Mirian then sent to Constantine for bishops, and Eustathius of Antioch came with priests and deacons, and ordained a certain John as first Bishop of Iberia.[1] In the 4th century the bishop turned Arian and the king turned pagan. But the Church of Iberia got over that, and all went well for a time. In 455 Tiflis was built, and became the seat of the Metropolitan. In 601 Iberia was recognized as a separate Church province, independent of Antioch. Then came the Persians, and in the 7th century the Moslem conquest. For the further history of this Church see pp. 304–305.
Like Alexandria, Antioch had its school of theology, which, however, did not represent so consistent a tradition; it was also less famous than its rival. Serapion the Bishop (c. 192–209),[2] of whom we have heard as the consecrator of Palut of Edessa, wrote letters against various heretics (Montanists, &c.), of which Eusebius has preserved some fragments.[3]
The notorious Paul of Samosata was Bishop of Antioch from 260 till he was deposed in 269. But the first important name of the Antiochene school that we know is that of Lucian, priest and martyr († 311). He revised the Septuagint according to the Hebrew text, but was suspected of subordinationism, and Arius, who had learnt from him, was believed to have imbibed his heresy from his master. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eustathius of Antioch (a faithful defender of the faith of Nicæa, ejected by an Arian synod in 330), Diodor of Tarsus († 394), Theodore of Mopsuestia († 429), the original father of Nestorianism, and Theodoret of Cyrus († 458) were the chief leaders of this school, which further influenced St. Cyril of Jerusalem († 386) and St. John Chrysostom († 407). St. John was ordained deacon and priest in his own city, Antioch, and preached there from 386 till he became Patriarch of Constantinople in 398.
The character of this school, as opposed to that of Alexandria, was, as far as the interpretation of Scripture went, great soberness and literalness. Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia denied the Messianic character of many Old Testament texts, and rejected the Song of Solomon as being obviously not divine. The
