusebius; while in the second he is called martyr and bishop by Polycrates, bishop of the Ephesians, who lists him among the most illustrious men of Asia who had once been accustomed to celebrate the Paschal feast on the fourteenth day of the moon, in the letter written to St. Victor I, Pope, in defence of this ancient custom of the Asiatics, in these words: What need is there to speak of Sagaris, bishop and likewise martyr, who died at Laodicea? From either this or the other passage of Eusebius already mentioned, or perhaps even from both, the author of the Little Roman most probably drew the saint's announcement, and Ado the title of Martyr which he added to it, as also that Sagaris was a bishop.
[2] Further, not only the saint's episcopate and martyrdom, but also the arena of it becomes known from the words of Polycrates just recited, and he who is perhaps wrongly called by them a disciple of St. Paul the Apostle, inasmuch as by them Sagaris is related to have died at Laodicea; so that the reformers of the present Roman Martyrology, and other more recent martyrologists, whom it is not necessary to enumerate all here, rightly register him today at Laodicea, which is the chief city of Phrygia Pacatiana on the river Lycus, in the sacred Fasti compiled by them; and so that also the author of the Little Roman, Ado, and other hagiologists, both older and more recent, who have followed them, rightly call this same saint of ours bishop of Laodicea, since he seems to have acted as bishop there where he died, although in the meantime Eusebius nowhere declares whether Sagaris administered the church of Laodicea or another in the office of bishop. But do the same two classical martyrologists, namely Ado and the author of the Little Roman, and others who have followed in their footsteps, also rightly make our saint an ancient disciple of St. Paul the Apostle? That indeed appears to me very doubtful. For that Sagaris was one of the disciples of Paul the Apostle, Eusebius, whether genuine or interpolated by Rufinus, neither openly declares, nor anywhere supplies anything from which you might claim this prerogative for the saint. Moreover, in order that Sagaris could have been a disciple of St. Paul the Apostle, it is necessary that in the year 65 of the Christian era, in which the latter is shown with us, in volume 5 of June, page 403, to have undergone martyrdom, he should have been at the very least about sixteen years old; from which it would follow, as would hardly find credence without the testimony of a contemporary or near-contemporary author, which is lacking, that he died far older than a hundred years, being taken from the living by martyrdom about the year 175, as you will understand from what is now to be said.
[3] about the year, as here, Since it is agreed among the learned that the letter mentioned in num. 1, which Polycrates sent to Pope Victor, was written about the year 196, and Sagaris is mentioned in it as one departed this life, there is no doubt that he was crowned with martyrdom before that year. But by how much time earlier did this happen? That the saint was crowned with martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, who held the reins of the Roman empire from the year 161 up to the year 180, is the common opinion of the learned, so that it appears he must be believed to have been joined to the martyrs, having shed his blood for Christ, before the year 181. And that this probably happened about the year 175, I show thus: Polycrates, bishop of the Ephesians, when in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 24, he lists certain most illustrious men of Asia who were once accustomed to celebrate the Paschal feast on the fourteenth day of the moon, does so, as appears, in the order in which they passed by a happy departure from the living to those above. For he brings forward in the first place Philip the Apostle, in the second John the Apostle and Evangelist, in the third Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, of whom the first went to those above under Domitian about the year 87, the second under Trajan in the year 100, and the third finally under Marcus. Aurelius about the year 166. To these, Thraseas, of whom we have already treated at the preceding day, and Sagaris, of whom we treat now here, he adds Melito, bishop of Sardis, who, since in the work which he composed on the Pasch he made mention of the martyrdom (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, chapter 26) suffered by Sagaris, most certainly departed from the living after him. Now since these things are so, and Polycrates is not found to depart from the aforementioned order in listing the other most illustrious men of Asia whom he brings forward, it appears most probable that this order is observed by him everywhere in the cited passage of Eusebius; from which it follows that our saint, inasmuch as he is counted among the most illustrious men of Asia by Polycrates in that same place after Thraseas, who according to what was said at the preceding day was crowned with martyrdom about the year 171, obtained the crown of martyrdom after the happy death of Thraseas, either in the year 171 itself or in another which followed Thraseas's death and preceded the year 181.
[4] But indeed, you will say, Eusebius, in Valesius's translation, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, contrary to which it may be contended, chapter 26, enumerating the works composed by Melito, bishop of Sardis, writes thus: Last of all (that is, of the books written by Melito) is the little book (namely a petition for the Christians) to the emperor Antoninus. Moreover, in the book on the Pasch he (Melito) indicates, at the beginning of his work, the very time at which he was writing, in these words: "When Servilius Paulus," he says, "was proconsul of Asia, at which time Sagaris suffered martyrdom, a great controversy was raised at Laodicea concerning the Paschal solemnity, which had fallen seasonably in those days; in which days also these things were written by us." Sagaris, therefore, as is plain from these words, suffered martyrdom at the time at which Melito composed his work on the Pasch; and he undoubtedly did this before the year 171. For in the words recited Eusebius calls the last of all Melito's works the petition offered on behalf of the Christians to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus; and that this was handed to him by Melito in the year 170, Eusebius affirms in his Chronicle, having the Alexandrian Chronicle also supporting him; so that consequently, before the year 171, both Melito's work on the Pasch, inasmuch as it preceded the petition to Marcus Aurelius, was undoubtedly composed, and our saint shed his blood for Christ. Thus it may be argued for placing the martyrdom of Sagaris before the year 171.
[5] it is established that he underwent martyrdom about 175. But besides the fact that, as Tillemont rightly teaches in volume 2 of the Mémoires, in his notes on Melito, page 663 and following, it is very much to be doubted whether the petition to Marcus Aurelius was not written even after the year 175, whatever Eusebius and the Alexandrian Chronicle note to the contrary, Eusebius may call it the last of the books composed by Melito, not with regard to the order in which it was written, but to that in which he lists it, or in which it occurred to him in enumerating Melito's works. Moreover these Greek words of Eusebius, Ἐπὶ πᾶσι καὶ τὸ πρὸς Ἀντονῖνον Βιβλίδιον, which Valesius turns into Latin as last of all is the little book to the emperor Antoninus, Christophorson renders thus: Lastly, the book written to Antoninus; which interpretation seems entirely exact to the mind of Eusebius, who is not generally accustomed to list the works of authors in the order in which they were written, and, as will be plain to one who considers it, in no way requires that Melito's petition to Marcus Aurelius was written after the same writer's work on the Pasch. Since this is so, it is by no means proved from the time at which the petition to Marcus Aurelius was composed that the latter work was composed by Melito before the year 171, and it remains accordingly that our saint, as I taught at num. 3, was crowned with martyrdom after St. Thraseas, either in the year 171 itself or in another which came between this and the year 181. And this is why, above in the margin, about the year
175 is ascribed, I have indicated that it happened about this year; which will have been equally rightly done whether the saint shed his blood for Christ two or three years before, or as many years after, that epoch.