The Ancient Library

Scanned text contains errors.



(Sozomen. H. E. vii. 22 ; Theodoret. H. E. y. 24.)

6. Of alexandria.. [See No. 115.]

7. anagnostes (1). [See No. 3.]

8. anagnostes (2). [anagnostes.]

9. antiochenus, or of antioch (1). Patriarch

-of that city in the first half of the fifth century. Cave, we know not on what authority, describes him as having, early in life, studied in the monas­tery of St. Euprepius, in the suburbs of Antioch, where Nestorius an4 Theodoret were his fellow-disciples. He succeeded Theodotus as patriarch of Antioch a.d. 427 according to Cave, or 428 or 429 according to Tillemont. In the then rising con­troversy between Cyril and Nestorius, John of

•Antioch, with the Eastern bishops, were disposed ;to favour Nestorius ; and John induced Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, and Andreas of Samosata, to charge with the Apollinarian heresy the twelve " capitula," condemnatory of the doctrines of Nes­torius, which had .been issued by a synod held at Alexandria a. d. 429, under the auspices of Cyril. When the council of Ephesus (the third general council) was called (a.d. 431), John of Antioch was desirous of having no addition made to the .confession of Nice, so that the doctrines of Nes­torius might not be condemned ; but as John was long on the road, he did not reach Ephesus till five .days after the commencement of the council, when he found that the vehement Cyril had already pro-

• cured the condemnation of Nestorius, and his de­position from the patriarchal see of Constantinople. With more zeal than discretion, John assembled the prelates of his party at his own lodging, and with them issued a retaliatory anathema and deposition against Cyril, for the heretical views embodied in his "capitula," and against Memnon, bishop of Ephesus, for supporting Cyril. John also (accord­ing to Cave, who does not cite his authority) took an oath never to be reconciled to Cyril, even if Cyril should consent to the condemnation of his .own " capitula." The council being over, John hastened to the emperor Theodosius the younger, to engage him in his cause, and at Chalcedon de­livered an exhortation to the people of Constanti­nople who resorted to hear him, animating them to continue steadfast in adhering to the old con­fession of Nice. He then hastened homeward, and .assembling councils of the prelates of his patriarchate ;at Tarsus (a.d. 431) and Antioch (a.d. 431 or 432), repeated the declaration of the deposition of

-Cyril. The emperor, however, supported the de­cision of the council of Ephesus; and Nestorius did not recover his see, though he was allowed to re-

-side in the monastery of St. Euprepius, where he

-was treated with kindness and respect. Theodosius

•was anxious to heal the schism, and his inter-

• position (and, according to Liberatus, his threats

;of .exile in case of contumacy) softened the stub­bornness of John, and some explanation by Cyril of his obnoxious " capitula" prepared the way for a reconciliation. After the schism had continued for about a year, John accepted the conditions of an amicable arrangement offered by Cyril, and (a.d. 432) sent Paul of Emesa, one of his bishops, to Alexandria to complete the arrangement. Cyril

.received Paul with great respect, and pronounced in public the highest eulogium on John. John now joined in the condemnation of Nestorius; and after much trouble and opposition, which he vanquished,

.partly by persuasion, partly by deposing the perti-


nacious, succeeded in bringing over the other Eastern bishops to do the same in provincial councils held at Antioch (a.d. 432), Anazarbus (a.d. 433), and Tarsus (a.d. 434). The unhappy Nestorius was banished to the Egyptian Oasis, and it is said (Evagr. H. E. i. 7) to have been at John's insti­gation that the emperor made his banishment per­petual ; which statement, if true, shows that either John had become exasperated against his former friend, or was anxious by the manifestation of zeal to regain the lost favour of his opponents. In a council held A. d. 438, John refused to condemn the writings and opinions of Theodore of Mopsu-estia, and dictated, according to Liberatus, three letters in defence of him, one to Theodosius the emperor, one to Cyril of Alexandria, and one to Proclus, who had succeeded Nestorius in the see of Constantinople. John died in a. d. 441 or 442.

John of Antioch wrote, 1. 'E7n<TT0Aa/, Epistolae^ and *Ava<t>opai9 Relationes, respecting the Nestorian controversy and the council of Ephesus, of which several are contained in the various editions of the Concilia. 2. 'Ofu\ia9 HomiHa, the homily or ex­hortation already referred to as delivered at Chal­cedon, just after the council of Ephesus ; a fragment of which is contained in the Concilia* 3. Tlspl rwv MeorahiaviTW, De Messalianis^ a letter ad­dressed to Nestorius, and enumerated by Photius (BibL cod. 32) among the episcopal and synodical papers against .that heretical body, contained in the history or acta of the council of Side, held a. d. 383. 4. Contra eos qui una tantum svhstantia asse-runt adorandum Christum. We have no account of the work except from Gennadius, and cannot give the title in Greek. It is probably from this work that the passages are cited which are given by Eulogius (Phot. BibL cod. 230, p. 269, ed. Bekker). Theodoret dedicated his commentary on the Song of Solomon to John of Antioch. Gennadius speaks of John's power of extemporaneous speak­ing (" dicitur extempore declamare ") as something worthy of notice. (Socrates, H. E. vii. 34 ; Eva-grius, H. E. i. 3—7 ; Gennadius, de Viris Him-tribus, c. 93; Liberatus Diaconus, Breviarium, c. 5 —8, apud Galland. Bill. Patrum, vol. xii. ; Theo-phanes, Chronographia, pp. 73—82, ed. Paris, pp. 58—66, ed. Venice, pp. 131—148, ed. Bonn.; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 412 ; Tillemont, Mi-moires, vol. xiv. ; Fabric. BibL Gr. vol. x. p. 349, vol. xii. p. 392 ; . Mansi, Concilia, vols, iv. v. passim.)

10. antiochenus (2). Oil the deposition of Petrus Gnapheus or Fullo (the Fuller) from the patriarchate of Antioch, a. d. 477, the vacant see was occupied by Joannes, surnamed Codonatus (Kw5eo*/aTos), who had been previously bishop of Apameia : but after holding the patriarchate three months, he was deposed by a synod of Eastern bishops, and succeeded by Stephen. Theophanes incorrectly places the appointment of Joannes after Stephen's death. Both Joannes and his predecessor Petrus had been, at the instigation of Acacius of Constantinople, excommunicated by the pope ; yet, after the deposition of Joannes, the same Acacius procured his elevation to the bishopric of Tyre. Theophanes incorrectly ascribes this last appoint­ment to Calendion of Antioch. (Theophanes, Chronog. p. 110, &c. ed. Paris, p. 88, &c. ed. Venice, p. 199, &c. ed. Bonn. ; Valesius, Not. ad Evayri* H. E. iii. 15, and Obsevvationes Eccles. ad Eva-grium, ii. 8.)

About | First



page #  
Search this site
All non-public domain material, including introductions, markup, and OCR © 2005 Tim Spalding.
Ancient Library was developed and hosted by Tim Spalding of