apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

IGNATIUS THE MARTYR. 41
was not the only title of Babylas to respect. He was one of the
sufferers in the persecution of Decius. It would seem that he died
in prison from the effects of torture undergone during
his examination'.
At all events in some form or other he was crowned with the
glory of martyrdom.
But he might have remained a mere name, hardly remembered,
if remembered at all, in the crowded ranks of the noble army of
martyrs, had not later events thrown a fresh lustre on his memory.
During the reign of Constantius, in the year 351, the Caesar
Gallus, the hapless brother of Julian, an ardent Christian in his way,
being then resident at Antioch, had devised a more honourable restingplace
for the reliques of Babylas, than the comparative obscurity of
his original grave within the city. Daphne,
the beautiful suburb of
Antioch, the seat of the worship ot Apollo, was renowned throughout
the world. Antioch itself, Antioch the Great, though a far more considerable
city than any of its namesakes, was commonly styled ' Antioch
^
This seems to be the natural interpretation
of the earliest notice of his
death ;
Euseb. H. E. vi. 39 to\) BafivXa
fiera r-qv o/xoXoyiav if dea/iwTrjpiui fieroK-
Xa^avTos. For the accounts of later
writers see Tillemont If. E. in. p. 728
sq. The inference which I have drawn
from the account of Eusebius is favoured
by the statement of Chrysostom (p. 554),
that the chains were lying with the remains
of the saint in his time. He himself
supposes that Babylas
ordered the
chains to be buried with him, assuming
that he was executed.
As regards the circumstances which led
to his martyrdom, we may mark the following
stages in the development of the
story, (i) Eusebius (about A.D. 325) relates
his repulse of Philip and his death
under Decius, without suggesting any connexion
between the two. {2) Leontius
(about A. D, 350) says distinctly that
Decius put him to death to avenge the
insult offered to his predecessor Philip.
(3) Chrysostom (about a.d. 382) identifies
the emperor who was repulsed with the
emperor who put him to death, obviously
meaning Decius, though the name is not
mentioned. See also Philostorgius {H. E.
vii. 8). On the improbability of Chrysostom's
account see Tillemont Einp. in. p.
645 sq.
An attempt
is made in the Bollandist
Act. Sand. Sept. iv. p. 438 sq to defend
Chrysostom's narrative; but, though
some difficulties are raised respecting the
earlier account of Eusebius and Leontius,
which represents Philip as the emperor
who was repulsed, and so far the criticism
tends to discredit the story altogether, it
does nothing towards reinstating Chrysostom's
version of it.
Chrysostom
is an
excellent authority for the events connected
with the removal of the reliques
from Daphne, which occurred only twenty
years before he wrote; but for the martyrdom,
which happened 130 years before,
worthless.
he is
Another account, mentioned apparently
with favour by Philostorgius (1. c.) and appearing
commonly at a later date, makes
Numerianus (a.d. 284) the emperor under
whom Babylas suffered. On the question
whether there is here a confusion between
two martyrs called Babylas, or between
Numerianus the emperor and Numerius
the persecuting general under Decius, see
Tillemont H. E. iii. p. 729 sq.