The imperfect transcription of the name has led to the identification of Lucius with three distinct persons : (1.) [Lucius] Furius Philus (the lists, Clinton, Fasti Hdl. iii, 114, give P. Furius Philus), who was not consul till B.C. 136, and is therefore at once excluded. (2.) Lucius Caecilius Metellus Calvus, who was consul In B.C. 142, immediately after Simon assumed the government. On this supposition it might seem not unlikely that the an- swer which Simon received to an application for protec
LUCIUS
544
LUCIUS I
tion, which he made to Rome directly on his assump- tion of power (comp. 1 Mace, xiv, 17, 18) in the consul- ship of MeteUus, has been combined with the answer to the later embassy of Numenius (1 Mace, xiv, 24; xv, 18). (3.) But the third identification with Lucius Cal- purnius Piso, who was consul B.C. 139, is most probably correct. The date exactly corresponds, and, though the prrenomen of Calpurnius is not established beyond all question, the balance of evidence is decidedly against the common lists. The Fasti Capitolini are defective for this year, and only give a fragment of the name of Popillius, the fellow-consul of Calpurnius. Cassiodorus (Ckron.), as edited, gives Cn. Calpurnius, but the eye of the scribe (if the reading is correct) was probably mis- led by the names in the years immediately before. On the other hand, Valerius Maximus (i, 3) is wrongly quoted from the printed text as giving the same prajno- men. The passage in which the name occurs is in re- ality no part of Valerius Maximus, but a piece of the abstract of Jidius Paris inserted in the text. Of elev- en MSS. of Valerius which have been examined, it oc- curs only in one (Mus. Brit. Burn. 209), and there the name is given Lucius Calpiu-nius, as it is given by Mai in liis edition of Julius Paris {Script. Vet. Nova Coll. iii, 7). Sigonius says rightly {Fasti Cuns. p. 207) : " Cassi- odorus prodit consules Cu. Pisonem . . . cpitoma L. Cal- purnium." The chance of an error of transcription in Jidius Paris is obviously less than in the Fasti of Cas- siodorus ; and even if the evidence were equal, the au- thority of 1 Mace, might rightly be urged as decisive in such a case. — Smith, s. v.
Lucius OF Adriaxopi.e (or Hadrianopile), an East- ern prelate of note, flourished as bishop of Adrianople in the 4th century. Decidedly orthodox in his opin- ions, the predominant and powerful Arians deposed him from his see, and in 340 or 341 we meet him at Kome before pope Jidius I pleading for his restoration. Al- though he went back with a demand from the Roman pontiff to reinstate the deposed orthodox bishop, the Oriental prelates refused to recognise the papal author- ity, and he did not recover his see until the emperor Constantius, constrained by the threats of his brother Constans, then emperor of the West, restored Lucius (about 347). Upon the death of Constans (350), Lucius was again deposed by the infuriated Arians, and ban- ished. He died in exile. He is commemorated in the Romish Church February 11. See Athanasius, Apolog. de Fuffa sua, c.S; A rianor. ad Monach. c. 19 ; Socrates, IFist. Eccl. ii, 15, 23, 26 ; Bolland, A eta Sanct. Februarii, ii, 519 ; Smith, Diet. Grlc. and Rom. Biog. and Myth, ii, 825.
Lucius OF Alexandria, an Arian prelate, flourish- ed about the middle of the 4tli centurj'. He was elected patriarch by the Arians, when, upon the death of the emperor Constantius (3G1) and the murder of the Arian patriarch, George of Cappadocia, Athanasius had recov- ered the patriarchate of Alexandria, and expelled the Arians from the churches. Even in the lifetime of Athanasius the two patriarchs -wrangled much for au- thority, but the contest became fierce between Arian and Orthodox after the decease of Athanasius (373). The latter had nominated his successor without any regard to Lucius, and it was only after the deposition and imprisonment of Peter, the nominee, who had in the mean while been ordained, that Lucius regained the patriarchate, to hold it only until Peter, who had made his escape to Rome, returned with letters confirming his ordination (A.D. 377 or 378). Lucius was, in all prob- ability, never again restored. In 380 he is found in company with Demoi)hilus, Arian patriarch of Constan- tinople, just as he was withdrawing from the city bv order of expulsion. Nothing more is known. of Lucius. According to Jerome, he wrote Solemnes de Puschaie Epistolm and minor treatisesT See Socrates, Hist.Eccles. iii, 4; iv, 21 sq., 24, 37; Cave, Hist. Lift, ad ann. 371 ; Fabricius, Bibl. Greecn, ix, 247 ; Labbe, Conci/ii, vol. vi, col. 313 ; Smith, Bict. of Gr. and Rom. Biog. ii, 825.
Lu'cius {KovKioc, for Latin Lucius, a common Eo- man name\ surnamed the Cyresian {o Kvprjimlog, "of Cyrene"), thus distinguished by the name of his city— the capital of a Greek colony in Northern Africa, and remarkable for the number of its Jewish inhabit- ants— is first mentioned in the N. T. in company with Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Manaen, and Saul, who are described as prophets and teachers of the Church at Antioch (Acts xiii, 1). A.D. 44. These honored dis- ciples having, while engaged in the ofBce of common worship, received commandment from the Holy Ghost to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the special service of God, proceeded, after fasting and prayer, to lay their hands upon them. This is the first recorded instance of a formal ordination to the office of evangelist, but it cannot be supposed that so solemn a commission would have been given to any but such as had themselves been ordained to the ministry of the Word, and we may therefore assume that Lucius and his companions were already of that number. Whether Lucius was one of the seventy disciples, as stated by Pseudo-Hippolytus, is quite a matter of conjecture, but it is highly probable that he formed one of the congregation to whom Peter preached on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii, 10) ; and there can hariUy be a doubt that he was one of '• the men of Cyrene" who, being " scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen," went to Antioch preaching the Lord Jesus (Acts xi, 19, 20).