Scanned text contains errors.
mte under their own bishop, and had not united with the second secession under Meletius. Paulinus was, at the death of Valens, the Eustathian bishop, and contested with Meletius the rightful occupation of the see. The orthodox church throughout the Roman empire was divided on the question, the Western and Egyptian churches acknowledging Paulinus, and the Asiatic, and apparently the Greek churches, recognising Meletius. To terminate the schism it was agreed upon oath, by those »of the clergy of Antioch who were most likely to be appointed to succeed in the event of a vacancy, that they would decline accepting such appointment, and agree to recognise the survivor of the present claimants. Flavian was one of the parties to this agreement: but many of the Eustathians refused to sanction it; so that when Meletius died, while attending the Council of Constantinople, a. d. 381, Flavian, who was also attending the Council, and was elected to succeed him, with the general approval of the Asiatic churches, felt himself at liberty to accept the appointment.
The imputation of perjury, to which Flavian thus subjected himself, apparently aggravated the schism; and when Paulinus died, a. d. 388 or 389, his party elected Evagrius to succeed him ; but on his death after a short episcopate [evagrius, No. 1], no successor was chosen; and the schism was healed, though not immediately. Flavian managed to conciliate Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, and by his intervention, and that of Chrysostom, now bishop of Constantinople, a. d. 397—403, he was acknowledged by the Roman and other Western^ churches.
On occasion of the great sedition at Antioch, A. d. 387, Flavian was one of those who interceded with the emperor, Theodosius the Great, for the pardon of the citizens. He set out on this mission in spite of the infirmities of age, the inclemency of the weather, and the illness of his only sister, who was at the point of death ; and used such diligence as to reach Constantinople before the authentic tidings of the disturbance. Ecclesiastical writers ascribe the pardon of the citizens very much to his intercession, but Zosimus, in his brief notice of the affair, does not mention him.
Flavian was held in much respect, both during and after his life. Chrysostom, his pupil and friend, speaks of him in the highest terms. Theo dore of Mopsuestia was also his pupil. Flavian died, A. d. 404, not long after the deposition of Chrysostom, to which he was much opposed, but which was sanctioned by his successor in the see of Antioch. •
Of his writings only some quotations remain ; they are apparently from his sermons, and are preserved in the Eranistes of Theodoret. Photius mentions his Letters to tJie Bishops of Osroene and to a certain Armenian Bishop., respecting the rejection, by a synod over which Flavian presided, of Adelphius, a heretic, who desired to be reconciled to the church ; Photius speaks also of a Confession of Faith, and a Letter to the Emperor Theodosius^ written by him. ( Chrysostom, Homil. cum ordi-natus esset Presbyt.^ Homil. III. ad Pop. Antioch.) <|*c.; Facund. Def. Trium Cap. ii. 2 ; Socrat. Hist. Eccles. v. 5, 10, 15 ; Sozom. Hist. Eccl. vii. 11,15, 23, viii. 3, 24; Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. ii. 24, iv. 2,5, v. 2, 8, 23, Eranist. Dial. i. ii. iii. Opera., vol. iv pp. 46, 66, 160, 250, 251, ed. Schulze, Halae, 1769-74j ,Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. iii. 18; Pho-
tius, Bibl. cod. 52, 96, pp. 12, 80, 81, &&. Bekker; Fabric, JBibl. Grace, vol. viii. p. 291, x. pp. 347, 695; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 277, ed. Oxford, 1740-43.)
2. Of antioch. According to Evagrius he was originally a monk of Tilmognon, in Coele-Syria ; and, as appears from Theophanes, afterwards became a presbyter and apocrisiarius of the church at Antioch. He was promoted to the see of Antioch by the emperor Anastasius I. on the death of Palladius, in the year 496, or 497, or 498, according to calculations or statements of Baronius, Victor Tununensis, and Pagi respectively: the last date, which is also given by Tillemont, is probably correct. The church throughout the whole Byzantine empire was divided by the Nestorian and Eutychian controversies and the dispute as to the authority of the Council of Chalcedon: and the impression that Flavian rejected the authority of that council may perhaps have conduced to hia elevation, as the emperor countenanced the Eutychian party in rejecting it. But if Flavian was ever opposed to the council, he gave up his former views after his elevation to the bishopric.
His period of office was a scene of trouble, through the dissensions of the church, aggravated by the personal enmity of Xenai'as or Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, in Syria, who raised the cry against him of favouring Nestorianism. Flavian endeavoured to refute this charge by anathematizing Nestorius and his doctrine ; but Xenaias, not satisfied, required him to anathematize a number of persons now dead (including Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and others), who were suspected, justly or not, of Nestorianism, declaring that if he refused to anathematize them, he must remain subject to the imputation of being a Nestorian himself. Flavian refused for a time to comply; but pressed by the enmity of Xenaias and his supporters, and-anxious to satisfy the emperor, who supported his opponents, he subscribed the Henoticon or Edict of Union of the late emperor Zeno; and having assembled the bishops of his province, he drew, up a synodal letter, and sent it to the emperor, owning the authority of the three councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and silently passing over that of Chalcedon, and pronouncing the required anathema against the prelates enumerated by Xenaias. He also sent to the emperor a private assurance of his readiness to comply with his wishes. (a. d. 508 or 509.) Victor Tununensis states that Flavian and Xenaias presided over a council at Constantinople a. d. 499, when the obnoxious prelates and the Council of Chalcedon itself were anathematized : but his account seems hardly trustworthy.
The enemies of Flavian were not, however, satisfied. They required him distinctly to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon, and all who held the doctrine of the two natures. [Ecmr-CHES.J This he refused to do, and in a confession of faith which he drew up, supported the authority of the council in the repudiation both of Nestorius and Eutyches, but not in its definition of the true faith. The cry of Nestorianism was. again raised against him ; and new disturbances were excited; and the Isaurian, and apparently some other Asiatic churches, broke off from communion with Flavian. A synod was held A. d. 510 at Sidon, to condemn the Council of Chal-