Early Christianity in Arabia/Section 9

by Thomas Wright

SECTION IX.

The disputes which agitated the eastern church on the subject of the incarnation, are celebrated for their unyielding acrimony.^[1] The doctrine of two distinct persons in Christ was long supported by Nestorius with various fortunes; the orthodox believers triumphed in his death, but even his fall brought with it its own revenge, for the excess of zeal in his persecutors gave rise to a schism as obstinately persevered in, and far more pernicious in the result. The principles of the Monophysite doctrine, that of one nature, are said to have been supported by the writings of some of the early fathers.

The murder of the beautiful and accomplished Hypatia^[2] has cast an eternal stain on the memory of Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril was at the head of that party most zealous against the doctrines of Nestorius; he had been denounced by the Nestorian party as a monster born and bred for the destruction of the church^[3] and in his controversial writings he laid the foundations for those dissensions by which the denunciation was at last fulfilled. Supported in some measure by passages in the works of St. Cyril, and trusting to the friendship and protection of the patriarch of Alexandria, Eutyches, a Byzantine archimandrite, or superior of three hundred monks, ventured to preach from the pulpit of the capital, in the year 488, the doctrine of one only undivided nature in Christ.^[4] The heresy of Eutyches was new rather in name than in dogma. He is accused of asserting, in opposition to Nestorius, that Christ was never really man, but that his nature was one, the word, which was undivided and incarnate, bearing only whilst on earth a human shape.^[5] The body of Christ was subtile, and entirety dissimilar to ours, and the Son of Mary participated in no degree of the human nature of his mother.^[6] The doctrines of Eutyches were warmly opposed by Flavian, the primate of Constantinople; and, attended by some of his friends, their author was tried before an assembly of thirty bishops. To the question of Flavian, "Dost thou acknowledge that Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, resembles the Father in his godhead, and his mother in his humanity—that he consists of two natures?" he answered—"As I acknowledge him for my God, and for the Lord of heaven and earth, I presume not to define his nature; but that he possesses a human nature like ours, I have not yet acknowledged." "But," said Flavian, "dost thou not believe that he may be like God in his divinity, and like us men in his humanity?" "Hitherto I have never said that the body of the Lord our God is like ours; but I acknowledge that the holy virgin was of the same nature as we, and that our God received his flesh from her." The patrician Florentius demanded, "Dost thou acknowledge, that after his incarnation he consists of two natures?" "I acknowledge," replied Eutyches, "that he consisted of two natures before their union, but after that I allow but one." Eutyches, in defence of his opinions, urged the authority of the writings of Athanasius and Cyril, but before the meeting was dissolved, Flavian, in the name of the whole assembly, declared that he was convicted by his own confessions of the errors of Valentinus and Apollinaris, and that he was no longer to be considered a member of the church of Christ.^[7]

Eutyches, however, was not disposed to yield quietly to the decrees of the meeting by which he had been condemned. Chrysaphius, the favourite minister of the emperor, was his godson and his friend; his cause was advocated by Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, and at the instigation of the former, Theodosius was induced to call a general council, to whose judgment he agreed to submit. Accordingly, on the 8th of August in the year 449, one hundred and thirty bishops, with a numerous train of monks, assembled at Ephesus. Three deputies, one of whom was Julius, bishop of Puteoli, were sent from Rome by Leo, who had already declared his hostility to the Monophysite doctrines. But the party of Eutyches was strongest in the weapons of the spirit and of the flesh. Dioscorus brought with him a numerous train of followers who were ready to support him with words or blows; Barsumas, who attended as the chief and representative of the Syrian monks, was one of his friends, and even the officers who had been deputed by the emperor to preserve tranquillity during the debate, Elpidius and Eulogius, with the proconsul of Asia, favoured his cause. After the council had been opened with the due ceremonies, Eutyches arose, and spoke in defence of his doctrines. His accuser, Eusebius of Dorylæum, was only allowed to read the transactions of the council of Constantinople; when he came to that part in which Eutyches was required to acknowledge two natures in Christ as to his incarnation, the clamours of the assembly would allow him to proceed no farther. "Eusebius," they said, "ought to be burnt alive, to be cut in two; as he seeks division let him be divided."^[8] The threatening looks of Dioscorus and his attendants, and the formidable train of monks and soldiers, prevailed, and it was declared as the sentence of the assembled bishops, that the dogmata of Eutyches were free from error, that Dioscorus held the same faith as his predecessor Cyril, and that Eutyches himself should be again received into the communion of the Church. The anathemas which had been hurled against Eutyches at Constantinople, were retorted on Flavian and Eusebius, and those who professed the doctrine of the two natures, and the united voice of the assembly was raised in the wish that those who divided Christ into two might be accursed, that they might be outlawed, that they might be hewn in pieces with the sword. Many of the eastern bishops of the diocese of Byzantium attempted to expostulate with Dioscorus in defence of Flavian. "What!" said he, "will you raise a tumult? Where are the officers?" Elpidius and Eulogius, with the military, followed by a crowd of monks, immediately entered the church, and the terrified bishops successively subscribed the condemnation of the primate of Byzantium. Flavian, with the Roman deputies, still protesting against his sentence, the dispute was carried from words to blows, he was thrown down, kicked, and trampled upon by Dioscorus and Barsumas, and is said to have died of his bruises before he reached Epipa in Lydia, the place appointed for his exile.^[9]

Leo, the Roman pontiff, was the chief enemy of Dioscorus and the Eutychians, and had signified his entire approval of the proceedings of Flavian at Constantinople.^[10] During the remainder of the reign of Theodosius, in spite of the repeated and earnest solicitations of the Roman pontiff, the decrees of the council of Ephesus were received by the eastern church, but his successor Marcian, and the new empress Pulcheria, were firm friends of Leo and of the religious party which he supported. A new general council of the bishops was summoned, and they assembled in the year 451, in the church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, a town in the neighbourhood of Constantinople, the site of which is now occupied by the modern Turkish village of Kadi-keui. The absolute power of the monarch governed the proceedings; the primate of Egypt was obliged to appear before the synod as a criminal, and the reiterated cries of the bishops of Asia, Thrace, and Pontus were, "Out with the murderer Dioscorus; who does not know the deeds of Dioscorus?"^[11] Dioscorus pleaded that his proceeding's had been authorised by the eastern bishops—they excused themselves under the plea of having been forced to compliance^[12]—he, on the other hand, accused them of

having joined in the clamours against Eusebius, and in the reproaches that were uttered—"We did not say it," answered the Orientals, "the Egyptians said it; Dioscorus said it." The bishops of Egypt stepped forward boldly and exclaimed aloud, "We said this then, and we say it now." Dioscorus was deposed and banished, and ended his life at Gangra in Paphlagonia.^[13]

The decrees of the council of Chalcedon were but the introduction to greater disorders. The monks of Egypt, as well as those of Syria and Arabia, were noted for their great piety, and for the excess and obstinacy of their zeal.^[14] Their long and painful noviciate in the solitary deserts, inured them in the virtues of patience and perseverance,^[15] and in their pride and independence of spirit, as in their hospitality,^[16] they resembled the untamed Arab of the wilderness. The bishops and monks of Egypt and Arabia were therefore little inclined to yield to the anathemas of Leo, or to the authority of the emperor. The controversialists of the ancient church were not over scrupulous in the choice of their weapons, and books were frequently forged to support their arguments.^[17] Thus the works attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite, are believed to have been forged by Synesius, bishop of Ptolemais, at the instigation of Cyril of Alexandria,^[18] and Cyril himself made use of books falsely ascribed to Athanasius. Synesius, in a letter to one of his friends, openly advocated the practice of falsehood, and asserted that truth is dangerous to the multitude whose weak minds are not fitted for its reception. All these expedients were adopted with increase of acrimony. The Eutychians only acknowledged the acts of the synod of Ephesus, while the emperor wished to force on them the decrees of that of Chalcedon. The former was characterized by those who had subscribed to the faith of Leo, as a band of robbers;^[19] the Monophysites denounced the latter as an impious assemblage of demons, of spirits shut out from the mercy of heaven.^[20] The Syrian monks were ever ready to use the weapons of the flesh; the holy city of Jerusalem was occupied by a tumultuous mob, and the Monophysite doctrines were spread by Barsumas in Armenia and Mesopotamia. Such of the Egyptian bishops as were favourable to the synod of Chalcedon were obliged to be held in their sees by force. Proterius, who was placed by the emperor in the chair of Dioscorus, was safe only in the protection of his numerous guard; on the emperor's death he was massacred by the people of Alexandria, and Timothy Ælurus, or the Cat, his murderer, substituted in his place.^[21] After years of tumult and disorder, when the bitterness of religious warfare was mitigated by the Henoticum of Zeno, Petrus Moggus, the patriarch of Alexandria, and Petrus Gnapheus, the patriarch of Antioch, were at the head of the Monophysite sect.^[22]

In the reigns of Zeno and Anastasius, the Monophysites had themselves separated into several sects and parties. Anastasius is accused of being himself a Jacobite,^[23] and of being instigated by Xenaias of Mabug or Hierapolis, to the persecution of those bishops who were most zealous for the doctrines of the synod of Chalcedon. Euthemius and his successor Macedonius were banished from the see of Constantinople for their opinions. A similar charge was formed against Flavian, bishop of Antioch, and a number of Syrian monks were assembled there to demand his abjuration of the doctrine of the two natures. But the zeal of the people of Antioch in defence of their pastor, afforded a more convenient pretence for his persecution; they rose against the Syrian monks, many of whom were slain or drowned in the Orontes whilst endeavouring to make their escape, and Flavian was accused of sedition, and banished to Petra. Severus, a zealous Monophysite, was called from his monastery at Gaza, raised to the chair of Flavian, ascended the pulpit of Antioch, and pronounced a general anathema against those who acknowledged two natures in Christ.^[24]

Severus thus became the head of the Syrian Monophysites. His character is drawn by his enemies, probably not without reason, in the blackest colours. He had been originally a pagan, and he appears to have been a restless and ambitious man, proud, cunning, and malignant, but learned, and a subtle controversialist. He commenced his episcopal career with the most violent measures against those bishops and priests in his diocese who were favourers of the council of Chalcedon. Those who had ventured to oppose him, such as Epiphanius bishop of Tyre, Julian of Bostra, and Peter of Damascus, were obliged to take refuge from his resentment in Palestine and other parts that were beyond the reach of his jurisdiction. Elias bishop of Jerusalem was celebrated for his firmness in the orthodox creed. He called together the bishops of his party and anathematized Anastasius and Severus, and all who followed their opinions, thus drawing upon himself the full resentment of the emperor. Sabas, in company with others of the monks of Palestine, repaired to Constantinople, to expostulate, and he was treated with great respect by Anastasius, "who," to use the words of the old historian, "although he had been led astray by wicked advisers, was still a great lover of the monks;"^[25] but Elias was deposed, and his see given to the Eutychian John.^[26]

It was not without reason that the Monophysites accused the emperors of introducing the creed of Leo, and the doctrine of two substances, two natures, and two wills, in one person, with all the troubles and dissensions entailed upon it, into the eastern church.^[27] The authority of Marcian had first procured the deposition of Dioscorus, and the condemnation of Eutyches, and he and his successors afterwards were the cause of the persecution of their followers. The Monophysites, accordingly, who considered themselves as holding the orthodox faith, that faith which had condemned the heresy of Nestorius, denounced the emperors as innovators and heretics, and stigmatized those, whom fear had induced to accept their form of faith, by the name of Melchites or royalists.^[28] Justinian was characterized as the most orthodox, and at the same time the most illiterate of the emperors.^[29] Whilst he was defining and dictating a form of faith to his subjects, the offices and dignities of the empire were sold to unworthy bidders, whose only anxiety was to gratify their own and the emperor's insatiate avarice.^[30] The reign of Justinian was a continued scene of persecution, but, while the decrees of the council of Chalcedon were by him forced on the eastern bishops, the cause of the Eutychians found a powerful advocate in the person of the empress. Theodora had been educated in the faith of the Monophysites, and whilst her husband was assisting the partisans of the Melchite sect with his authority, she supported the opposite party with her money and her influence.^[31]

The accession of Justin, who held the orthodox creed of Chalcedon, had been the signal for new disturbances and persecutions. The bishops who had been banished during the late reign were recalled, Severus fled to Egypt,^[32] the see of Antioch was given to Sergius, and his friend Xenaias died a fugitive in Paphlagonia.^[33] Fifty-four Monophysite bishops were participators with them in exile,^[34] and the prisons of Constantinople were filled with the ecclesiastics of the eastern Church. Under the protection of their empress, however, and by the labours of Jacobus Baradæus, from whom the sect afterwards took the name of Jacobites, the doctrine of the one nature was spread over the eastern and southern provinces of the Byzantine empire.

letters are preserved in the same collection, (pp. 44, 55, 68, &c.) A poem of George of Pisidia against Severus is published amongst his works, p. 171.

1. Il n'y a jamais eu de schismes dans l'eglise plus pernicieux, et de plus longue durée, que ceux qu'a fait naître le dogme de l'Incarnation. La Croze, Histoire du Christianisme d'Ethiopie, p. l.
2. Προσελθουσῃ γαρ κατα το ειωθος, επιθεμενοι πολλοι αθροοι, θηριωδεις ανθρωποι ὡς αληθως σχετλιοι, ουτε θεων οπιν ειδοτες, ουτ' ανθρωτων νεμεσιν, αναιρουσι την φιλοσοφον, αγος τουτο μεγιστον και ονειδος περιαψαμενοι τῃ πατριδι. Suidas in Ὑπατια. Her death is related by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. xi. c. 12.
3. Ὁ δε επ' ολεθρῳ των εκκλησιων τεχθεις και τραφεις. Concil. tom. iii. p. 1244 (Ed. Labb.) The Eutychians stigmatised the memory of Nestorius with names equally opprobrious; in the Syrian ritual called ܒܝܬܓܙܐ‎ Nestorius is called ܠܝܛܐ‎ accursed. Hottinger, Topographia Eccles. p. 138.
4. Mosheim, Hist. Eccl. cent. v. § 32.
5. Labb. Concil. tom. iv. p. 1079.
6. Takri-eddini Makrizii Hist. Copt. p. 57. Dioscorus, the Alexandrian primate, and the friend of Eutyches, expressed the Monophysite doctrine thus: "Messiam esse substantiam unam ex substantiis duabus, personam unam ex personis duabus, naturam unam ex naturis duabus, et voluntatem unam ex voluntatibus duabus." Id. p. 59. The creed of the Jacobites as given by Ibn Batrik (Hotting. Topogr. Christiana Orient. p. 16), was طبيعتة واحدة ومشية واحدة وفعل واحد‎ "one nature and one will and one operation." In the Comment. de Ordinat. (Hotting. p. 18), it is expressed thus—"From the womb he had unity personally and naturally, and from that time God was incarnate. And there was one nature in him, as also one person, but not two natures, or in two natures"—ܘܚܕ ܒܝܢܐ ܐܟܡܐ ܕܐܦܚܕ ܩܢܘܡܐ ܘܠܘ ܬܪܝܢ ܟܝܢܐ ܐܘܟܬܪܝܢ ܟܝܢܐ‎ The author of the Syriac work on the Jacobite doctrines cited by Hottinger (p. 27), when speaking of the incarnation uses such phrases as ܥܒ ܦܓܪܐ‎ he put on the body, or he appeared ܒܐܣܟܡܐ ܕܐܢܫܐ‎ in the form of a man, or ܐܬܕܡܝܠܢ‎ he became like us, or ܫܩܠ ܕܡܘܬܢ‎ he bore our image.
7. Concil. tom. iv.
8. Καυσον Ευσεβιον, οὑτος ζων καη, οὑτος εις δυο γενηται, ὡς εμερισε μερισθη.
9. Concil. tom. iv. p. 1423. See Liberatus, c. 12.; Leo Magn. Epist. 93.; Nicephorus, Hist. Eccl. lib. xiv. c. 47.; Evagrius, lib. ii. c. 2.; Zonaras, lib. xiii. p. 43. tom. ii. The bishops deposed at Ephesus by Dioscorus were, Flavian of Constantinople, Domnus of Antioch, Irenæus of Tyre, Ibas of Edessa, Eusebius of Dorilæum, Daniel of Haran, Sophronius of Tela, and Theodorus of Cyrus. Chronicon Edessen. ap. Asseman. tom. i. p. 202.
10. Δικαιοτατα γενοιτο αν εξω της του Θεου εκκλησιας, ὁς τις εν τῳ Χριστῳ την ανθρωπινην, τουτεστι την ἡμετεραν, αρνειται φυσιν. Epist. Leonis ad Archimandritas Constant.—The letters between Leo, Flavian, Pulcheria, &c. on the Eutychian heresy, may be consulted in Cotelier, Eccl. Gr. Monument. tom. i. p. 50, et seq.
11. Διοσκορον τον φονεα εξω βαλε· Διοσκορου τας πραξεις τις ουκ οιδεν;
12. Στρατιωται μετα βακλων και ξιφων επεστησαν· και τα βακλα και τα ξιφη εφοβηθημεν. οπου ξιφη και βακλα, ποια συνοδος; στρατιωτας δια τουτου ελαβε Διοσκορος. τον φονεα εξω βαλε. Φλαυιανον στρατιωται καθειλον.
13. See the Concilia, and authorities cited before. Dioscorus was stigmatised by the name of Pharaoh—ταυτα του Φαραω εισιν. Among the bishops of Arabia and Syria who were at Chalcedon occur the names of Juvenal of Jerusalem and Constantine of Bostra, which was the ecclesiastical metropolis of Arabia, as well as the bishops of Damascus, Hierapolis, Edessa, Amida, Melitena, Berrhæa, Gabala, Paltus, Seleucobelus, Adrana, Philadelphia, Philippopolis, Orthosias, Heliopolis Libani, Emessa, Carræ, Saracenorum gentis, Chrysopolis Arabiæ, &c.
14. Etiam e sacris historiis lingua Copta scriptis, apparet, innocentissimæ vitæ homines fuisse Coptitas, usque adeo ferventes Christianæ vitæ cultores, ut nullis unquam suppliciorum generibus a suscepta semel fide vitaque abduci potuerint. Kircher, prodrom. in Ling. Copt.
15. The following anecdote, from a tract entitled Apophthegmata Sanct. Anachoritarum Ægypti, published in the Bibliotheca Magn. Patrum, tom. ix. (p. 730), may serve to illustrate their mode of life. Frater quidem sedens singularis turbabatur: et pergens ad abbatem Theodorum de Firme, dixit ei, quia conturbaretur. Senex autem dixit ei: vade, humilia mentem tuam, et subdete, habita cum aliis. Et reversus postea ad senem, dixit ei: Nec cum aliis hominibus habitans, quietem invenio. Et dixit ei senex: Si solitarius non quiescis, neque cum aliis, cur voluisti monachum facere? Nonne ut sustineas tribulationes? Dic autem mihi quot annos habes in habitu isto. Et dixit ei, octo. Et dicit ei senex: Crede mihi, habeo in habitu isto septuaginta annos, et nec una die potui requiem invenire, et tu in octo annos requiem vis habere. The following is from the same work (p. 729)—Sanctus Antonius abbas cum sederet aliquando in eremo, animus ejus tædium et confusionem cogitationum incurrit, et dicebat ad Deum: Domine, volo salvus fieri, et non me permittunt cogitationes meæ. Quid faciam in hac tribulatione, quomodo salvus ero? Et modice assurgens, cœpit foras exire, et vidit quendam, tanquam seipsum, sedentem atque operantem, deinde surgentem ab operibus et orantem, et iterum sedentem, et flectam de palmis facientem, et inde rursus ad orationem surgentem. Erat autem angelus Domini missus ad correptionem et cautelam dandam Antoniæ. Et audivit vocem angeli dicentis: Sic fac, et salvus eris. Ille autem, hoc audito, magnum gaudium sumpsit atque fiduciam. Et ita faciens, salutem quam quærebat invenit.
16. Anecdotes of their hospitality are given in the work cited in the preceding note, lib. xiii. p. 767, &c. When benighted in the desert, even a Manichean, the most hateful of heretics, found shelter amongst the monks of Nitria.—Καλη εστιν ἡ φιλοξενια, says the bishop Antiochus, και τῳ Θεῳ αρεσκουσα, μαλιστα δε προς τους οικειους της πιστεως. Antiochi Ep. Homil. cxvii. p. 169. Bibl. Patr. tom. xii.
17. See La Croze, Christianisme d'Ethiopie, pp. 23, &c.
18. La Croze, p. 10.
19. Συνοδον λῃστρικον.
20. Jacobus, bishop of Sarug, has left us a Syrian tract "against the impious synod of Chalcedon," in which he says ܗܕܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܗܝ ܣܘܢܕܘܣ ܕܠܩܕܘܢܐ ܕܟܠܘܗ ܕܝܘܐ ܘܫܐܕܐ ܗܘܘ ܠܗ ܒܥܠܝ ܡܠܟܐ܃‎—"This is that synod of Chalcedon which dæmons and spirits cast down from heaven have assembled." Asseman. Bibl. Orient. tom. i. p. 295.
21. Theodorus Lector. Renaudot. Victor, Chron. pp. 322, 4.
22. Evagrius, lib. 2, 3; Liberatus, cc. 14—19; may be consulted for a general history of the troubles in Egypt. The Henoticum was violently opposed by the Romans. Zenon imperator, Eutychiani poculo erroris sopitus, Acatium Constantinopolit. episcopum damnatoribus synodi Chalcedonensis Petro Alexandrino et Petro Antiocheno episcopis, per Henoticum a se prolatum socians, eorum communione polluitur, et cum eis a Catholica fide recedit. — Victor, Chron. p. 321. The three primates of the east, Peter of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch, and Acatius of Constantinople, were included in the anathemas of Leo. Ib. pp. 321, 5.
23. Eutychius, tom. ii. p. 131. Leontius (de Sectis, p. 512 in the Bibl. Magn. Pat. tom. xi.) says, των γαρ διακρινομενων ην ὁ Αναστασιος. The name of doubters or hesitaters (οἱ διακρινομενοι) was given by the Melchites to those who received the Henoticum. Timotheus de recept. Hæret., in Cotelier, tom. ii. A synod at Tyre anathematized the Henoticum. Asseman. tom. ii. p. 19.
24. The elevation of Severus took place in 512. His history is collected from Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. Eutychius, p. 141. tom. ii. Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alexand. p. 129. Cyril. in Vit. S. Sabæ, p. 308. (Cotelier, tom. ii.) Severus was a native of Sozopolis.
25. Ην γαρ φιλομοναχος, ει και ὑπο τινων μιαρων παρεσκευαζετο την ορθην εκπολεμησαι πιστιν. Cyril. vit. S. Sabæ, p. 299.
26. Eutychius, tom. ii. pp. 141, 2. Victor, Chron. pp. 337. Cyril. vita S. Sabæ, (in Cotelier, tom. ii.) pp. 295—308.
27. Makrizi, Hist. Copt. p. 59.
28. Niceph. Callist. Hist. Eccl. lib. xviii. c. 52.
29. Ορθοδοχοτατος. ην δε αμαθητος γραμματων, και το δε λεγομενον αναλφαβητος. Suidas in Ιουστινιανος.
30. Ὁς πρωτοις τοις αλλοις κακοις, και ες τας πολιτικας αρχας κα θιστηανδρας απηνεις, και ωμοτατους, ῶν ην Στεφανος ὁ Ευνουχος Περσης ταμιας των βασιλικων χρηματων.. Id. ib. Compare what the same writer says in v. Θεοδοτος, and Evagrius, lib. iv. c. 30.
31. Αλλ' ὁ μεν των εν Καλχηδονι συντεθειμενων μαλα σπουδαιως αντελαμβανετο, ἡ δε, μετα των απεναντιας ουσα, των λεγοντων μιαν φυσιν παντοιως προὑνοει, και τους γε ἡμεδαπους περιεθαπτε, και τους αλλοδαπους μεγαλοις χρημασιν εδεξιουτο. Evagrius, lib. iv. c. 10. See Barhebræi Chron. Syr. p. 83.
32. Benaudot, p. 138. Eutychius, p. 149. tom. ii. Victor, Chron. p. 329, &c. A synod was held at Constantinople, κατα δυσεβους Σευηρου και των τα ομοια αυτῳ φρονησαντων αἱρετικων. Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, p. 86. In a MS. containing, Οροι πιστεως ορθοδοξιας ἁγιων πατερων κατα Ευτυχους του ατυχους και Διοσκορου του ασεβους (p. 265), he is termed, Σευηρον τον ασεβη και Ελληνοφρονον (p. 200). Many of his
33. Xenaias or Philoxenus, bishop of Mabug, was celebrated for his wisdom and learning. Asseman. tom. ii. p. 10. Yet he was accused by his enemies of being inclined to Manicheism. (p. 19.) But we need not wonder at this, for we know that the Melchites censured Eutychianism itself as Manicheism and worse—Μανιχαιος οὑτος ὁ λογος και πεφαντασμενος πολλῳ μαλλον εκεινου. Suidas in Ευτυχης. Philoxenus was ordained bishop of Hieropolis by Petrus Gnapheus. Theophanes, Chronograph. p. 115.
34. Amongst the Monophysite bishops under Severus we find mention of those of Apamea, Laodicea, Aleppo or Berrhæa, Seleucia, Kennesrin, Amida, Damascus, Abila, Jabrudi, Tadmor or Palmyra, Hurini, Cyrus, Germanicia, Edessa, Haran, Ammiria, Perrhi, Rhesænæ, Circesium, Callinicus, Sura, Tela, Dara, Arsamosata, Anazarba, Hegari, Mopsuestia, Epiphania, Irenopolis, Alexandria Minor, Colonia, Therma, Sebaste, &c. who were banished by Justinian. Assem. tom. ii. Diss. de Monophys.