Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/825

Rh ferred to by orthodox and heterodox with equal reverence. It was probably on his reunion with the Church that he gave in the confession of his faith, which is mentioned by Sozomen (H. E. iii. 5), and given at length by Socrates (H. E. ii. 10). It was promulgated by the Eusebian or Semi-Arian Synod of Antioch ( 341), the members of which an- nounced that they had found it in the hand- writing of Lucian himself. Sozomen expresses his doubt of the genuineness of the document ; and the caution with which it is worded, for the most part in scriptural terms, so suited to the purpose of the synod, which desired to substitute for the Nicene confession a creed which moderate men of both parties might embrace, renders the suspicion of Sozomen not unreasonable. The genuineness of the creed is, however, maintained by Bishop Bull (Defensio Fid. Nicaen. ii. 13. § 4 — 8), by powerful arguments, and is indeed generally admitted ; but the controversy as to its orthodoxy has not been decided even in modern times ; for although trinitarian writers for the most part affirm that it is orthodox, Petavius and Huetius, with the Arian Sandius, impute to it an Arian character. It was strenuously upheld by the Arians of the fourth century, especially as it did not contain the obnoxious term "" Supposing it to be genuine, its ambiguity- probably arose from the desire of Lucian not to compromise his own real sentiments, yet to express them in terms of so orthodox an appearance as to satisfy the rulers of the Church, into which he sought to be readmitted.

After his reunion with the Church, Lucian appears to have recovered or increased his reputation both for learning and sanctity. He was especially eminent for his charity to the poor. His eminence marked him out as a victim in the persecution under Diocletian and his successors. He fled from Antioch and concealed himself in the country ; but, near the close of the year 311, he was apprehended at Antioch, by order, according to Eusebius and Jerome, of the emperor Maximin (Daza), but according to the author of his J da., under Max- imian (Galerius). The slight difference of the names Maximin and Maximian easily accounts for the difference of these statements : if he was mar- tyred under Maximian we must place his appre- hension at least a year earlier than the date just given. He was conveyed by land across Asia Minor to Nicomedeia in Bithynia, where, after suffering the greatest tortures, which could only extort from him the answer, "I am a Christian" (Chrysost. Homilia in S.Lucianum, Opera, vol. i. ed. Morel., vol. v, ed. Savil., vol. ii. ed. Benedict), he was remanded to prison. He died the day after the feast of the Epiphany, 312, most probably from the effects of the tortures already inflicted, and especially by starvation, having been fourteen days without food, for he would not taste of that which was placed before him, as it had been offered to idols. His body was cast into the sea, and having been washed ashore near the decayed town, or the ruins of Drepanum, was buried there. Constantine the Great afterwards rebuilt the town in honour of the holy martyr, and gave to it, from his mother, by whom he was probably influenced, the name of Helenopolis. The statement of the Alexandrian or Paschal Chronicle, that he was burnt to death, is utterly inconsistent with other more trust-worthy statements.

The works of Lucian comprehended, according to Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c. 77), two small works, "libelli," on the Christian faith, and some short letters to various individuals. The two works "on the faith" {De Fide) were, perhaps, the creed already noticed as discovered and published by the synod of Antioch, and the speech (Oratio) made by him before the emperor, which is preserved by Rufinus (H. E. ix. 6). If this defence was spoken, it must have been at another examination than that described by Chrysostom. Of the letters of Lucinn we have no remains, except a fragment in the Alexandrian Chronicle (p. 277, ed. Paris ; p. 221, ed. Venice ; vol. i. p. 516, ed. Bonn). But the most important of Lucian's literary labours was his revision of the text of the Septuagint. Some (Ceillier, Auteurs Sucrés, vol.iv. p. 47, and Neander, Church Hist, by Rose, vol. ii. note ad fin.) have thought that he revised the text of the N. T. : but although some expressions used by Jerome (''Praef. ad Evangelia) give countenance to their opinion, we believe the revision was limited to the Septuagint. The author of the Acta S. Luciani says he was moved to undertake his revision by observing the corruption of the sacred books ; but his subsequent statement that the revision was guided by a comparison of the Hebrew text, limits the expression "sacred books" to the O. T. The copies of the edition of Lucian, though unfavourably characterised by Jerome (l.c.), are described by him elsewhere (Apolog. contra Rufin.'' ii. 27) as commonly used in the churches from Constantinople to Antioch. They were known as "exemplaria Lucianea." (''Hieron. De Viiis Illustr. c. 77.) In the Synopsis S. Scripturae'', printed with the works of Athanasius (c. 77), is a curious account of the discovery of Lucian's autograph copy of his revision at Nicomedeia. (Euseb. H. E. viii. 13, ix. 6 ; Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Rufinus, II. cc. ; Philostorg. H.E. ii. 12 — 15 ; Synopsis S. Scripturae, Athanas. adscripta, I. c. ; Dial. III. de Sancta Trinitate, Athanas. adscripta, c. I ; Epiphanius, /. c. ; Chrysostom, I. c. ; Hieronym. ''ll. cc.; Chron. Paschale'', pp. 277, 279, 283, ed. Paris, 221, 223, 226, ed. Venice, vol. i. pp. 516,519,520, 527,ed. Bonn ; ''Acta S. Luciani Preshyt. Martyris'', Gr. apud Sym. Metaphr. ; Latinè apud Lipomannum, Suriura, et Bolland. Acta Sanctor. vii. Januar. vol. i. p. 357, &c. ; Suidas (who transcribes Metaphrastes), s. vv. and ; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. v. p. 474, &c. ; Ceillier, I. c. ; Cave, ''Hist. Litt.'' ad ann. 294 ; Fabric. ''Bibl. Graec.'', vol. iii. p. 715 ; Hody, ''De Textib. Original.'' lib. iii. p. i.e. 5. § 4, 5, lib. iv. c. 3. § 1.)

2. Of Byza, apparently the Bizya of the classical writers, an episcopal city of Thrace, lived in the fifth century. A Latin version of a letter of his to the emperor Leo I. Thrax (who reigned from 457 to 474), is given in the various editions of the Concilia. It recognises the authority of the three councils of Nice, 325, Ephesus a.d. 431, and Chalcedon 451, and declares Timotheus (Aelurus) patriarch of Alexandria, to be deserving of deposition. From the reference to this last matter, on which Leo seems to have required the judgment of various prelates, the letter appears to have been written in or soon after 457. In the superscription to the letter he is called "Byzae Metropolitanus;" but if we are correct in identifying Byza with Bizya, this title must not be understood as implying archiepiscopal rank, for Bizya does not appear to have been an archiepiscopal see, but a simple