ON ST. SERAPION, BISHOP OF ANTIOCH,
IN THE YEAR 211.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Serapion, bishop of Antioch. (S.)
BY V. D. B.
§ I. The cult of St. Serapion. The time of his ordination. Various opinions on this matter. Whether St. Serapion was an ascetic. In what year he died.
The patriarchal church of Antioch, celebrated among the rest for the multitude of its martyrs and the holiness of its first bishops, St. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, was venerated in the Latin Church presents to us today St. Serapion, heaped with praises in ecclesiastical and literary history by many writers, both old and recent. He first appeared in the Latin sacred calendars in Ado at the present day, in these words: At Antioch, of Blessed Serapion, bishop, a learned man and most renowned in faith. These words were received into the Fulda Martyrology, which, having been taken in great part from Ado, was published by Giorgi at the end of that martyrology. Usuard made that elogium his own, contracted in this way: At Antioch, of St. Serapion, bishop, most renowned for learning. This encomium, drawn from Rufinus's version of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius [Autores historiae ecclesiasticae, Rufinus, book V, page 137 and following, Basel edition, 1535.], passed into the more recent martyrologies and especially into the Roman Martyrology published in the year 1583, where one reads: At Antioch, of St. Serapion, bishop, most renowned for learning and holiness; but in later editions the words and holiness, as being of little use and not employed by Usuard, were omitted. Baronius wrote in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology that that memorial was drawn from the martyrology of the Venerable Bede. But this is a common mistake, arising from the fact that a martyrology compiled from Ado and others was published with the name of Bede. For this martyrology first appeared in the year 1554, in volume IV of the Lives of the Saints of Aloysius Lipomanus, with the name of Ado: but nine years later it was printed at Nuremberg among the works of the Venerable Bede, and the name of Bede was inscribed on it. In the following year, in the very elegant Plantin edition of Antwerp, it again saw the light, with the title Martyrology of the Venerable Bede, Priest. But Mosander, printing the same work in volume VII of the Lives of the Saints, attributed it to Ado of Trier. And Baronius, subjoining his notes to the Roman Martyrology in the year 1589 and using the Plantin edition, suspected nothing of the present dispute, and transferred to the Venerable Bede what should have been said of Ado of Vienne. Moreover the same St. Serapion, at the 30th day of October, with the concession of Paul V, of Urban VIII [Daniel a Virgine Maria, Speculum Carmelitanum, volume II, part IV, page 739. Compare the Office granted by Benedict XIII.] and in the year 1729 of Benedict XIII, was honoured by the Carmelite Fathers with a Mass and Office from the common. By the same authority there is written in their Martyrology on the 30th day of October: At Antioch, of St. Serapion, bishop, of the Order of Carmelites, most renowned for learning. The Carmelite Fathers seem at one time to have done not a little to promote the cult of St. Serapion in our parts: since in the year 1681 Philippe de la Visitation sent to press at Namur a Life of St. Serapion, patriarch of Antioch, of the Carmelite Order Abrégé de la Vie de S. Sérapion d'Antioche, religieux de l'Ordre des Carmes.. Would that the original documents of this work had been annexed or indicated! More distinguished is the Life of that saint composed by our own Pierre de Halloix Ecclesiae Orientalis Scriptores, volume II, page 852.. By what reason the blessed bishop was once venerated at Prague escapes me. That he was indeed honoured on the 30th day of October I gather from the calendar of the Missal of Prague, which was written in the year 1409, and afterwards passed into the Imperial library of Vienna. A transcript of this calendar has been found among the papers of our predecessors. The name of St. Serapion was also brought into his calendar in the year 1588 by Adam King Forbes, Kalendars of Scottish Saints, page 166.. And so much for the cult of St. Serapion among the Latins.
[2] and in the ancient Syriac church. In only one Eastern Martyrology, namely the Syriac of the year 412, printed in the year 1866 by the distinguished William Wright, have I found the name of Blessed Serapion, bishop of Antioch, where at the 14th day of May there occurs the memorial of Serapion, bishop of Antioch. But at what time he was entered in the sacred calendars I would not venture to define, since I have seen it indicated in no historian. Nor has his name met me in the Graeco-Slavic year of Martinov published in our volume XI of October: nor yet in the papers of our deceased colleague Henri Matagne, who copied a great many Eastern Calendars in the British Museum in London, nor elsewhere, have we met with any indications by which this St. Serapion of ours can be told apart from others of the same name. This is the less surprising, since St. Serapion lived at the end of the second century and the beginning of the third, and in this age only martyrs (among whom the holy prelate is not to be numbered) were entered in the Catalogues of the Saints.
[3] What we know of St. Serapion has come down [He is said to have been ordained bishop of Antioch, by some in the eleventh year of Commodus,] to us through Eusebius [Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter XXII, page 395 and book VI, chapter XI, page 445, Laemmer edition; Chronicle, in Mai, Scriptores veteres, volume VIII, page 387.], from whose Ecclesiastical History and Chronicle all who have afterwards dealt with the holy man have drawn. Among these the first is St. Jerome Works, volume II, De Scriptoribus, column 655 and following, Migne edition., who in his book On Ecclesiastical Writers has these words: Serapion, ordained bishop at Antioch in the eleventh year of the emperor Commodus, wrote a letter to Caricus and Pontius on the heresy of Montanus, in which he adds this too: "But that you may know that the madness of this false doctrine, that is, of the new prophecy, is condemned by the whole world, I have sent you the letters of the most blessed Apollinaris, who was bishop at Hierapolis of Asia." He also composed a volume to Domninus, who in the time of persecution had gone over to the Jews; and another book on the Gospel which goes under the name of Peter, to the church of Rhosus
in Cilicia, which had turned aside into heresy through reading it. There are also read, scattered about, his brief letters, suited to the ἀσκήσει and life of their author. Thus far St. Jerome. He was followed by Honorius of Autun and Trithemius, and his own light certainly came from the Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. Of the birth of St. Serapion nothing is known to us. Yet we cannot but mention William Cureton's conjecture concerning a letter found by him in Syriac codices, which Mara, son of Serapion, sent and addressed to his son Serapion. Cureton suspects that this latter was St. Serapion, bishop of Antioch Spicilegium Syriacum, preface, page XIII, born, as the ancients say in funerary inscriptions, one of the faithful from the faithful.
[4] by others in the tenth year, But not a few differ from St. Jerome, wrongly thinking that they are following Eusebius, who they find in most manuscripts or printed editions of his Chronicle attached the ordination of St. Serapion to the tenth year of Commodus Works of St. Jerome, volume VIII, column 1079, Migne edition.. But above all it should be observed that the Chronicle itself, as it was written by Eusebius in the Greek language, is lost [D. Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés et ecclésiastiques, volume IV, page 223; Aucher, Eusebii Chronicon bipartitum, volume I, Preface, page V and following.], and that the Greek Chronicle which Scaliger published under the name of Eusebius [Aucher, in the place cited. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, volume VI, book V, chapter 4, page 33, Hamburg edition, 1714. Hanckius, De Scriptoribus Byzantinis, part I, chapter 1, number 196, page 90. Ceillier, volume IV, page 223.] is the offspring of him rather than of Eusebius, or at least has grown together somehow from passages collected at Scaliger's discretion. Among the Greeks, to be sure, several authors, such as George Syncellus, the author of the Paschal Chronicle and Cedrenus, used the Chronicle of Eusebius much and often copied it. But they are of no help to us at present, since Syncellus reports only that St. Serapion sat for 25 years Chronographia, volume I, page 668, Bonn edition., and the author of the Paschal Chronicle Paschal Chronicle, volume I, page 491, Bonn edition. defines no more accurately the time when he began to govern the church of Antioch. Wherefore, in order to arrive at the mind of Eusebius, we must have recourse to the Latin translation of his Chronicle, that is, St. Jerome's, and to the Armenian. In most editions, as far as we know, of St. Jerome's Eusebian Chronicle there is read at the tenth year of Commodus the memorial Works, volume VIII, columns 634 and 1079. of the ordination of Serapion, bishop of Antioch.
[5] which is less satisfactory. But this passage seems to have been disturbed long ago: and no one who has looked at those tables will deny that this could very easily have happened. Yet there have always existed, as it seems to me, genuine readings in good codices, which fully agree with Jerome's Catalogue of Writers Works of St. Jerome, volume II, column 655, Migne edition.; for Pontac Ibid., volume VIII, column 1079., in his notes and emendations appended to the Chronicle of St. Jerome, reports that in the Foix and Petau codices the memorial of St. Serapion was written at the eleventh year of Commodus. Lastly, that this reading should be judged genuine is urged by all the editors of Jerome's Catalogue known to me, namely Miraeus, Fabricius, the Maurists and Vallarsi. For they report the words of the holy doctor, attaching the ordination of St. Serapion to the eleventh year of Commodus, with no correction added, and indicate no discrepancy among the codices. Nor ought Trithemius Historical Works, De Scriptoribus, volume I, page 194. to delay us, who, though he followed in the footsteps of St. Jerome, nevertheless proposes the thirteenth year. For what is of greater weight, Jerome's Book on Illustrious Men is fully supported by the very ancient Armenian version of the Eusebian Chronicle, published at Venice in the year 1818 by Giovanni Battista Aucher in Armenian and Latin Eusebii Chronicon bipartitum, part II, page 293.. It was also put into Latin by Cardinal Mai and printed at Milan in the year 1818 Eusebii Chronicorum canones, page 389. and, with fresh care, at Rome in the year 1833 Scriptores veteres, volume VII, page 389.. In this St. Serapion is reported to have been made bishop in the eleventh year of Commodus, or 190 of Christ: for Commodus held the empire alone from the day of death of Marcus Aurelius, the 17th of March of the year 180; although he marked this year on coins as the fourth of his reign, because he had been called emperor with his father in the year 176, on the 27th day of November, as Lampridius reports [Lampridius, on Commodus, in Historiae Augustae Scriptores, pages 46 and 50, Saumaise edition. Compare Eckhel, Doctrina numorum, part II, volume VII, page 103 and following, edition of 1828.]; (who however in another place proposes the 28th day of October). The eleventh year also pleases Ceillier Hist. génér. des Auteurs sacrés, volume II, page 235., Cave Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia litteraria, page 52., Lipsius Chronologie der Römischen Bischöfe, page 172. and Cureton [Spicilegium Syriacum, page XV; compare Dupin, Nouv. Biblioth. ecclés., volume I, page 77, Paris edition, 1693.]; but the tenth year pleases Halloix Ecclesiae Orientalis Scriptores, volume II, page 852., Bosch Acta Sanctorum, volume IV of July, page 12., Bue Ibid., volume VI of October, page 171. and Tillemont Mémoires pour servir à l'hist. ecclés., volume III, page 168..
[6] In which matter some writers depart from Eusebius, From what has been discussed thus far, it can be inferred that Eusebius attached the ordination of St. Serapion either to the tenth year of Commodus, or 189 of Christ, or, as seems more probable to us, to the eleventh year of Commodus, or 190 of Christ. Yet we suspect that the authority of Eusebius did not prevail with everyone. For George Syncellus Chronographia, volume I, page 668, Bonn edition., although a follower of Eusebius, omits the beginning of the episcopate of St. Serapion. The Paschal Chronicle Paschal Chronicle, volume I, page 492, Bonn edition., Nicephorus of Constantinople Chronographia brevis, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, volume C, column 1053., Nicephorus Callistus Ecclesiastical History, book IV, chapter XIX, page 314, Paris edition, 1630. and others imitate George's silence on the beginning of the episcopate of St. Serapion; the Paschal Chronicle refers his contests with the Montanists to the third year of Commodus. Eutychius of Alexandria Annals, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, volume CXI, column 990., a writer of the tenth century, says that Serapion began to sit in the chair of Antioch in the fifth year of Commodus and died ten years later. Wherefore it is perhaps not a rash suspicion that doubts about the year of the ordination of St. Serapion existed long ago among the Greeks. Nor should it be passed over that the tenth year of Commodus corresponds among writers now to the year 189, now to 190, now to 191 of the Christian era: a discrepancy which sometimes arises from the olympiads and their differing years or from a differing method of chronology. We, however, have followed the dating received by nearly everyone.
[7] the more recent ones too. There is also another opinion, which Michel Le Quien Oriens Christianus, volume II, page 702., Martin Routh Reliquiae sacrae, volume I, page 467. and others Art de vérifier les dates, page 241, edition of 1770. defend, thinking that the beginnings of the episcopate of St. Serapion fall in the seventh or eighth year of Severus, that is, 199 of Christ. This view (which has been set forth by Bue) we comprise in these few words: Eusebius [Mai, Scriptores, volume VIII, page 388. Aucher, Eusebii Chronicum, volume II, page 29.] in his Chronicle wrongly attached to the sixteenth year of Marcus Aurelius, that is, 176 of Christ (or according to another edition the seventeenth year of Marcus Aurelius), the ordination of St. Maximinus, bishop of Antioch, who succeeded St. Theophilus and governed his church for thirteen years; for St. Theophilus was still surviving on the 17th day of March of the year 180, since he brought his Chronicle down to this day. Indeed he is said not to have died before the year 186. Hence it is inferred that St. Maximinus succeeded St. Theophilus after this time; then that he did not die before the seventh year of Severus, or 199 of Christ, and obtain St. Serapion as successor. This is the opinion of Michel Le Quien and others. But Bue Acta Sanctorum, volume VI of October, page 171. rightly refuses to add his vote to it, and contends, to omit other things, that the statements of Eusebius can easily be reconciled with one another, if only it be granted that St. Theophilus, in the sixteenth year of Marcus Aurelius, as sometimes happened at that time, joined St. Maximinus to himself as helper in governing the church of Antioch. Moreover the opinion of Eusebius can by no means be called either absurd or incredible: for things which could happen, and have sometimes happened, though they seem less likely or less frequent, we not rarely find to be true.
[8] It is likely that St. Serapion was an ascetic, It is altogether probable that St. Serapion was raised to the patriarchal see of Antioch because he shone in the Church of Christ with the praise of doctrine and piety. For so illustrious was the doctrine of the holy bishop that the Fathers of the Council of Alexandria of the year 362 Compare Labbe, Councils, volume II, column 808 and following., among whom were Eusebius of Vercelli and Athanasius, seem to have put forward his books as instruments of apostolic tradition. Let Socrates be heard [Ecclesiastical History, book III, chapter VII, page 174, Mainz edition, 1677. Compare Nicephorus Callistus, Ecclesiastical History, book X, chapter XIV, page 33, Paris edition, 1630.]:
They declared that Christ, made man, assumed not flesh only, but a human soul as well; which indeed had been of old the opinion of churchmen. For they did not bring into the Church some new doctrine first thought out by themselves: but they ratified those things which both ecclesiastical tradition had taught from the beginning, and the philosophers of the Christians had established by most certain arguments. For so all the ancients who have disputed on this matter have left us their opinion handed down in writing. Irenaeus certainly … and Serapion, bishop of the city of Antioch, assert in their books that Christ, who was made man, was endowed with a soul, as a thing received by the common consent of all.
Nor indeed did he leave a lesser reputation for holiness, as is manifest from the praises of Jerome. Indeed, if faith is to be given to Trithemius Historical Works, De Scriptoribus, volume I, page 194, St. Serapion will be called an anchorite: an opinion you will judge not absurd on reading Antonelli's excellent dissertation on the Ascetics [Antonelli, Works of St. James of Nisibis, Dissertation on the Ascetics, page 107 and following; page 112, edition of 1756.], and the briefer and more careful discussion of Anton Tinnebroek Examen Canon. et Histor. libri R. D. Verhoeven, chapter II, page 60. on the same subject. This opinion is not moderately supported by St. Jerome, who puts an end to his praise of St. Serapion in these words: There are also read, scattered about, brief letters of an author
suited to his ἀσκήσει and life. Nor is the silence of Eusebius, who indicates nothing of this kind, an obstacle: for it was known in that age, the later second century, that nearly all the bishops in the East were taken from that number of men who lived the chaste and separate life of ascetics or monks, in prayer and contempt of the things of this world, clad in a dark garment or the philosophers' cloak, and called Christian philosophers Compare Antonelli and Tinnebroek, in the places cited.. Nor did this state of things escape the Carmelite Fathers, who reckon St. Serapion among the sons of their Order. Whether St. Serapion was really a Carmelite, since it has been debated between Sebastian of St. Paul Exhibitio errorum Papebrochii, article XVI, § IV, page 455. and Papebroch [Responsio ad Exhibitionem errorum, article XVI, § IV, in Acta Sanctorum vindicata, page 561.], there is no need to dispute.
[9] and to have died in the year 211. How many years St. Serapion sat in the chair of Antioch is uncertain. It is indeed reported by Syncellus that he presided over this church for twenty-five years: but this number is too great; for in the Hieronymian and Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius one reads that St. Asclepiades succeeded St. Serapion in the first year of Caracalla, in which his father Severus died (which year is 211 of Christ). Nor does he disagree in the Ecclesiastical History [Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter XI, page 445 and following; Acta Sanctorum, volume II of March, page 615.], where he relates that St. Asclepiades was made bishop of the Antiochenes when St. Alexander, helper in the episcopate of St. Narcissus of Jerusalem, was being held in chains, that is, according to the more likely opinion, in the first year of Caracalla, or 211 of Christ. But it is superfluous to explain more fully this matter, which is not a little intricate, since it has been discussed by a colleague Ibid., volume VIII of October, page 315. in the commentary on St. Asclepiades at the 18th day of October. It will be enough to have added one thing; namely, that in the Ecclesiastical Chronicle of Gregory Barhebraeus our saint is reported to have presided over the church of Antioch for twenty-one years [J. B. Abbeloos and T. Lamy, G. Barhebraei Chronicon ecclesiasticum, volume I, column 46.]. Hence what remains to be told of the government of St. Serapion took place between the years 190 and 211.
§ II. St. Serapion's contest with the Cataphrygians. His writings against other heretics. The persecution of Septimius Severus.
St. Serapion attacks the Montanists, Those few things concerning the deeds of St. Serapion that have come down to us, as being taken by Eusebius from his letters, are most certain. In the first place comes his contest with the Cataphrygians, who arose, with Montanus prophesying, about the year 173 [St. Jerome, Works, volume VIII, Chronicle, column 629; Eusebius in the Chronicle, in Mai, Scriptores veteres, volume VIII, page 388.]: a depraved sect which, professing a more severe doctrine and discipline and spreading widely within a short time, put down in some places such deep roots that long afterwards it had not yet lost its strength, disturbing minds and heaping reproaches on the Catholics. Against Montanus there rose up at once, both singly and in assembled councils, the neighbouring bishops of Asia Minor, of Thrace, and others [Baronius, Annals, at the year 173, number XVIII. Compare Dupin, Nouv. Bibl. ecclés., volume I, page 77.]. Likewise St. Victor, Roman pontiff (or, according to the opinion of Baronius, Anicetus), whom the heretics vainly tried to entangle in their snares, rejected the errors of the Montanists [Tillemont, Mém. ecclés., volume II, page 669; works of Tertullian, volume II, Against Praxeas, chapter I, column 155, Migne edition.]. But St. Serapion, whose authority, as patriarch of Antioch, was very great in those parts, by no means allowed his concern to be wanting. If one may judge from the number of the subscriptions, he came into council with several other bishops, and gave a letter to Caricus and Ponticus, churchmen; which seemed to some a synodal letter, but to others not so [Compare Tillemont, Mém. ecclés., volume II, page 670; Dupin, Nouv. Bibl. ecclés., volume I, page 77; Valesius, Notes on Eusebius.]. Eusebius indeed, treating of the first opponents of the new doctrine, writes Ecclesiastical History, book V, chapter XXII, page 395 and following.: Of the writings of Apollinaris against the aforesaid heresy mention is made by Serapion, who about these times is said to have been bishop of the church of Antioch after Maximus. For in the letter which he wrote to Caricus and Ponticus, refuting the same heresy, he names Apollinaris in these words: "And that you may know, he says, how the whole brotherhood on earth has turned from and abominated that working of a feigned faction, which is called the new prophecy, I have sent to you the letters of the most blessed father Claudius Apollinaris, who was bishop of the city of Hierapolis in Asia." In the same letter of Serapion are read the subscriptions of various bishops. One of whom subscribed in this way: "Aurelius Cyrenius, martyr, I wish you good health." Another in this way: "Aelius Publius Julius, bishop of Develtus, a colony of Thrace: I call to witness God who is in heaven, that Blessed Sotas, who is of Anchialus, wished to cast out the demon of Priscilla, but the hypocrites by no means allowed it." And the subscriptions too of very many other bishops who held the same view with them, set down by their own hands, are read in that letter of which I have spoken. On which Valesius observes that St. Sotas had by that time already departed this life: since he is called μακάριος, the epithet by which the Greeks commonly designate the dead, by Eusebius. Valesius adds, against Christoferson, that St. Sotas tried to exorcize Priscilla not in Thrace, but in Phrygia, whither he had betaken himself for the sake of examining the new heresy. He likewise notes that Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, too was already dead, being called μακαριώτατον, when St. Serapion set these things down in writing. And indeed he is reckoned to have died before the year 180.
[11] and he writes to Domnus and to the people of Rhosus. In another place, when Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter XII, page 446. had said that St. Asclepiades succeeded St. Serapion in the see of Antioch, he again reviews certain of his deeds and books: Moreover it is credible that many other monuments of Serapion's learning exist in the possession of others. These however alone have come down to us: what he wrote to a certain Domnus who in time of persecution had fallen away from the faith of Christ to the superstition of the Jews: likewise those letters which he composed to Pontius and Caricus, churchmen: other letters also to others. Besides, a book on the gospel of Peter, refuting the false things said in it. This book he composed for the sake of certain persons of the parish of Rhosus (now Arsus [Halloix, Illustres auctores Orientales, volume II, page 861; Bischoff and Möller, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Geographie, under Rhosus; Yanosky, Syrie ancienne et moderne, page 3; Ritter, Die Erdkunde, etc., Die Sinai-Halbinsel, Palästina und Syrie, volume IV, part II, page 1812 and following; Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae, volume I, page 477; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, volume II, column 905.] in Cilicia), who on the occasion of that gospel had turned aside to a doctrine alien from the right faith. Nor will it be absurd to record a few words from that book, in which he sets forth what he thought of that gospel, in this way: "For we, brothers, he says, receive both Peter and the other Apostles just as Christ himself. But the writings which falsely bear their name, we, as men informed and experienced, repudiate; since we are certain that we have by no means received them from our forefathers. I indeed, when I had come to you, supposed that all held the path of the right faith. And not having read through that gospel inscribed with the name of Peter, which was being offered by them, I said: if this is the only thing that breeds strife among you, let it be read. But now, since from what has been said to me I have plainly perceived that their mind was hiding a heresy then concealed, I shall hasten to come to you again. Therefore, brothers, expect me shortly; but when I have found out of what opinion and sect Marcianus was, who even contradicted himself, not understanding what he said, as you will learn from what has been written to you. For having borrowed the aforesaid gospel from those who had studied it and had handled it in constant practice, that is, from the successors of those who went before Marcianus, whom we call Docetae (for from the school of these most of his opinions flowed), we obtained the opportunity of reading it: and we found that many things in that gospel agree with the right faith of our Saviour, but that some things at variance with the rule of right faith have been added, which we have subjoined for your sake also." So much concerning the books of Serapion. This pseudo-gospel of Peter is lost. Origen mentions it Works, volume III, column 875 and following, Migne edition. in his commentary on chapter XIII of Matthew: They therefore supposed him (Jesus), he says, to be the son of Joseph and Mary: but some affirm that the brothers of Jesus are sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary, being led to this, namely, by the tradition of the gospel inscribed according to Peter, or of the book of James [Compare Thilo, Codex apocryphus novi Testamenti, page 159 and following; Tischendorf, Evangelia apocrypha, page 1 and following; Wright, Apocryphal Literature, page 6.]; which latter book survives.
[12] While he was bishop, Severus harassed the Christians. From the excerpts recited from the books of St. Serapion it is easily understood how much sorrow the pride of the Montanists caused his spirit. And this was the more bitter because, as is plain from the words brought forward, when he should have been fighting sharply with those heretics, persecution blazed up against the Christians. For Septimius Severus, who, emperor from the year 193, had by several brilliant deeds made himself no ignoble name Compare Tertullian, Works, volume I, To Scapula, column 703, Migne edition., began about the year 202 to harass the Christians cruelly, confounding them to some extent with the Jews guilty of rebellion. He forbade under heavy penalty, says Aelius Spartianus, that people become Jews. He also (afterwards) enacted the same regarding Christians [Historiae Augustae scriptores, page 70, Saumaise edition. Compare Tillemont, Mémoires sur l'hist. ecclés., volume III, page 636.]. But the anger of Septimius against the Jews seems to have been gradually appeased, so that it was safer to give one's name to the Jews than to profess the doctrine of Christ. For this reason Domnus the Christian, of whom Eusebius above, went over to the religion of the Jews: with what success St. Serapion called him back to a better course I have found nowhere. In this persecution, which the emperor Severus had stirred up against the Churches, and during which a great many athletes of Christ everywhere, contending for piety, accomplished such illustrious martyrdoms [Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book VI, chapter I and following, page 423 and following; Laemmer edition.], St. Serapion to the judge
was summoned, or condemned to punishment, we read in no author. Wherefore we are of opinion that he fell asleep in the peace of Christ full of days, renowned for the fame of his holiness [Compare Peter de Natalibus, book IX, chapter CXXII; Paris, Martyrologe ou Idée gén. de la Vie des Saints, page 775, Paris, 1691.].
[13] Saints of the same name. A brief Life of the excellent prelate was once copied by Rosweyde himself from a manuscript codex of St. Saviour at Utrecht Manuscripts of the Royal Library of Brussels, number 8926.. In it there is related that St. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in order to bring help to the needy, sold his tunic, then the gospel, and finally himself. There is no reason for these things to delay us, since it is plain that they are the deeds of Serapion the Sindonite Acta Sanctorum, volume II of January, pages 507 and 524. and have been wrongly attached to Serapion of Antioch. He must also be distinguished from a certain St. Serapion, bishop in Egypt. When our predecessors met with this man at the 9th day of July in the martyrologies of Ado, Notker and others, they did not venture to determine who he was. Wherefore they reserved the whole matter for discussion at the 30th day of October, which is sacred to St. Serapion of Antioch Acta Sanctorum, volume II of July, page 670.. But since the truth has not been clearly ascertained by us either, we judge that nothing is to be added to their words.
[14] St. Serapion is said to have been ordained by St. Zephyrinus. Nor need we be long in those things which are reported elsewhere of the holy prelate. He is indeed mentioned in the Passion of St. Barsymaeus, found some time ago in a Syriac codex of the tenth century and published by Cureton [Ancient Syriac documents relative to Edessa, pages 63, 71, 186 and following. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac mss. in the British museum, part III, page 1114; compare page 1207.]. From this we learn that that prelate of Edessa was a contemporary of St. Fabian the pope, and was consecrated by Abshelama, bishop of Edessa; Abshelama by Palut I; the latter again by our Serapion, bishop of Antioch. Serapion was ordained by St. Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by St. Victor, the latter by Eleutherius; the Roman pontiffs being thereafter reviewed, nearly all of them, as far as St. Peter. But about this dating there is certainly cause for doubt; and so Cureton judged that the whole passage had been interpolated. Of still less account are for us both the Syriac codex on the doctrine of Addaeus the Apostle Work cited, page 23., and the Armenian manuscript codex, which Victor Langlois [Collection des hist. de l'Arménie; Léroubna d'Édesse, volume I, page 315 and following, page 325.] and then the Venetian congregation of the Mekhitarists [Lettre d'Abgar, traduite sur la Version Armén. du Ve s., p. 57; compare Acta Sanctorum, volume XII of October, p. 466.] published in a French rendering, and which is inscribed: Letter of Abgar, son of Manova, king of the city of Edessa, which in the Syriac tongue is called Ourrah. If we will listen to this narrative, Ate, bishop of Edessa, died an almost sudden death, and had no time to call Phegod, or Philot, to orders. He went to Antioch and was ordained by Serapion, bishop of the city of Antioch; who himself also had been consecrated by Zeprianus (Zephyrinus), bishop of the city of Rome; he had been consecrated by Simon Peter. What credit these things deserve is apparent to the reader, and so we think it is not worth the trouble to track them down in all their traces.