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 (A.D. 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
"(
Greek characters)" 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, A.D. 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. (Greek characters) and (Greek characters); 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 A.D. 457 to 474), is given in the various editions of the Concilia. It recognises the authority of the three councils of Nice, A.D. 325, Ephesus a.d. 431 , and Chalcedon A.D. 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 A.D. 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
