lected money for him, and he made a very pretty revenue of it. These poor men, it seems, had persuaded themselves that they should be immortal, and live for ever. They despised death, therefore, and offered up their lives a voluntary sacrifice, being taught by their lawgiver that they were all brethren, and that, quitting our Grecian gods, they must worship their own sophist, who was crucified, and live in obedience to his laws. In compliance with them they looked with contempt on all worldly treasures, and held everything in common—a maxim which they had adopted without any reason or foundation. If any cunning impostor, therefore, who knew how to manage matters came amongst them, he soon grew rich by imposing on the credulity of these weak and foolish men. Peregrinus, however, was set at liberty by the governor of Syria, a man of learning and a lover of philosophy, who withal well knew the folly of the man, and that he would willingly have suffered death for the sake of that glory and reputation which he would have acquired by it. Thinking him, however, not worthy of so honourable an exit, he let him go. . . . Once more, however, he was obliged to fly his country. The Christians were again his resource, and, having entered into their service, he wanted for nothing. Thus he subsisted for some time; but at length, having done something contrary to their laws (I believe it was eating food forbidden amongst them), he was reduced to want, and forced to retract his donation to the city, and to ask for his estate again, and issued a process in the name of the emperor to recover it; but the city sent messages to him commanding him to remain where he was, and be satisfied."
It would seem from the above that community of goods, in some degree or other, was practised among the early Christians to a later date than is generally supposed. Lucian confirms the general opinion as to the continual liability to persecution of the Christians of those ages. Moreover, though considering them weak and deluded people, he charges them with no imposture or falsehood, though he was very prone to bring such charges. In fact, did we know nothing of the early Christians but what he here records, his account would raise our interest in them in a very high degree; even their too great simplicity is not an unlovable trait.
There is an excellent trans. of Lucian by Wieland into German (Leipz. 1788–1789, 6 vols. 8vo), and one of great merit into Eng. by Dr. Francklin in 2 vols. 4to (Lond. 1780) and 4 vols. 8vo (Lond. 1781). For other edd. and trans. see D. of G. and R. Biogr.
[J.R.M.]
Lucianus (12), priest of Antioch, martyr; born at Samosata c. 240, educated at Edessa under a certain Macarius, a learned expounder of Holy Scripture (Suidas, s.v.). Lucianus went to Antioch, which held a high rank among the schools of the East and was then, owing to the controversies raised by Paulus of Samosata, the great centre of theological interest. There he was probably instructed by Malchion, who seems to have been the true founder of the celebrated Antiochene school of divines, of whom Lucian, Chrysostom, Diodorus, Theodoret, and Theodore of Mopsuestia were afterwards some of the most distinguished. During the controversies after the deposition of Paulus, Lucian seems to have fallen under suspicion. Some have thought that he cherished sentiments akin to those of Paulus himself, which were of a Sabellian character, while others think that in opposing Paulus he used expressions akin to Arianism (cf. Newman's Asians, p. 7, and c. i. § 5). This latter view is supported by the creed presented at the council of Antioch, a.d. 341, and purporting to be drawn up by St. Lucian, which is extremely anti-Sabellian. He was separated from the communion of the three immediate successors of Paulus—Domnus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus. During the episcopate of Cyrillus he was restored, and became with Dorotheus the head of the theological school, giving to it the tone of literal, as opposed to allegorical, exposition of Scripture which it retained till the time of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Lucian produced, possibly with the help of Dorotheus, a revised version of the LXX, which was used, as Jerome tells us, in the churches of Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Antioch, and met with such universal acceptance that it received the name of the Vulgate (Vulgata, Κοινή), while copies of the LXX in general passed under the title of Lucianea (Westcott, Hist. of Canon, p. 360). He also wrote some doctrinal treatises, and a commentary on Job. See Routh, Reliq. Sacr. v. 3–17.
In the school of Lucian the leaders and supporters of the Arian heresy were trained. Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Eudoxius, Theognis of Nicaea, and Asterius appealed to him as their authority (but see ARIUS) and adopted from him the party designation of Collucianists (De Broglie, L᾿Eglise et l᾿Empire, i. 375). Lucian became afterwards more conservative, and during Diocletian's persecution he encouraged the martyrs to suffer courageously, but escaped himself till Theotecnus was appointed governor of Antioch, when he was betrayed by the Sabellian party, seized and forwarded to Nicomedia to the emperor Maximinus, where, after delivering a speech in defence of the faith, he was starved for many days, tempted with meats offered to idols, and finally put to death in prison, Jan. 7, 311 or 312. His body was buried at Drepana in Bithynia, where his relics were visited by Constantine, who freed the city from taxes and changed its name to Helenopolis. A fragment of the apology delivered by the martyr has been preserved by Rufinus and will be found in Routh, l.c. Dr. Westcott, l.c., accepts it as genuine.
As to whether Lucian the martyr and Biblical critic was the same person as Lucian the excommunicated heretic, Ceillier, Fleury, and De Broglie take one side, Dr. Newman the other. The former contend that neither Eusebius, Jerome, nor Chrysostom mentions his lapse in early life. But their notices are very brief, none of them are professed biographers, and we cannot depend much upon mere negative evidence. On the other hand we have the positive statements of Alexander, bp. of Alexandria (in Theod. H. E. i. 3, and Philostorg. H. E. ii. 14 and 15; see also
