The Ecclesistical History of Sozomen - Book VIII
|
Advanced Information
comprising a history of the church, from a.d. 323 to a.d. 425.
translated from the Greek.
Revised by Chester d. Hartranft,
Hartford Theological Seminary.
Under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Semimary, New York,
and Henry Wace, D.D., Principal of King's College, London
Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff,
New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.
Book VIII.
Chapter I.--Successors of Theodosius the Great. Rufinus, the Prætorian
Prefect, is Slain. The Chief Priests of the Principal Cities.
Differences among the Heretics. Account of Sisinius, Bishop of the
Novatians.
Such was the death of Theodosius, who had contributed so efficiently
to the aggrandizement of the Church. [1578] He expired in the sixtieth
year of his age, and the sixteenth of his reign. He left his two sons
as his successors. Arcadius, the elder, reigned in the East, and
Honorius in the West. They both held the same religious sentiments as
their father.
Damasus was dead; and at this period Siricius was the leader of the
church of Rome; Nectarius, of the church in Constantinople;
Theophilus, over the church of Alexandria; Flavian, over the church of
Antioch; and John, over that of Jerusalem. Armenia and the Eastern
provinces were at this time overrun by the barbarian Huns. [1579]
Rufinus, prefect of the East, was suspected of having clandestinely
invited them to devastate the Roman territories, in furtherance of his
own ambitious designs; for he was said to aspire to tyranny. For this
reason, he was soon after slain; for, on the return of the troops from
the conquest of Eugenius, the Emperor Arcadius, according to custom,
went forth from Constantinople to meet them; and the soldiers took
this opportunity to massacre Rufinus. These circumstances tended
greatly to the extension of religion. The emperors attributed to the
piety of their father, the ease with which the tyrant had been
vanquished, and the plot of Rufinus to gain their government arrested;
and they readily confirmed all the laws which had been enacted by
their predecessors in favor of the churches, and bestowed their own
gifts in addition. Their subjects profited by their example, so that
even the pagans were converted without difficulty to Christianity, and
the heretics united themselves to the Catholic Church.
|
|
Owing to the disputes which had arisen among the Arians and Eunomians,
and to which I have already alluded, these heretics daily diminished
in number. Many of them, in reflecting upon the diversity of
sentiments which prevailed among those of their own persuasion, judged
that the truth of God could not be present with them, and went over to
those who held the same faith as the emperors.
The interests of the Macedonians of Constantinople were materially
affected by their possessing no bishop in that juncture; for, ever
since they had been deprived of their churches by Eudoxius, under the
reign of Constantius, they had been governed only by presbyters, and
remained so until the next reign. The Novatians, on the other hand,
although they had been agitated by the controversy concerning the
Passover, which was an innovation made by Sabbatius, yet the most of
them remained in quiet possession of their churches, and had not been
molested by any of the punishments or laws enacted against other
heretics, because they maintained that the Three Persons of the
Trinity are of the same substance. The virtue of their leaders also
tended greatly to the maintenance of concord among them. After the
presidency of Agelius they were governed by Marcian, a good man; and
on his decease, [1580] a little while before the time now under
consideration, the bishopric devolved upon Sisinius, [1581] a very
eloquent man, well versed in the doctrines of philosophy and of the
Holy Scriptures, and so expert in disputation that even Eunomius, who
was well approved in this art and effective in this work, often
refused to hold debates with him. His course of life was prudent and
above the reach of calumny; yet he indulged in luxury, and even in
superfluities; so that those who knew him not were incredulous as to
whether he could remain temperate in the midst of so much abundance.
His manners were gracious and suave in assemblies, and on this account
he was esteemed by the bishops of the Catholic Church, by the rulers,
and by the learned. His jests were replete with good nature, and he
could bear ridicule without manifesting the least resentment. He was
very prompt and witty in his rejoinders. Being once asked wherefore,
as he was bishop, he bathed twice daily, he replied, "Because I do not
bathe thrice." On another occasion, being ridiculed by a member of the
Catholic Church because he dressed in white, he asked where it was
commanded that he should dress in black; and, as the other hesitated
for a reply, he continued, "You can give no argument in support of
your position; but I refer you to Solomon, the wisest of men, who
says, `Let your garments be always white.' Moreover Christ is
described in the Gospel as having appeared in white, and Moses and
Elias manifested themselves to the apostles in robes of white." It
appears to me that the following reply was also very ingenious.
Leontius, bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, settled in Constantinople
after he had deprived the Novatians in his province of their churches.
Sisinius went to him to request that the churches might be restored;
but far from yielding compliance, he reviled the Novatians, and said
that they were not worthy of holding churches, because, by abolishing
the observance of penance, they intercepted the philanthropy of God.
To this Sisinius replied, "No one does penance as I do." Leontius
asked him in what way he did penance. "In coming to see you," retorted
Sisinius. Many other witty speeches are attributed to him, and he is
even said to have written several works with some elegance. But his
discourses obtained greater applause than his writings, since he was
best at declamation, and was capable of attracting the hearer by his
voice and look and pleasing countenance. This brief description may
serve as a proof of the disposition and mode of life of this great
man.
Footnotes
[1578] Soc. v. 26; vi. 1, 22; Philost. xi. 3; Theodoret, H. E. v. 26.
[1579] Claudianus, in Rufinum, lib. ii.; Hieron. Ep. lxxvii. ad
Oceanum, de morte Fabiolæ, 8; Eunap. Fragm. ii. 52.
[1580] i.e. Nov. 27, 395 a.d.
[1581] Soc. vi. 22. Soz. is careful to omit the joke on John
Chrysostom.
Chapter II.--Education, Training, Conduct, and Wisdom of the Great
John Chrysostom; his Promotion to the See; Theophilus, Bishop of
Alexandria, becomes his Confirmed Opponent.
Nectarius died about this period, [1582] and lengthened debates were
held on the ordination of a successor. They all voted for different
individuals, and it seemed impossible for all to unite on one, and the
time passed heavily. There was, however, at Antioch on the Orontes, a
certain presbyter named John, a man of noble birth and of exemplary
life, and possessed of such wonderful powers of eloquence and
persuasion that he was declared by the sophist, Libanius the Syrian,
to surpass all the orators of the age. When this sophist was on his
death-bed he was asked by his friends who should take his place. "It
would have been John," replied he, "had not the Christians taken him
from us." Many of those who heard the discourses of John in the church
were thereby excited to the love of virtue and to the reception of his
own religious sentiments. [1583] For by living a divine life he
imparted zeal from his own virtues to his hearers. He produced
convictions similar to his own, because he did not enforce them by
rhetorical art and strength, but expounded the sacred books with truth
and sincerity. For a word which is ornamented by deeds customarily
shows itself as worthy of belief; but without these the speaker
appears as an impostor and a traitor to his own words, even though he
teach earnestly. Approbation in both regards was due to John. He
devoted himself to a prudent course of life and to a severe public
career, while he also used a clear diction, united with brilliance in
speech.
His natural abilities were excellent, and he improved them by studying
under the best masters. He learned rhetoric from Libanius, and
philosophy from Andragathius. When it was expected that he would
embrace the legal profession and take part in the career of an
advocate, he determined to exercise himself in the sacred books and to
practice philosophy according to the law of the Church. He had as
teachers of this philosophy, Carterius and Diodorus, two celebrated
presidents of ascetic institutions. Diodorus was afterwards the
governor of the church of Tarsus, and, I have been informed, left many
books of his own writings in which he explained the significance of
the sacred words and avoided allegory. John did not receive the
instructions of these men by himself, but persuaded Theodore and
Maximus, who had been his companions under the instruction of
Libanius, to accompany him. Maximus afterwards became bishop of
Seleucia, in Isauria; and Theodore, bishop of Mompsuestia, in Cilicia.
Theodore was well conversant with the sacred books and with the rest
of the discipline of rhetoricians and philosophers. After studying the
ecclesiastical laws, and frequenting the society of holy men, he was
filled with admiration of the ascetic mode of life and condemned city
life. He did not persevere in the same purpose, but after changing it,
he was drawn to his former course of life; and, to justify his
conduct, cited many examples from ancient history, with which he was
well acquainted, and went back into the city. On hearing that he was
engaged in business and intent on marriage, John composed an epistle,
[1584] more divine in language and thought than the mind of man could
produce, and sent it to him. Upon reading it, he repented and
immediately gave up his possessions, renounced his intention of
marrying, and was saved by the advice of John, and returned to the
philosophic career. This seems to me a remarkable instance of the
power of John's eloquence; for he readily forced conviction on the
mind of one who was himself habituated to persuade and convince
others. By the same eloquence, John attracted the admiration of the
people; while he strenuously convicted sinners even in the churches,
and antagonized with boldness all acts of injustice, as if they had
been perpetrated against himself. This boldness pleased the people,
but grieved the wealthy and the powerful, who were guilty of most of
the vices which he denounced.
Being, then, held in such high estimation by those who knew him by
experience, and by those who were acquainted with him through the
reports of others, John was adjudged worthy, in word and in deed, by
all the subjects of the Roman Empire, to be the bishop of the church
of Constantinople. The clergy and people were unanimous in electing
him; their choice was approved by the emperor, who also sent the
embassy which should conduct him; and, to confer greater solemnity on
his ordination, a council was convened. Not long after the letter of
the emperor reached Asterius, the general of the East; he sent to
desire John to repair to him, as if he had need of him. On his
arrival, he at once made him get into his chariot, and conveyed him
with dispatch to a military station, Pagras so-called, where he
delivered him to the officers whom the emperor had sent in quest of
him. Asterius acted very prudently in sending for John before the
citizens of Antioch knew what was about to occur; for they would
probably have excited a sedition, and have inflicted injury on others,
or subjected themselves to acts of violence, rather than have suffered
John to be taken from them.
When John had arrived at Constantinople, and when the priests were
assembled together, Theophilus opposed his ordination; and proposed as
a candidate in his stead, a presbyter of his church named Isidore, who
took charge of strangers and of the poor at Alexandria. I have been
informed by persons who were acquainted with Isidore, that from his
youth upwards he practiced the philosophic virtues, near Scetis.
Others say that he had gained the friendship of Theophilus by being a
participant and a familiar in a very perilous undertaking. For it is
reported that during the war against Maximus, Theophilus intrusted
Isidore with gifts and letters respectively addressed to the emperor
and to the tyrant, and sent him to Rome, desiring him to remain there
until the termination of the war, when he was to deliver the gifts,
with the letters, to him, who might prove the victor. Isidore acted
according to his instructions, but the artifice was detected; and,
fearful of being arrested, he fled to Alexandria. Theophilus from that
period evinced much attachment towards him, and, with a view of
recompensing his services, strove to raise him to the bishopric of
Constantinople. But whether there was really any truth in this report,
or whether Theophilus desired to ordain this man because of his
excellence, it is certain that he eventually yielded to those who
decided for John. [1585] He feared Eutropius, who was artfully eager
for this ordination. Eutropius then presided over the imperial house,
and they say he threatened Theophilus, that unless he would vote with
the other bishops, he would have to defend himself against those who
desired to accuse him; for many written accusations against him were
at that time before the council.
Footnotes
[1582] Pallad. Dialog. de vita Chrys. 5, 6; Soc. vi. 2, 3; Theodoret,
H. E. v. 27. Soz. works his material for the most part independently.
[1583] Some of the disciples of Libanius, who had the habit of
attending the public instructions of John in the church, were
converted by him to the faith of Christ.
[1584] Chrys. ad Theodorum lapsum, xlvii. 1. Migne.
[1585] Soc. also attests to the presence of Theophilus at the
ordination of John. vi. 2; Pallad. Dialog. 5.
Chapter III.--Rapid Promotion of John to the Bishopric, and more
Vehement Grappling with its Affairs. He re-establishes Discipline in
the Churches everywhere. By sending an Embassy to Rome, he abolished
the Hostility to Flavian.
As soon as John was raised to the episcopal dignity, he devoted his
attention first to the reformation of the lives of his clergy; [1586]
he reproved and amended their ways and diet and every procedure of
their manifold transactions. He also ejected some of the clergy from
the Church. He was naturally disposed to reprehend the misconduct of
others, and to antagonize righteously those who acted unjustly; and he
gave way to these characteristics still more in the episcopate; for
his nature, having attained power, led his tongue to reproof, and
nerved his wrath more readily against the enemy. He did not confine
his efforts to the reformation of his own church; but as a good and
large-minded man, he sought to rectify abuses throughout the world.
Immediately upon entering the episcopate, he strove to put an end to
the dissension which had arisen concerning Paulinus, between the
Western and Egyptian bishops and the bishops of the East; since on
this account a general disunion was overpowering the churches in the
whole empire. He requested the assistance of Theophilus in effecting
the reconciliation of Flavian with the bishop of Rome. [1587]
Theophilus agreed to co-operate with him in the restoration of
concord; and Acacius, bishop of Berea, and Isidore, whom Theophilus
had proposed as a candidate for ordination instead of John, were sent
on an embassy to Rome. They soon effected the object of their journey,
and sailed back to Egypt. Acacius repaired to Syria, bearing
conciliatory letters to the adherents of Flavian from the priests of
Egypt and of the West. And the churches, after a long delay once more
laid aside their discord, and took up communion with one another. The
people at Antioch, who were called Eustathians, continued, indeed, for
some time to hold separate assemblies, although they possessed no
bishop. Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus, did not, as we have
stated, long survive him; and I think reconciliation became easier for
the bishops from there being no one to oppose. The laity, as is
customary with the populace, gradually went over to those who
assembled together under the guidance of Flavian; and thus, in course
of time, they were more and more united.
Footnotes
[1586] Soc. vi. 4. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 28; Pallad. Dialog. 5.
[1587] Soc. vi. 3; Theodoret, H. E. v. 23.
Chapter IV.--Enterprise of Gaïnas, the Gothic Barbarian. Evils which
he perpetrated.
A barbarian, named Gaïnas, [1588] who had taken refuge among the
Romans, and who had risen from the lowest ranks of the army to
military command, formed a design to usurp the throne of the Roman
Empire. With this in view, he sent for his countrymen, the Goths, from
their own homes to come to the Roman territories, and appointed his
relatives to be tribunes and chiliarchs. Tirbingilus, a relative of
his, who commanded a large body of troops in Phrygia, commenced an
insurrection; and to all persons of judgment it was patent that he was
preparing the way. Under the pretext of resenting the devastation of
many of the Phrygian cities, which had been committed to his
superintendence, Gaïnas turned to their assistance; but on his
arrival, when a multitude of barbarians had been equipped for war, he
disclosed his plan which he had previously concealed, and pillaged the
cities which he had been commanded to guard, and was about to attack
others. He then proceeded to Bithynia, and encamped in the boundaries
of Chalcedon, and threatened war. The cities of the East of Asia, and
as many as lived between these regions and about the Euxine, being
thus in danger, the emperor and his counsellors judged that it would
not be safe to venture into any hazardous undertaking without
preparation against men who were already desperate; for the emperor
declared that he was ready to be favorable to him in every point, and
sent to Gaïnas to offer him whatever he might demand.
Gaïnas requested that two consuls, named Saturninus and Aurelian, whom
he suspected of being inimical, should be delivered up to him; and
when they were in his power, he pardoned them. He afterwards held a
conference with the emperor near Chalcedon, in the house of prayer in
which the tomb of Euphemia the martyr is deposited; and after he and
the emperor had mutually bound themselves by vows of friendship to
each other, he threw down his arms, and repaired to Constantinople,
where, by an imperial edict, he was appointed general of the infantry
and cavalry. Prosperity so far beyond his deserts was more than he
could bear with moderation; and as, contrary to all expectations, he
had succeeded so wonderfully in his former enterprise, he determined
to undermine the peace of the Catholic Church. He was a Christian,
and, like the rest of the barbarians, had espoused the Arian heresy.
Urged either by the presidents of this party, or by the suggestions of
his own ambition, he applied to the emperor to place one of the
churches of the city in the hands of the Arians. He represented that
it was neither just nor proper that, while he was general of the Roman
troops, he should be compelled to retire without the walls of the city
when he wished to engage in prayer. John did not remain inactive when
made acquainted with these proceedings. He assembled all the bishops
who were then residing in the city, and went with them to the palace.
He spoke at great length in the presence of the emperor and of Gaïnas,
reproached the latter with being a stranger and a fugitive, and
reminded him that his life had been saved by the father of the
emperor, to whom he had sworn fidelity, as likewise to his children,
to the Romans, and to the laws which he was striving to make
powerless. When he had made this speech he showed the law which
Theodosius had established, forbidding the heterodox to hold a church
within the walls. Then, addressing himself to the emperor, John
exhorted him to maintain the laws which had been established against
heretics; and told him that it would be better to be deprived of the
empire, than to be guilty of impiety by becoming a traitor to the
house of God. Thus did John speak boldly like a man, and gave no place
to innovation in the churches under his care. Gaïnas, however,
regardless of his oaths, attacked the city. His enterprise was
pre-announced by the appearance of a comet directly over the city;
this comet was of extraordinary magnitude, larger, it is said, than
any that had previously been seen, and reaching almost to the earth
itself. Gaïnas intended to seize first upon the stores of the bankers,
and hoped to collect together their enormous wealth. But since the
rumor of his plan was spread, the bankers concealed their ready wealth
and no longer set forth silver upon the tables, as they were wont
publicly to do. Gaïnas then sent some of the barbarians by night to
set fire to the palace; but they were unskillful and overcome with
fear, so they turned back. For when they drew near the edifice, they
fancied that they saw a multitude of heavily armed men of immense
stature, and they returned to inform Gaïnas that fresh troops had just
arrived. Gaïnas disbelieved their report, for he was confident that no
troops had entered the city. As, however, other individuals whom he
despatched to the palace for the same purpose, on the following night,
returned with the same report, he went out himself to be an
eye-witness of the extraordinary spectacle. Imagining that the army
before him consisted of soldiers who had been withdrawn from other
cities, and that these troops protected the city and palace by night
and concealed themselves by day, Gaïnas feigned to be possessed of a
demon; and under the pretext of offering up a prayer, went to the
church which the father of the emperor had erected in honor of John
the Baptist, at Hebdomos. Some of the barbarians remained in
Constantinople, and others accompanied Gaïnas; they secretly carried
arms and pots full of darts in the women's chariots, but when they
were discovered, they slew the guard at the gates, who attempted to
hinder the carrying out of the arms. From this the city was filled
with as much confusion and uproar, as if it had suddenly been
captured. A good thought ruled this terrible moment; for the emperor
without delay declared Gaïnas a public enemy, and commanded that all
the barbarians left in the city should be slain. No sooner was this
mandate issued, than the soldiers rushed upon the barbarians, and slew
the greater number of them; they then set fire to the church which was
named after the Goths; for as was customary, they had congregated
there in the house of prayer, because there was no other refuge, since
the gates were shut. On hearing of this calamity, Gaïnas passed
through Thrace, and proceeded towards the Cherronesus, intending to
cross the Hellespont; for he thought that if he could conquer the
opposite coast of Asia, he could easily subjugate to himself all the
provinces of the empire in the East. All these things proved contrary
to his hopes, because the Romans were there favored by Divine power.
For the army sent by the emperor was on hand by land and by sea, under
the command of Flavita, who although a barbarian by birth, was a good
man, and an able general. The barbarians, having no ships, imprudently
attempted to cross the Hellespont to the opposite continent on rafts;
when suddenly a great wind blew and violently separated them, and
drove them against the Roman vessels. The greater part of the
barbarians and their horses were drowned; but many were slain by the
military. Gaïnas, however, with a few of his followers escaped; but
not long after, when fleeing through Thrace, they fell in with another
detachment of the Roman army, and Gaïnas, with all his barbarians,
perished. Such was the termination of the daring schemes and life of
Gaïnas.
Flavita had rendered himself very conspicuous in this war, and was
therefore appointed consul. [1589] During his consulate, and that of
Vincentius, a son was born to the emperor. The young prince was named
after his grandfather, and at the commencement of the next consulate,
[1590] was proclaimed Augustus.
Footnotes
[1588] Chrys. Homilia cum Saturninus et Aurelianus acti essent in
exsilium, iii. 413; Soc. vi. 6. He advises the curious to read the
Gainia, a poem by Eusebius the Scholastic; and the verses on the same
theme by the poet Ammonius. Philost. xi. 8; Theodoret, H. E. v. 32,
33; Eunap. Fragm. ii. 62-65, iii. 17; Zos. v. 7-22.
[1589] Flavita was consul with Vincentius, a.d. 401. See under
Marcell. Com. chron.
[1590] Arcadius and Honorius, each in their fifth consulate.
Theodosius junior was made Cæsar a.d. 402.
Chapter V.--John swayed the People by his Teachings. Concerning the
Woman, a Follower of Macedonius, on account of whom the Bread was
turned into a Stone.
John governed the church of Constantinople with exemplary prudence,
and induced many of the pagans and of the heretics to unite themselves
with him. [1591] Crowds of people daily resorted to him; some for the
purpose of being edified by listening to his discourses, and others
with the intention of tempting him. He, however, pleased and attracted
all classes, and led them to embrace the same religious sentiments as
himself. As the people pressed around him, and could not get enough of
his words, so that when they were pushed hither and yon, and were
pressing one another, they incurred danger; and each one was forcing
his way to go farther, so that by standing near, he might hear more
accurately what John was saying, he placed himself in the midst of
them upon the platform of the readers, and, having taken a seat,
taught the multitude. It seems to me that this is a suitable place in
my history for the insertion of the account of a miracle which was
performed during the life of John. A certain man of the Macedonian
heresy, lived with a wife of the same belief; he chanced to hear John
discoursing concerning the opinion one ought to hold about the Divine
nature; he was convinced by the argument he heard advanced, and strove
to persuade his wife to embrace the same sentiments. Her previous
habits of mind, and the conversation of other women of her
acquaintance, deterred her from complying with his wishes; and, when
he found that all his efforts to convince her were futile, he told her
that, unless she would be of one mind with him on Divine subjects, she
should not continue to live with him. The woman, therefore, promised
to do as she was required; but, at the same time, she made known the
matter to one of her servant maids, in whose fidelity she confided,
and used her as an instrument in deceiving her husband. At the season
of the celebration of the mysteries (the initiated will understand
what I mean), this woman kept what was given to her and held down her
head as if engaged in prayer. Her servant, who was standing behind
her, placed in her hand a bit of bread which she had brought with her;
but, as soon as she had placed it between her teeth, it was converted
into stone. Since such a divine affair had happened to her, she was
very fearful lest any further calamity should befall her, and ran to
the bishop, and confessed on herself. She showed him the stone, which
bore the marks of her teeth; it was composed of some unknown
substance, and was marked by a very strange color. She implored
forgiveness with tears, and continued ever after to hold the same
religious tenets as her husband. If any person should consider this
narrative incredible, he can inspect the stone in question; for it is
still preserved in the treasury of the church of Constantinople.
Footnotes
[1591] Independent Chapter.
Chapter VI.--Proceedings of John in Asia and Phrygia. Heraclides,
Bishop of Ephesus, and Gerontius, Bishop of Nicomedia.
John [1592] having been informed that the churches in Asia and the
neighborhood were governed by unworthy persons, and that they bartered
the priesthood for the incomes and gifts received, or bestowed that
dignity as a matter of private favor, repaired to Ephesus, and deposed
thirteen bishops, some in Lycia and Phrygia, and others in Asia
itself, and appointed others in their stead. The bishop of Ephesus was
dead, and he therefore ordained Heraclides over the church. Heraclides
was a native of Cyprus, and was one of the deacons under John: he had
formerly joined the monks at Scetis, and had been the disciple of the
monk Evagrius. John also expelled Gerontius, bishop of the church in
Nicomedia. This latter was a deacon under Ambrosius, of the church of
Milan; he declared, I do not know why, either with an intention to
invent a miracle, or because he had been himself deceived by the art
and phantasms of a demon, that he had seized something resembling an
ass (onoskelis) by night, had cut off its head, and flung it into a
grinding-house. Ambrose regarded this mode of discourse as unworthy of
a deacon of God, and commanded Gerontius to remain in seclusion until
he had expiated his fault by repentance. Gerontius, however, was a
very skillful physician; he was eloquent and persuasive, and knew well
how to gain friends; he therefore ridiculed the command of Ambrose,
and repaired to Constantinople. In a short time he obtained the
friendship of some of the most powerful men at court; and, not long
after, was elevated to the bishopric of Nicomedia. He was ordained by
Helladius, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, who performed this office
the more readily for him, because he had been instrumental, through
his interest at court, in obtaining high appointment in the army for
that functionary's son. When Ambrose heard of this ordination, he
wrote to Nectarius, the president of the church of Constantinople,
desiring him to eject Gerontius from the priesthood, and not permit
him and the ecclesiastical order to be so abused. However desirous
Nectarius might have been to obey this injunction, he could never
succeed carrying it into effect, owing to the determined resistance of
the people of Nicomedia. John deposed Gerontius, and ordained
Pansophius, who had formerly been preceptor to the wife of the
emperor, and who, though a man of decided piety and of a mild and
gentle disposition, was not liked by the Nicomedians. They arose in
frequent sedition, and enumerated publicly and privately the
beneficence of Gerontius, and on the liberal advantage derived from
his science, and its generous and active use for the rich and poor
alike; and as is usual when we applaud those we love, they ascribed
many other virtues to him. They went about the streets of their own
city and Constantinople as if some earthquake, or pestilence, or other
visitation of Divine wrath had occurred, and sang psalms, and offered
supplications that they might have Gerontius for their bishop. They
were at length compelled to yield to necessity, and parted with grief
and groans from Gerontius, receiving in his stead a bishop whom they
regarded with fear and aversion. The bishops who had been deposed and
all their followers declaimed against John, as the leader of a
revolution in the churches, and as changing the rights of the
ordained, contrary to the ancestral laws; and under the influence of
their grievance, they condemned deeds done by him, which were worthy
of praise according to the opinion of most people. Among other
matters, they reproached him with the proceedings that had been taken
against Eutropius.
Footnotes
[1592] Soc. vi. 11; Pallad. Dialog. 13-20. Soz. has material of his
own.
Chapter VII.--Concerning Eutropius, Chief of the Eunuchs, and the Law
enacted by him. On being turned from the Church, he was put to Death.
Murmurs against John.
Eutropius was originally the chief of the eunuchs, and was the first
and only person of that rank of whom we have known or heard who
attained the consular and patrician dignity. [1593] When he was raised
to present power, he thought not of the future, nor of the instability
of human affairs, but caused those who sought an asylum in churches to
be thrust out. He treated Pentadia, the wife of Timasius, in this
manner. Timasius was a general in the army, capable and much feared;
but Eutropius procured an edict for his banishment to Pasis in Egypt,
under the pretext that he aspired to tyranny. I have been informed
that Timasius fell a victim to thirst, or dreading lest anything worse
might be in store, he was caught in the sands there, and was found
dead. Eutropius issued a law, enacting that no one should seek refuge
in churches, and that those who had already fled thither should be
driven out. He was, however, the first to transgress this law; for not
long after its enactment, he offended the empress, and immediately
left the palace, and fled to the Church as a suppliant. While he was
lying beneath the table, John pronounced a discourse, in which he
reprehended the pride of power, and directed the attention of the
people to the instability of human greatness. The enemies of John
hence took occasion to cast reproach on him, because he had rebuked
instead of compassionating, one who was suffering under the calamities
of adverse fortunes. Eutropius soon after paid the penalty of his
impious plan, and was beheaded; and the law which he had enacted was
effaced from the public inscriptions. The wrath of God having been
thus promptly visited on the injustice that had been perpetrated
against the Church, prosperity was restored to it, and there was an
increase in the Divine worship. The people of Constantinople were more
sedulous then than before, in attendance at the singing of the morning
and evening hymns.
Footnotes
[1593] Independent Chapter. Cf. Soc. vi. 5; Philost. xi. 4-6; Chrys.
Homilia in Eutropium eunuchum patricium; homilia de capto Eutropio et
de divitiarum vanitate; Claudianus in Eutropium, i. ii.; Eunap. Fragm.
ii. 53-56; Fragm. iii. 16; Fragm. iv. 20-23; Fragm. v. 3; Zos. v. 3,
8-18.
Chapter VIII.--Antiphonal Hymns against the Arians introduced by John.
The Interests of the Orthodox are much augmented by the Teachings of
John, while the Wealthy are More and More Enraged.
The Arians, having been deprived of their churches in Constantinople
during the reign of Theodosius, held their churches without the walls
of the city. [1594] They previously assembled by night in the public
porticoes, and were divided into bands, so that they sang
antiphonally, for they had composed certain refrains which reflected
their own dogma, and at the break of day marched in procession,
singing these hymns, to the places in which they held their churches.
They proceeded in this manner on all solemn festivals, and on the
first and last days of the week. The sentiments propounded in these
odes were such as were likely to engender disputes. As, for instance,
the following: "Where are those who say that the Three Persons
constitute one Power?" Other similar acrimonious observations were
interspersed throughout their compositions. John was fearful lest any
of his own church people should be led astray by witnessing these
exhibitions, and therefore commanded them to sing hymns in the same
manner. The orthodox became more distinguished, and in a short time
surpassed the opposing heretics in number and processions; for they
had silver crosses and lighted wax tapers borne before them. The
eunuch of the empress was appointed to regulate these processions, to
pay the cost of whatever might be required, and to prepare hymns.
Hence the Arians, impelled either by jealousy or revenge, attacked the
members of the Catholic Church. Much bloodshed ensued on both sides.
Briso (for this was the name of the imperial eunuch) was wounded on
the forehead by a stone that was cast at him. The resentment of the
emperor was kindled, and he put a stop to the Arian assemblies. Having
commenced the custom of singing hymns in the manner and from the cause
above stated, the members of the Catholic Church did not discontinue
the practice, but have retained it to the present day. The institution
of these processions and his services in the Church endeared John to
the people; but he was hated by the clergy and the powerful on account
of his free boldness, for he never failed to rebuke the clergy when he
detected them in acts of injustice, nor to exhort the powerful to
return to the practice of virtue when they abused their wealth,
committed impiety, or yielded to voluptuousness.
Footnotes
[1594] Soc. vi. 8.
Chapter IX.--Serapion, the Archdeacon, and St. Olympias. Some of the
Celebrated Men insolently bear down upon John, traducing him as
Impracticable and Passionate.
The enmity of the clergy against John was greatly increased by
Serapion, his archdeacon. He was an Egyptian, naturally prone to
anger, and always ready to insult his opponents. [1595] The feelings
of hostility were further fostered by the counsel which Olympias
received from John. Olympias was of most illustrious birth, and
although she had become a widow while young, and was zealously
attached to the exercises of monastic philosophy according to the laws
of the church, yet Nectarius had ordained her as deaconess. John,
perceiving that she bestowed her goods liberally on any one who asked
her for them, and that she despised everything but the service of God,
said to her: "I applaud your intentions; but would have you know that
those who aspire to the perfection of virtue according to God, ought
to distribute their wealth with economy. You, however, have been
bestowing wealth on the wealthy, which is as useless as if you had
cast it into the sea. Know you not that you have voluntarily, for the
sake of God, devoted all your possessions to the relief of the poor.
You ought, therefore, to regard your wealth as belonging to your
Master, and to remember that you have to account for its distribution.
If you will be persuaded by me, you will in future regulate your
donations according to the wants of those who solicit relief. You will
thus be enabled to extend the sphere of your benevolence, and your
mercy and most zealous care will receive reward from God."
John had several disputes with many of the monks, particularly with
Isaac. He highly commended those who remained in quietude in the
monasteries and practiced philosophy there; he protected them from all
injustice and solicitiously supplied whatever necessities they might
have. But the monks who went out of doors and made their appearance in
cities, he reproached and regarded as insulting philosophy. For these
causes, he incurred the hatred of the clergy, and of many of the
monks, who called him a hard, passionate, morose, and arrogant man.
They therefore attempted to bring his life into public disrepute, by
stating confidently, as if it were the truth, that he would eat with
no one, and that he refused every invitation to a meal that was
offered him. I know of no pretext that could have given rise to this
assertion, except that, as I have been assured by a man of undoubted
veracity, John had, by rigorous asceticism, rendered himself liable to
pain in the head and stomach, and was thus prevented from being
present at some of the choicest symposia. Hence, however, originated
the greatest accusation that was ever devised against him.
Footnotes
[1595] Soc. vi. 4, 11; Pallad. Dialog. Pallad. H. L. cxliv.; Epp.
xvii. ad Olympiadem. Soz. has independent material concerning Olympias
and Isaac.
Chapter X.--Severian, Bishop of Gabales, and Antiochus, Bishop of
Ptolemaïs. Dispute between Serapion and Severian. Reconciliation
between them effected by the Empress.
John likewise incurred the enmity of the empress, through the
machinations of Severian, bishop of Gabali in Syria. [1596] Severian
and Antiochus, bishop of Ptolemaïs, a city in Phoenicia, were both
learned men, and well qualified to teach in the churches. Antiochus
had so fine a voice and delivery that, by some persons, he was
surnamed Chrysostom. Severian, on the other hand, had the harshness of
the Syrians in his speech; but, in point of knowledge and the
evidences of the Scriptures, he was considered superior to Antiochus.
It appears that Antiochus was the first to visit Constantinople; he
gained great applause by his discourses, amassed some property, and
then returned to his own city. Severian followed his example, and went
to Constantinople. He formed an intimacy with John, spoke frequently
in the churches, and was admired. He was in honor, and became well
known to many of those in power, and to the emperor and empress. When
John went to Asia, he commended the Church to his care; for he was so
far deceived by the adulation of Severian as to imagine him to be his
zealous friend. Severian, however, thought only of gratifying his
auditors, and of pleasing the people by his discourses. [1597] When
John was apprised of this, he was filled with jealousy; and his
resentment was further kindled, it is said, by the representations of
Serapion. After the return of John from Asia, Serapion happened to see
Severian passing; but, instead of rising to salute him, he kept his
seat, in order to show his utter contempt for the man. Severian was
offended by this manifestation of disrespect, and exclaimed, "If
Serapion die a clergyman, then Christ was not incarnate." Serapion
reported these words; and John, in consequence, expelled Severian from
the city as insolent, and as a blaspheme against God; for witnesses
were brought forward to attest that the above words had been really
uttered by him. Some of the friends of Serapion even went so far as to
suppress part of the speech of Severian, and to affirm that he had
declared that Christ was not incarnate. John also rebuked Severian, by
asking whether, "If Serapion should not die among the clergy, it would
follow that Christ had not been incarnate?" As soon as the wife of the
emperor was informed by the friends of Severian of what had occurred,
she immediately sent for him from Chalcedon. John, notwithstanding all
her remonstrances, positively refused to hold any intercourse with
him, until the empress placed her son Theodosius on his knees in the
church named after the apostles; then she entreated him persistently,
and frequently adjured him, until John yielded a reluctant consent to
receive Severian into friendship. Such are the accounts which I have
received of these transactions. [1598]
Footnotes
[1596] Soc. vi. 11; Pallad. Dialog.
[1597] A number of the homilies still attributed to Chrysostom, as
well as those now acknowledged not to be his, were from the eloquent
Severian.
[1598] Chrys. Homilia de recipiendo Severiano; andSermo ipsius
Severiam de pace, iii. 421-423.
Chapter XI.--Question agitated in Egypt, as to whether God has a
Corporeal Form. Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, and the Books of
Origen.
A question was at this period agitated in Egypt, which had been
propounded a short time previously, namely, whether it is right to
believe that God is anthropomorphic. [1599] Because they laid hold of
the sacred words with simplicity and without any questioning, most of
the monks of that part of the world were of this opinion; and supposed
that God possessed eyes, a face, and hands, and other members of the
bodily organization. But those who searched into the hidden meaning of
the terms of Scripture held the opposite; and they maintained that
those who denied the incorporeality of God were guilty of blasphemy.
This later opinion was espoused by Theophilus, and preached by him in
the church; and in the epistle [1600] which, according to custom, he
wrote respecting the celebration of the passover, he took occasion to
state that God ought to be regarded as incorporeal, as alien to a
human form. When it was signified to the Egyptian monks that
Theophilus had broached these sentiments, they went to Alexandria,
assembled the people together in one place, excited a tumult, and
determined upon slaying the bishop as an impious man. Theophilus,
however, presented himself to the insurgents forthwith, and said to
them, "When I look upon you, it is as if I beheld the face of God."
This address sufficiently mollified the men; yielding their wrath,
they replied, "Wherefore, then, if you really hold orthodox doctrines,
do you not denounce the books of Origen; since those who read them are
led into such opinions?" "Such has long been my intention," replied
he, "and I shall do as you advise; for I blame not less than you do,
all those who follow the doctrines of Origen." By these means he
deluded the brethren, and broke up the sedition.
Footnotes
[1599] Soc. vi. 7.
[1600] This epistle is no longer extant; it is alluded to by Cassianus
in his Collatio, x. 2; Opp. i. p. 821, 822.
Chapter XII.--About the Four Brothers, called "The Long," who were
Ascetics, and of whom Theophilus was an Enemy; about Isidore and the
Events which came about through these Four.
The controversy would most likely have been terminated, had it not
been renewed by Theophilus himself, from inimical feelings against
Ammonius, Dioscorus, Eusebius, and Euthymius, who were called "the
long." [1601] They were brothers; and, as we have before stated,
became conspicuous among the philosophers at Scetis. They were at one
period beloved by Theophilus above all the other monks of Egypt; he
sought their society, and frequently dwelt with them. He even
conferred on Dioscorus the bishopric of Hermopolis. He was confirmed
in his hatred of them, on account of his enmity to Isidore, whom he
had endeavored to ordain in Constantinople after Nectarius. Some say,
that a woman, belonging to the Manichean heresy, had been converted to
the faith of the Catholic Church; Theophilus rebuked the
arch-presbyter (towards whom he had other reasons for entertaining
resentful feeling), because he had admitted her to participate in the
sacred mysteries before she had adjured her former heresy. Peter, for
this was the name of the arch-presbyter, maintained that he had
received the woman into communion according to the laws of the Church,
and with the consent of Theophilus; and referred to Isidore, as a
witness to the truth of what he had deposed. Isidore happened to be
then at Rome on an embassy; but, on his return, he testified that the
assertions of Peter were true. Theophilus resented this avowal as a
calumny, and ejected both him and Peter from the Church. Such is the
account given by some persons of the transaction. I have, however,
heard it alleged, by a man of undoubted veracity, who was very
intimate with the monks above mentioned, that the enmity of Theophilus
towards Isidore originated from two causes. One of these causes was
identical with that specified by Peter the presbyter, namely, that he
had refused to attest the existence of a testament in which the
inheritance was entailed on the sister of Theophilus; the other cause
alleged by this individual was, that Isidore refused to give up
certain moneys that had been confided to him for the relief of the
poor, and which Theophilus wished to appropriate to the erection of
churches; saying that it is better to restore the bodies of the
suffering, which are more rightly to be considered the temples of God,
and for which end the money had been furnished, than to build walls.
But from whatever cause the enmity of Theophilus might have
originated, Isidore, immediately after his excommunication, joined his
former companions, the monks at Scetis. Ammonius, with a few others,
then repaired to Theophilus, and entreated him to restore Isidore to
communion. Theophilus readily promised to do as they requested; but as
time passed away, and nothing more was effected for them, and it
became evident that Theophilus was pretending, they again repaired to
him, renewed their entreaties, and pressed him to be faithful to his
engagement. Instead of complying, Theophilus thrust one of the monks
into prison, for the purpose of intimidating the others. But he erred
in this. Ammonius and all the monks with him then went to the prison,
into which they were readily admitted by the jailer, who imagined that
they had come to bring provisions to the prisoner; but having once
obtained admission, they refused to leave the prison. When Theophilus
heard of their voluntary confinement, he sent to desire them to come
to him. They replied, that he ought first to take them out of prison
himself, for it was not just, after having been subjected to public
indignity, that they should be privately released from confinement. At
length, however, they yielded and went to him. Theophilus apologized
for what had occurred, and dismissed them as if he had no further
intention of molesting them; but by himself, he champed and was vexed,
and determined to do them ill. He was in doubt, however, as to how he
could ill-treat them, as they had no possessions, and despised
everything but philosophy, until it occurred to him, to disturb the
peace of their retirement. From his former intercourse with them he
had gathered that they blamed those who believe that God has a human
form, and that they adhered to the opinions of Origen; he brought them
into collision with the multitude of monks who maintained the other
view. A terrible contention prevailed among the monks, for they did
not think it worth while to persuade one another by flaming arguments
for themselves in an orderly way, but settled down into insults. They
gave the name of Origenists to those who maintained the incorporeality
of the Deity, while those who held the opposite opinion were called
Anthropomorphists.
Footnotes
[1601] Soc. vi. 7, 9; Pallad, Dialog. 6. Soz. has different order and
some new opinions.
Chapter XIII.--These Four repair to John on account of his Interest;
for this Reason, Theophilus was enraged, and prepares himself to fight
against John.
Dioscorus, Ammonius, and the other monks, having discovered the
machinations of Theophilus, retired to Jerusalem, and thence proceeded
to Scythopolis; for they thought that it would be an advantageous
residence there for them on account of the many palms, whose leaves
are used by the monks for their customary work. [1602] Dioscorus and
Ammonius were accompanied hither by about eighty other monks. In the
meantime, Theophilus sent messengers to Constantinople, to prefer
complaints against them, and to oppose any petitions that they might
lay before the emperor. On being informed of this fact, Ammonius and
the monks embarked for Constantinople, and took Isidore with them; and
they requested that their cause might be tried in the presence of the
emperor and of the bishop; for they thought that, by reason of his
boldness, John, who was careful to do right, would be able to help
them in their rights. John, although he received them with kindness,
and treated them with honor, and did not forbid them to pray in the
church, refused to admit them to participation in the mysteries, for
it was not lawful to do this before the investigation. He wrote to
Theophilus, desiring him to receive them back into communion, as their
sentiments concerning the Divine nature were orthodox; requesting him,
if he regarded their orthodoxy as doubtful, to send some one to act as
their accuser. Theophilus returned no reply to this epistle. Some time
subsequently, Ammonius and his companions presented themselves before
the wife of the emperor, as she was riding out, and complained of the
machinations of Theophilus against them. She knew what had been
plotted against them; and she stood up in honor of them; and, leaning
forward from her royal chariot, she nodded, and said to them, "Pray
for the emperor, for me, for our children, and for the empire. For my
part, I shall shortly cause a council to be convened, to which
Theophilus shall be summoned." A false report having prevailed in
Alexandria, that John had received Dioscorus and his companions into
communion, and had afforded them every aid and encouragement in his
power, Theophilus began to reflect upon what measures it would be
possible to adopt in order to eject John from his episcopate.
Footnotes
[1602] Pallad. Dialog. 7; Soc. vi. 7, 9. Soz.'s has independent
matter.
Chapter XIV.--Perversity of Theophilus. St. Epiphanius: his Residence
at Constantinople and Preparation to excite the People against John.
Theophilus kept his designs against John as secret as possible; and
wrote to the bishops of every city, condemning the books of Origen.
[1603] It also occurred to him that it would be advantageous to enlist
Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in Cyprus, on his side, a man who was
revered for his life, and was the most distinguished of his
contemporaries; and he therefore formed a friendship with him,
although he had formerly blamed him for asserting that God possessed a
human form. As if repentant of having ever entertained any other
sentiment, Theophilus wrote to Epiphanius to acquaint him that he now
held the same opinions as himself, and to move attacks against the
books of Origen, as the source of such nefarious dogmas. Epiphanius
had long regarded the writings of Origen with peculiar aversion, and
was therefore easily led to attach credit to the epistle of
Theophilus. He soon after assembled the bishops of Cyprus together,
and prohibited the examination of the books of Origen. He also wrote
to the other bishops, and, among others, to the bishop of
Constantinople, exhorting them to convene synods, and to make the same
decision. Theophilus, perceiving that there could be no danger in
following the example of Epiphanius, who was the object of popular
praise, and who was admired for the virtue of his life, whatever his
opinion might be, passed a vote similar to that of Epiphanius, with
the concurrence of the bishops under his jurisdiction. John, on the
other hand, paid little attention to the letters of Epiphanius and
Theophilus. Those among the powerful and the clergy, who were opposed
to him, perceived that the designs of Theophilus tended to his
ejection from the bishopric, and therefore endeavored to procure the
convention of a council in Constantinople, in order to carry this
measure into execution. Theophilus, knowing this, exerted himself to
the utmost in convening this council. He commanded the bishops of
Egypt to repair by sea to Constantinople; he wrote to request
Epiphanius and the other Eastern bishops to proceed to that city with
as little delay as possible, and he himself set off on the journey
thither by land. Epiphanius was the first to sail from Cyprus; he
landed at Hebdomos, a suburb of Constantinople; and after having
prayed in the church erected at that place, he proceeded to enter the
city. In order to do him honor, John went out with all his clergy to
meet him. Epiphanius, however, evinced clearly by his conduct that he
believed the accusations against John; for, although invited to reside
in the ecclesiastical residences, he would not continue there, and
refused to meet with John in them. He also privately assembled all the
bishops who were residing in Constantinople, and showed them the
decrees which he had issued against the discourses of Origen. He
persuaded some of the bishops to approve of these decrees, while
others objected to them. Theotimus, bishop of Scythia, strongly
opposed the proceedings of Epiphanius, and told him that it was not
right to cast insult on the memory of one who had long been numbered
with the dead; nor was it without blasphemy to assail the conclusion
to which the ancients had arrived on the subject, and to set aside
their decisions. While discoursing in this strain, he drew forth a
book of Origen's which he had brought with him; and, after reading
aloud a passage conducive to the education of the Church, he remarked
that those who condemned such sentiments acted absurdly, for they were
in danger of insulting the subjects themselves about which these words
treated. John still had respect for Epiphanius, and invited him to
join in the meetings of his church, and to dwell with him. But
Epiphanius declared that he would neither reside with John nor pray
with him publicly, unless he would denounce the works of Origen and
expel Dioscorus and his companions. Not considering it just to act in
the manner proposed until judgment had been passed on the case, John
tried to postpone matters. When the assembly was about to be held in
the Church of the Apostles, those ill-disposed to John planned that
Epiphanius should go beforehand and publicly decry the books of Origen
to the people, and Dioscorus and his companions as the partisans of
this writer; and also to attack the bishop of the city as the abetter
of those heretics. And some concerned themselves in this; for by this
means it was supposed that the affections of the people would be
alienated from their bishop. The following day, when Epiphanius was
about entering the church, in order to carry his design into
execution, he was stopped by Serapion, at the command of John, who had
received intimation of the plot. Serapion proved to Epiphanius that
while the project he had devised was unjust in itself, it could be of
no personal advantage to him; for that if it should excite a popular
resurrection, he would be regarded as responsible for the outrages
that might follow. By these arguments Epiphanius was induced to
relinquish his attack.
Footnotes
[1603] Mainly after Soc. vi. 10, 12, 14; Pallad. Dialog. 8.
Chapter XV.--The Son of the Empress and St. Epiphanius. Conference
between the "Long Brothers" and Epiphanius, and his Re-Embarkation for
Cyprus. Epiphanius and John.
About this time, the son of the empress was attacked by a dangerous
illness, and the mother, apprehensive of consequences, sent to implore
Epiphanius to pray for him. [1604] Epiphanius returned for answer,
that the sick one would live, provided that she would avoid all
intercourse with the heretic Dioscorus and his companions. To this
message the empress replied as follows: "If it be the will of God to
take my son, His will be done. The Lord who gave me my child, can take
him back again. You have not power to raise the dead, otherwise your
archdeacon would not have died." She alluded to Chrispion, the
archdeacon, who had died a short time previously. He was brother to
Fuscon and Salamanus, monks whom I had occasion to mention [1605] when
detailing the history of events under the reign of Valens; he had been
companion of Epiphanius, and had been appointed his archdeacon.
Ammonius and his companions went to Epiphanius, at the permission of
the empress. Epiphanius inquired who they were, and Ammonius replied,
"We are, O father, the Long Brothers; we come respectfully to know
whether you have read any of our works or those of our disciples?" On
Epiphanius replying that he had not seen them, he continued, "How is
it, then, that you consider us to be heretics, when you have no proof
as to what sentiments we may hold?" Epiphanius said that he had formed
his judgment by the reports he had heard on the subject; and Ammonius
replied, "We have pursued a very different line of conduct from yours.
We have conversed with your disciples, and read your works frequently,
and among others, that entitled `The Anchored.' When we have met with
persons who have ridiculed your opinions, and asserted that your
writings are replete with heresy, we have contended for you, and
defended you as our father. Ought you then to condemn the absent upon
mere report, and of whom you know nothing with assured certitude, or
return such an exchange to those who have spoken well of you?"
Epiphanius was measurably convinced, and dismissed them. Soon after he
embarked for Cyprus, either because he recognized the futility of his
journey to Constantinople, or because, as there is reason to believe,
God had revealed to him his approaching death; for he died while on
his voyage back to Cyprus. It is reported that he said to the bishops
who had accompanied him to the place of embarkation, "I leave you the
city, the palace, and the stage, for I shall shortly depart." I have
been informed by several persons that John predicted that Epiphanius
would die at sea, and that this latter predicted the deposition of
John. For it appears that when the dispute between them was at its
height, Epiphanius said to John, "I hope you will not die a bishop,"
and that John replied, "I hope you will never return to your
bishopric."
Footnotes
[1604] Independent Chapter. Cf. Soc. vi. 14.
[1605] See above, vi. 32.
Chapter XVI.--The Dispute between the Empress and John. Arrival of
Theophilus from Egypt. Cyrinus, Bishop of Chalcedon.
After the departure of Epiphanius, John, when preaching in the church
as usual, chanced to inveigh against the vices to which females are
peculiarly prone. [1606] The people imagined that his strictures were
enigmatically directed against the wife of the emperor. The enemies of
the bishop did not fail to report his discourse in this sense to the
empress; and she, conceiving herself to have been insulted, complained
to the emperor, and urged the necessity for the speedy presence of
Theophilus and the convocation of a council. Severian, bishop of
Gabala, who had not yet changed his former resentment against John,
cooperated in the promotion of these measures. I am not in possession
of sufficient data to determine whether there was any truth in the
current report that John delivered the discourse above mentioned with
express allusion to the empress, because he suspected her of having
excited Epiphanius against him. Theophilus arrived soon after at
Chalcedon in Bithynia, and was followed thither by many bishops. Some
of the bishops joined him in compliance with his own invitation, and
others in obedience to the commands of the emperor. The bishops whom
John had deposed in Asia repaired to Chalcedon with the utmost
alacrity, as likewise all those who cherished any feeling of hostility
against him. The ships which Theophilus expected from Egypt had
already come to Chalcedon. When they had convened again in the same
place, and when they had deliberated how the attempt against John
might be judiciously forwarded by them, Cyrinus, leader of the church
of Chalcedon, who was an Egyptian and a relative of Theophilus, and
who had besides some other difficulties with John, spoke very
abusively of him. Justice, however, seemed to follow him speedily; for
Maruthas, a native of Mesopotamia, who had accompanied the bishops,
happened to tread on his foot; and Cyrinus suffered so severely from
this accident that he was unable to repair with the other bishops to
Constantinople, although his aid was necessary to the execution of the
designs that had been formed against John. The wound assumed so
alarming an appearance, that the surgeons were obliged to perform
several operations on the leg; and at length mortification took place,
and spread over the whole body, and even extended to the other foot.
He expired soon afterwards in great agony.
Footnotes
[1606] Soc. vi. 15; Pallad. Dialog. 3, 8-10; also Chrysostom's letter
to Innocent, ibid. 2. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 34.
Chapter XVII.--Council held by Theophilus and the Accusers of John in
Rufinianæ. John is summoned to attend, and not being present, was
deposed by Them.
When Theophilus entered Constantinople, none of the clergy went out to
meet him; for his enmity against the bishop had become publicly known.
[1607] Some sailors from Alexandria, however, who chanced to be on the
shore, both from the corn vessels as well as other ships, having
collected together, received him with great acclamations of joy.
Passing by the church, he proceeded directly to the palace, where a
lodging had been prepared for his accommodation. He soon perceived
that many people of the city were strongly prejudiced against John,
and ready to bring accusations against him; and taking his measures
accordingly, he repaired to a place called "The Oak," in the suburbs
of Chalcedon. This place now bears the name of Rufinus; for he was a
consul, and erected here a magnificent palace, and a great church in
honor of the apostles, Peter and Paul, and therefore named it the
Apostolium; and appointed a congregation of monks to perform the
clerical duties in the church. When Theophilus and the other bishops
met for deliberation in this place, he judged it expedient to make no
further allusion to the works of Origen, and called the monks of
Scetis to repentance, promising that there would be no recollection of
wrongs nor infliction of evil. His partisans zealously seconded his
efforts, and told them that they must ask Theophilus to pardon their
conduct; and as all the members of the assembly concurred in this
request, the monks were troubled, and believing that it was necessary
to do what they were desired by so many bishops, they used the words
which it was their custom to use even when injured, and said "spare
us." Theophilus willingly received them into favor, and restored them
to communion; and the question concerning the injuries done to the
monks of Scetis was ended. I feel convinced that this matter would not
have been so quickly settled, had Dioscorus and Ammonius been present
with the other monks. But Dioscorus had died some time previously, and
had been interred in the church dedicated to St. Mocius the martyr.
Ammonius, also, had been taken ill at the very time that preparations
were being made for the convocation of the council; and although he
insisted upon repairing to "The Oak," yet his malady was thereby
greatly increased: he died soon after his journey, and had a splendid
entombment among the monks of that vicinity, and there he lies.
Theophilus, it is said, shed tears on hearing of his death, and
declared that although he had been the cause of much perplexity, there
was not a monk to be found of more exalted character than Ammonius. It
must, however, be admitted, that the death of this monk tended much to
promote the success of the designs of Theophilus.
The members of the council summoned all the clergy of Constantinople
to appear before them, and threatened to depose those who did not obey
the summons. They cited John to appear and answer; as likewise
Serapion, Tigrius a presbyter, and Paul a reader. John acquainted
them, through the medium of Demetrius, bishop of Pisinus, and of some
of the other clergy, who were his friends, that he would not avoid
investigation, but that he was ready, if the names of his accusers and
the subject of his accusations were made known to him, to justify his
proceedings before a larger council; for he did not choose to be
considered insane, and to recognize his manifest enemies as judges.
The bishops testified so much indignation at the non-compliance of
John, that some of the clergy whom he had sent to the council were
intimidated and did not return to him. Demetrius, and those who
preferred his interests to all other considerations, quitted the
council, and returned to him. The same day, a courier and a shorthand
writer were dispatched from the palace to command John to repair to
the bishops, and to urge the bishops to decide his cause without
further delay. After John had been cited four times, and had appealed
to a general council, no other accusation could be substantiated
against him, except his refusal to obey the summons of the council;
and upon this ground they deposed him.
Footnotes
[1607] References in preceding Chapter. Soz. has independent material.
Chapter XVIII.--Sedition of the People against Theophilus; and they
traduced their Rulers. John was recalled, and again came to the See.
The people of Constantinople were made acquainted with the decree of
the council towards the evening; and they immediately rose up in
sedition. [1608] At the break of day they ran to the church, and
shouted, among many other plans, that a larger council ought to be
convened to take cognizance of the matter; and they prevented the
officers, who had been sent by the emperor to convey John into
banishment, from carrying the edict into execution. John, apprehensive
lest another accusation should be preferred against him, under the
pretext that he had disobeyed the mandate of the emperor, or excited
an insurrection among the people, when the multitude was dispersed,
secretly made his escape from the church at noon, three days after his
deposition. When the people became aware that he had gone into exile,
the sedition became serious, and many insulting speeches were uttered
against the emperor and the council; and particularly against
Theophilus and Severian, who were regarded as the originators of the
plot. Severian happened to be teaching in the church at the very time
that these occurrences were taking place; and he took occasion to
commend the deposition of John, and stated that, even supposing him
guiltless of other crimes, John deserved to be deposed on account of
his pride; because, while God willingly forgives men all other sins,
he resists the proud. At this discourse the people became restive
under the wrong, and renewed their wrath, and fell into unrestrainable
revolt. They ran to the churches, to the market-places, and even to
the palace of the emperor, and with howls and groans demanded the
recall of John. The empress was at length overcome by their
importunity; and she persuaded her husband to yield to the wishes of
the people. She quickly sent a eunuch, named Briso, in whom she placed
confidence, to bring back John from Prenetus, a city of Bithynia; and
protested that she had taken no part in the machinations that had been
carried on against him, but had, on the contrary, always respected him
as a priest and the initiator of her children.
When John, on his journey homeward, reached the suburbs belonging to
the empress, he stopped near Anaplus; and refused to re-enter the city
until the injustice of his deposition had been recognized by a larger
synod of bishops; but as this refusal tended to augment the popular
excitement, and led to many public declamations against the emperor
and the empress, he allowed himself to be persuaded to enter the city.
The people went to meet him, singing psalms composed with reference to
the circumstances; many carried light wax tapers. They conducted him
to the church; and although he refused, and frequently affirmed that
those who had condemned him ought first to reconsider their vote, yet
they compelled him to take the episcopal throne, and to speak peace to
the people according to the custom of the priests. He then delivered
an extemporaneous discourse, in which, by a pleasing figure of speech,
he declared that Theophilus had meditated an injury against his
church, even as the king of Egypt had contemplated the violation of
Sarah, the wife of the patriarch Abraham, which is recorded in the
books of the Hebrews: he then proceeded to commend the zeal of the
people, and to extol the emperor and the empress for their good will
to him; he stirred the people to much applause and good acclaim for
the emperor and his spouse, so that he had to leave his speech half
ended.
Footnotes
[1608] Soc. vi. 16; Pallad. Dialog. ibid., and Chrysostom's Ep. ad
Innocentem; Chrys. Sermones antequam iret in Exsilium; Sermo cum iret
in Exsilium; orationes et sermones post Reditum ab Exsilio, iii.
427-448. Soz., while guided by the order of Soc., works the material
in a different form. Cf. Zos. v. 25.
Chapter XIX.--Obstinancy of Theophilus. Enmity between the Egyptians
and the Citizens of Constantinople. Flight of Theophilus. Nilammon the
Ascetic. The Synod concerning John.
Although Theophilus would fain have brought an accusation against
John, [1609] under the plea that he had unlawfully reinstated himself
in his bishopric, yet he was deterred from doing so by the fear of
offending the emperor, who had been compelled to recall John, as the
means of suppressing the popular insurrection. Theophilus, however,
received an accusation against Heraclides during the absence of the
accused, in the hope of thereby authorizing the sentence of
condemnation which had been issued against John. But the friends of
Heraclides interposed, and declared that it was unjust, and contrary
to ecclesiastical law, to condemn one who was absent. Theophilus and
his partisans maintained the opposite side of the question: the people
of Alexandria and of Egypt sided with them, and were opposed by the
citizens of Constantinople. The strife between the two parties became
so vehement that bloodshed ensued; many were wounded, and others slain
in the contest. Severian, and all the bishops at Constantinople who
did not support the cause of John, became apprehensive for their
personal safety, and quitted the city in haste. Theophilus, also, fled
the city at the commencement of the winter; and, in company with Isaac
the monk, sailed for Alexandria. A wind arose which drove the vessel
to Gera, a small city about fifty stadia from Pelusium. The bishop of
this city died, and the inhabitants, I have been informed, elected
Nilammon to preside over their church; he was a good man, and had
attained the summit of monastic philosophy. He dwelt without the city,
in a cell of which the door was built up with stones. He refused to
accept the dignity of the priesthood; and Theophilus, therefore,
visited him in person, to exhort him to receive ordination at his
hands. Nilammon repeatedly refused the honor; but, as Theophilus would
take no refusal, he said to him, "To-morrow, my father, you shall act
as you please; to-day it is requisite that I should arrange my
affairs." Theophilus repaired, on the following day, to the cell of
the monk, and commanded the door to be opened; but Nilammon exclaimed,
"Let us first engage in prayer." Theophilus complied and began to
pray. Nilammon likewise prayed within his cell, and in the act of
prayer he expired. Theophilus, and those who were standing with him
without the cell, knew nothing at the time of what had occurred; but,
when the greater part of the day had passed away, and the name of
Nilammon had been loudly reiterated without his returning any answer,
the stones were removed from the door, and the monk was found dead.
They honored him with a public burial after they had clothed him in
the necessary vestments, and the inhabitants built a house of prayer
about his tomb; and they celebrate the day of his death, in a very
marked way, until this day. Thus died Nilammon, if it can be called
death to quit this life for another,--rather than accept a bishopric
of which, with extraordinary modesty, he considered himself unworthy.
After his return to Constantinople, John appeared to be more than ever
beloved by the people. Sixty bishops assembled together in that city,
and annulled all the decrees of the council of "The Oak." They
confirmed John in the possession of the bishopric, and enacted that he
should officiate as a priest, confer ordination, and perform all the
duties of the church usually devolving on the president. At this time
Serapion was appointed bishop of Heraclea in Thrace.
Footnotes
[1609] Soc. vi. 17; Pallad. ibid.; and Chrys. Ep. ad Inn. Soz. has
independent material.
Chapter XX.--The Statue of the Empress; what happened there; the
Teaching of John; Convocation of another Synod against John; his
Deposition.
Not long after these occurrences the silver statue of the empress,
which is still to be seen to the south of the church opposite the
grand council-chamber, was placed upon a column of porphyry on a high
platform, [1610] and the event was celebrated there with applause and
popular spectacles of dances and mimes, as was then customary on the
erection of the statues of the emperors. In a public discourse to the
people John charged that these proceedings reflected dishonor on the
Church. This remark recalled former grievances to the recollection of
the empress, and irritated her so exceedingly at the insult that she
determined to convene another council. He did not yield, but added
fuel to her indignation by still more openly declaiming against her in
the church; and it was at this period that he pronounced the memorable
discourse commencing with the words, "Herodias is again enraged; again
she dances; again she seeks to have the head of John in a basin."
Several bishops arrived soon after at Constantinople, and amongst them
were Leontius, bishop of Ancyra, and Acacius, bishop of Berea. The
festival of our Lord's Nativity was then at hand, and the emperor,
instead of repairing to the church as usual, sent to acquaint John
that he could not hold communion with him until he had cleared himself
of the charges. John spiritedly replied that he was ready to prove his
innocence; and this so intimidated his accusers that they did not dare
to follow up the charges. The judges decided that, having been once
deposed, he ought not to be admitted to a second trial. But they
called on John to defend himself on this point only, that after he had
been deposed, he had sat on the episcopal throne before a synod had
reinstated him. In his defense he appealed to the decision of the
bishops who had, subsequently to the council of "The Oak," held
communion with him. The judges waived this argument, under the plea
that those who had held communion with John were inferior in point of
number to those who had deposed him, and that a canon was in force by
which he stood condemned. Under this pretext they therefore deposed
him, although the law in question had been enacted by heretics; for
the Arians, after having taken advantage of various calumnies to expel
Athanasius from the church of Alexandria, enacted this law from the
apprehension of a change in public affairs, for they struggled to have
the decisions against him remain uninvestigated.
Footnotes
[1610] Soc. vi. 18; Pallad. Dialog. 9-12; Chrys. Ep. ad Inn. ibid. 2.
Chapter XXI.--Calamities suffered by the People after the Expulsion of
John. The Plots against him of Assassination.
After his deposition, John held no more assemblies in the church, but
quietly remained in the episcopal dwelling-house. [1611] At the
termination of the season of Quadragesima, on the same holy night in
which the yearly festival in commemoration of the resurrection of
Christ is celebrated, the followers of John were expelled from the
church by the soldiers and his enemies, who attacked the people while
still celebrating the mysteries. Since this occurrence was unforeseen,
a great disturbance arose in the baptistery. The women wept and
lamented, and the children screamed; the priests and the deacons were
beaten, and were forcibly ejected from the church, in the priestly
garments in which they had been officiating. They were charged with
the commission of such disorderly acts as can be readily conceived by
those who have been admitted to the mysteries, but which I consider it
requisite to pass over in silence, lest my work should fall into the
hands of the uninitiated.
When the people perceived the plot, they did not use the church on the
following day, but celebrated the Paschal feast in the very spacious
public baths called after the Emperor Constantius. Bishops and
presbyters, and the rest, whose right it is to administer church
matters, officiated. Those who espoused the cause of John were present
with the people. They were, however, driven hence, and then assembled
on a spot without the walls of the city, which the Emperor
Constantine, before the city had been built, had caused to be cleared
and inclosed with palisades, for the purpose of celebrating there the
games of the hippodrome. From that period, the people held separate
assemblies, sometimes, whenever it was feasible, in that locality, and
sometimes in another. They obtained the name of Johnites. About this
time, a man who was either possessed of a devil, or who feigned to
have one, was seized, having a poniard on his person, with the
intention of assassinating John. He was apprehended by the people as
one who had been hired for this plot, and led to the prefect; but John
sent some bishops of his party to free him from custody before he had
been questioned by torture. Some time afterwards, a slave of Elpidius
the presbyter, who was an avowed enemy of the deacon, was seen running
as swiftly as possible towards the episcopal residence. A passer-by
endeavored to stop him, in order to ascertain the cause of so much
haste; but instead of answering him, the slave plunged his poniard
into him. Another person, who happened to be standing by, and who
cried out at seeing the other wounded, was also wounded in a similar
way by the slave; as was likewise a third bystander. All the people in
the neighborhood, on seeing what had occurred, shouted that the slave
ought to be arrested. He turned and fled. When those who were pursuing
called out to those ahead to seize the fugitive, a man, who just then
came out from the baths, strove to stop him, and was so grievously
wounded that he fell down dead on the spot. At length, the people
contrived to encircle the slave. They seized him, and conveyed him to
the palace of the emperor, declaring that he had intended to have
assassinated John, and that the crime ought to be visited with
punishment. The prefect allayed the fury of the people by putting the
delinquent into custody, and by assuring them that justice should have
its course against him.
Footnotes
[1611] Soc. vi. 18; Pallad. ibid. Soz. has much distinctive material.
Chapter XXII.--Unlawful Expulsion of John from his Bishopric. The
Trouble which followed. Conflagration of the Church by Fire from
Heaven. Exile of John to Cucusus.
From this period the most zealous of the people guarded John
alternately, stationing themselves about the episcopal residence by
night and by day. [1612] The bishops who had condemned him complained
of this conduct as a violation of the laws of the Church, declared
that they could answer for the justice of the sentence that had been
enacted against him, and asserted that tranquillity would never be
restored among the people until he had been expelled from the city. A
messenger having conveyed to him a mandate from the emperor enjoining
his immediate departure, John obeyed, and escaped from the city,
unnoticed by those who had been appointed to guard him. He made no
other censure than that, in being sent into banishment without a legal
trial or any of the forms of the law, he was treated more severely
than murderers, sorcerers, and adulterers. He was conveyed in a little
bark to Bithynia, and thence immediately continued his journey. Some
of his enemies were apprehensive lest the people, on hearing of his
departure, should pursue him, and bring him back by force, and
therefore commanded the gates of the church to be closed. When the
people who were in the public places of the city heard of what had
occurred, great confusion ensued; for some ran to the seashore as if
they would follow him, and others fled hither and thither, and were in
great terror since the wrath of the emperor was expected to visit them
for creating so much disturbance and tumult. Those who were within the
church barred the exits still further by rushing together upon them,
and by pressing upon one another. With difficulty they forced the
doors open by the use of great violence; one party shattered them with
stones, another was pulling them toward themselves, and was thus
forcing the crowd backward into the building. Meanwhile the church was
suddenly consumed on all sides with fire. The flames extended in all
directions, and the grand house of the senatorial council, adjacent to
the church on the south, was doomed. The two parties mutually accused
each other of incendiarism. The enemies of John asserted that his
partisans had been guilty of the deed from revenge, on account of the
vote that had been passed against him by the council. These latter, on
the other hand, maintained that they had been calumniated, and that
the deed was perpetrated by their enemies, with the intention of
burning them in the church. While the fire was spreading from late
afternoon until the morning, and creeping forward to the material
which was still standing, the officers who held John in custody
conveyed him to Cucusus, a city of Armenia, which the emperor by
letter had appointed as the place of residence for the condemned man.
Other officers were commissioned to arrest all the bishops and clerics
who had favored the cause of John, and to imprison them in Chalcedon.
Those citizens who were suspected of attachment to John were sought
out and cast into prison, and compelled to pronounce anathema against
him.
Footnotes
[1612] Soc. vi. 18; Pallad. ibid. and Chrys. Ep. ad Inn.; Theodoret,
H. E. v. 34. Soz. has distinct material. Cf. Zos. v. 24.
Chapter XXIII.--Arsacius elected to succeed John. The Evils wrought
against the Followers of John. St. Nicarete.
Arsacius, brother of Nectarius, who had administered the bishopric
before John, was, not long afterwards, ordained as bishop of
Constantinople. [1613] He was of a very mild disposition, and
possessed of great piety; but the reputation he had acquired as a
presbyter was diminished by the conduct of some of the clergy to whom
he delegated his power, and who did what they pleased in his name; for
their evil deeds were imputed to him. Nothing, however, operated so
much to his disadvantage as the persecution that was carried on
against the followers of John. They refused to hold communion, or even
to join in prayer with him, because the enemies of John were
associated with him; and as they persisted, as we have before stated,
in holding a church in the further parts of the city, he complained to
the emperor of their conduct. The tribune was commanded to attack them
with a body of soldiers, and by means of clubs and stones he soon
dispersed them. The most distinguished among them in point of rank,
and those who were most zealous in their adherence to John, were cast
into prison. The soldiers as is usual on such occasions, went beyond
their orders, and forcibly stripped the women of their ornaments, and
carried off as booty their chains, their golden girdles, necklaces,
and their collars of rings; they pulled off the lobes of the ear with
the earrings. Although the whole city was thus filled with trouble and
lamentation, the affection of the people for John still remained the
same, and they refrained from appearing in public. Many of them
absented themselves from the market-place and public baths, while
others, not considering themselves safe in their own houses, fled the
city.
Among the zealous men and excellent women who adopted this latter
measure was Nicarete, a lady of Bithynia. She belonged to a noted
family of the nobility, and was celebrated on account of her perpetual
virginity and her virtuous life. She was the most modest of all the
zealous women that we have ever known, and was well ordered in manner
and speech and in behavior, and throughout her life she invariably
preferred the service of God to all earthly considerations. She showed
herself capable of enduring with courage and thought the sudden
reversals of adverse affairs; she saw herself unjustly despoiled of
the greater part of her ample patrimony without manifesting any
indignation, and managed the little that remained to her with so much
economy, that although she was advanced in age, she contrived to
supply all the wants of her household, and to contribute largely to
others. Since she loved a humane spirit, she also prepared a variety
of remedies for the needs of the sick poor, and she frequently
succeeded in curing patients who had derived no benefit from the skill
of the customary physicians. With a devout strength which assisted her
in reaching the best results, she closed her lips. To sum up all in a
few words, we have never known a devoted woman endowed with such
manners, gravity, and every other virtue. Although she was so
extraordinary, she concealed the greater part of her nature and deeds;
for by modesty of character and philosophy she was always studious of
concealment. She would not accept of the office of deaconess, nor of
instructress of the virgins consecrated to the service of the Church,
because she accounted herself unworthy, although the honor was
frequently pressed upon her by John.
After the popular insurrection had been quelled, the prefect of the
city appeared in public, as if to inquire into the cause of the
conflagration, and the burning of the council-hall, and punished many
severely; but being a pagan, he ridiculed the calamities of the
Church, and delighted in its misfortunes.
Footnotes
[1613] Soc. vi. 19; Pallad. Dialog. 11-20. Cf. Theodoret, H. E. v. 34.
Soz. has much separate material.
Chapter XXIV.--Eutropius the Reader, and the Blessed Olympian, and the
Presbyter Tigrius, are persecuted on account of their Attachment to
John. The Patriarchs.
Eutropius, a reader, [1614] was required to name the persons who had
set fire to the church; but although he was scourged severely,
although his sides and cheeks were torn with iron nails, and although
lighted torches were applied to the most sensitive parts of his body,
no confession could be extorted from him, notwithstanding his youth
and delicacy of constitution. After having been subjected to these
tortures, he was cast into a dungeon, where he soon afterwards
expired.
A dream of Sisinius concerning Eutropius seems worthy of insertion in
this history. Sisinius, the bishop of the Novatians, saw in his sleep
a man, conspicuous for beauty and stature, standing near the altar of
the church which the Novatians erected to the honor of Stephen, the
proto-martyr; the man complained of the rarity of good men, and said
that he had been searching throughout the entire city, and had found
but one who was good, and that one was Eutropius. Astonished at what
he had seen, Sisinius made known the dream to the most faithful of the
presbyters of his church, and commanded him to seek Eutropius wherever
he might be. The presbyter rightly conjectured that this Eutropius
could be no other than he who had been so barbarously tortured by the
prefect, and went from prison to prison in quest of him. At length he
found him, and in conversation with him made known the dream of the
bishop, and besought him with tears to pray for him. Such are the
details we possess concerning Eutropius.
Great fortitude was evinced in the midst of these calamities by
Olympias, the deaconess. Being dragged for this reason before the
tribunal, and interrogated by the prefect as to her motives in setting
fire to the church, she replied, "My past life ought to avert all
suspicion from me, for I have devoted my large property to the
restoration of the temples of God." The prefect alleged that he was
well acquainted with her past course of life. "Then," continued she,
"you ought to appear in the place of the accuser and let another judge
us." As the accusation against her was wholly unsubstantiated by
proofs, and as the prefect found that he had no ground on which he
could justly blame her, he changed to a milder charge as if desirous
of advising her, finding fault with her and the other women, because
they refused communion with his bishop, although it was possible for
them to repent and to change their own circumstances. They all through
fear deferred to the advice of the prefect, but Olympias said to him,
"It is not just that, after having been publicly calumniated, without
having had anything proved against me in the courts, I should be
obliged to clear myself of charges totally unconnected with the
accusation in question. Let me rather take counsel concerning the
original accusation that has been preferred against me. For even if
you resort to unlawful compulsion, I will not hold communion with
those from whom I ought to secede, nor consent to anything that is not
lawful to the pious." The prefect, finding that he could not prevail
upon her to hold communion with Arsacius, dismissed her that she might
consult the advocates. On another occasion, however, he again sent for
her and condemned her to pay a heavy fine, for he imagined by this
means she would be compelled to change her mind. But she totally
disregarded the loss of her property, and quitted Constantinople for
Cyzicus. Tigrius, a presbyter, was about the same period stripped of
his clothes, scourged on the back, bound hand and foot, and stretched
on the rack. He was a barbarian by race, and a eunuch, but not by
birth. He was originally a slave in the house of a man in power, and
on account of his faithful services had obtained his freedom. He was
afterwards ordained as presbyter, and was distinguished by his
moderation and meekness of disposition, and by his charity towards
strangers and the poor. Such were the events which took place in
Constantinople.
Meanwhile Siricius had died, after having administered the bishopric
of Rome fifteen years. Anastasius held the same bishopric three years,
and then died, and was succeeded by Innocent. Flavian, who refused his
consent to the deposition of John, was also dead; and Porphyry, being
appointed to succeed him in the church of Antioch, where he agreed
with those who had condemned John, many of those in Syria seceded from
the church in Antioch, and because they made congregations among
themselves, they were subjected to many cruelties. For the purpose of
enforcing fellowship with Arsacius, and with this Porphyry and
Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria, a law was established, by the
zeal of the powerful at court, that those who were orthodox should not
assemble outside of the churches, and those who were not in communion
with them should be expelled.
Footnotes
[1614] Pallad. Dialog., ibid. Soz. has an independent Chapter in large
part.
Chapter XXV.--Since these Ills existed in the Church, Secular Affairs
also fell into Disorder. The Affairs of Stilicho, the General of
Honorius.
About this period [1615] the dissensions by which the Church was
agitated were followed, as is frequently the case, by disturbances and
commotions in the state. The Huns crossed the Ister and devastated
Thrace. The robbers in Isauria gathered in great numbers and ravaged
cities and villages as far as Caria and Phoenicia. Stilicho, the
general of Honorius, a man who had attained great power, if any one
ever did, and had under his sway the flower of the Roman and of the
barbarian soldiery, conceived feelings of enmity against the rulers
who held office under Arcadius, and determined to set the two empires
at enmity with each other. He caused Alaric, the leader of the Goths,
to be appointed by Honorius to the office of general of the Roman
troops, and sent him into Illyria; whither also he dispatched Jovius,
the prætorian prefect, and promised to join them there with the Roman
soldiers in order to add that province to the dominions of Honorius.
Alaric marched at the head of his troops from the barbarous regions
bordering on Dalmatia and Pannonia, and came to Epirus; and after
waiting for some time there, he returned to Italy. Stilicho was
prevented from fulfilling his agreement to join Alaric, by some
letters which were transmitted to him from Honorius. These events
happened in the manner narrated.
Footnotes
[1615] Cf. Claudianus in primum consulatum Fl. Stilichonis, i., ii.;
de secundo consulatu Fl. Stilichonis; de bello Getico; de sexto
consulatu Honorii Augusti panegyris, 57--v. 38; Olymp. beginning with
Fragm. 2; Eunap. Fragm. ii. 72.
Chapter XXVI.--Two Epistles from Innocent, the Pope of Rome, of which
one was addressed to John Chrysostom, and the other to the Clergy of
Constantinople concerning John.
Innocent, [1616] bishop of Rome, [1617] was extremely indignant when
apprised of the measures that had been adopted against John, and
condemned the whole proceedings. He then turned his attention to the
convocation of an oecumenical council, and wrote to John and to the
clergy of Constantinople in part. Subjoined are the two letters,
precisely as I found them, translated from the Latin into Greek.
"Innocent, to the beloved brother John.
"Although one conscious of his own innocence ought to expect every
blessing and to ask for mercy from God, yet it seems well to us to
send you a befitting letter by Cyriacus, the deacon, and to counsel
you to long-suffering, lest the contumely cast upon you should have
more power in subduing your courage than the testimony of a good
conscience in encouraging you to hope. It is not requisite to teach
you, who are the teacher and pastor of so great a people, that God
always tries the best of men to see whether they will continue in the
height of patience, and will not give way to any labor of suffering;
and how true it is that the conscience is a firm thing against all
that befalls us unjustly, and unless one be moved in these misfortunes
by patience, he furnishes a ground for evil surmising. For he ought to
endure everything, who first trusts in God, and then in his own
conscience. Especially when an excellent and good man can exercise
himself in endurance, he cannot be overcome; for the Holy Scriptures
guard his thoughts, and the devout lections, which we expound to the
people, abound in examples. These Scriptures assure us that almost all
the saints are variously and continuously afflicted, and are tested by
some investigation, and so have come to the crown of patience. Let thy
conscience encourage thy love, O most honored brother; for that
faculty amid tribulations possesses an encouragement for virtue. For
since Christ, the Master, is observing, the purified conscience will
station you in the haven of peace."
"Innocent, the bishop, to the presbyters, deacons, and all the clergy,
and to the people of the church of Constantinople under John, the
bishop, greeting to you, beloved brethren.
"From the letters of your love that you forwarded to me through
Germanus, the presbyter, and Cassianus, the deacon, I have learned,
with anxious solicitude, the scenes of evil which you have placed
before our eyes. I have frequently seen during its repeated reading
with what calamities and labors the faith is wearied. Only the
consolation of patience heals such a state of affairs. Our God will
shortly put an end to such tribulations, and they will eventually tend
to your profit. But we recognized with approbation your proposition,
placed at the beginning of the letter of your love; to wit, that this
very consolation is necessary, and embraces many proofs of your
patience; for our consolation, which we ought to have conveyed, you
have anticipated in your epistle. Our Lord is wont to furnish this
patience to the suffering, in order that when they fall into
tribulations, the servants of Christ may encourage themselves; for
they should reason within themselves that what they suffer has
happened previously to the saints. And even we ourselves derive
comfort from your letters, for we are not strangers to your
sufferings; but we are disciplined in you. Who, indeed, can endure to
witness the errors introduced by those who were bound especially to be
enthusiasts for the quiet of peace and for its concord? But far from
maintaining peace, they expel guiltless priests from the front seat of
their own churches. John, our brother and fellow-minister and your
bishop, has been the first to suffer this unjust treatment without
being allowed a hearing. No accusation was brought, none was heard.
What proposition was it that was nullified, so that no show of
judgment might arise or be sought? Others were seated in the places of
living priests, as though any who began from such discord would be
able to possess anything or do anything rightly in any one's judgment.
We have never known such audacities to have been done by our fathers.
They rather prohibited such innovations by refusing to give power to
any one to be ordained in another's place while the occupant was
living, since he is unable to be a bishop who is unjustly substituted.
"With respect to the observance of canons, we declare that those
defined at Nicæa are alone [1618] entitled to the obedience and
recognition of the Catholic Church. If any individuals should attempt
to introduce other canons, at variance with those of Nicæa, and such
as are a compilation by heretics, such canons ought to be rejected by
the Catholic Church, for it is not lawful to add the inventions of
heretics to the Catholic canons. For they always wish to belittle the
decision of the Nicene fathers through opponents and lawless men. We
say, then, that the canons we have censured are not only to be
disregarded, but to be condemned with the dogmas of heretics and
schismatics, even as they have been formerly condemned at the council
of Sardica by the bishops who were our predecessors. For it would be
better, O most honored brethren, that these transactions be condemned,
than that any actions should be confirmed contrary to the canons.
"What measures ought we to adopt now in the present circumstances
against such deeds? It is necessary that there be a synodical
investigation, and a synod we long ago said should be gathered. There
are no other means of arresting the fury of the tempest. In order that
we may attain this it will be profitable meanwhile for that healing to
be exalted which comes by the will of the great God and of His Christ,
our Lord. We shall thus behold the cessation of all the woes which
have been excited by the envy of the devil, and which have served as
trials for our faith. If we remain steadfast in the faith, there is
nothing that we ought not to expect from the Lord. We are constantly
watching for the opportunity of convening an oecumenical council,
whereby, in accordance with the will of God, an end may be put to
these harassing commotions. Let us, then, endure in the interval, and,
fortified by the wall of patience, let us trust in the help of our God
for the restoration of all things.
"We had previously been made acquainted with all that you have related
concerning your trials, by our fellow-bishops Demetrius, Cyriacus,
Eulysius, and Palladius, who visited Rome at different periods and are
now with us; from them we had learned all the details by a complete
inquiry."
Footnotes
[1616] Independent Chapter; cf. Pallad. Dialog. 1-3.
[1617] Innocent I., a.d. 402-417.
[1618] The reckless historical sense of the West has a strong proof
here.
Chapter XXVII.--The Terrible Events which resulted from the Treatment
of John. Death of the Empress Eudoxia. Death of Arsacius. And further
concerning Atticus, the Patriarch, his Birthplace, and Character.
Such were the letters of Innocent from which the opinion which he
entertained of John may readily be inferred. About the same period
some hailstones of extraordinary magnitude fell at Constantinople and
in the suburbs of the city. [1619] Four days afterwards, the wife of
the emperor died. These occurrences were by many regarded as
indications of Divine wrath on account of the persecution that had
been carried on against John. For Cyrinus, bishop of Chalcedon, one of
his principal calumniators, had long previously terminated his life in
the midst of great bodily agony, arising from the accident that had
occurred to his foot, and the consequent necessary amputation of the
leg by the physicians. Arsacius, too, died after he had presided but a
very short period over the church of Constantinople. Many candidates
were proposed as his successor; and four months after his decease,
Atticus, a presbyter, of the clergy of Constantinople, and one of the
enemies of John, was ordained. He was a native of Sebaste in Armenia.
He had been instructed from his youth in the principles of monastic
philosophy by monks of the Macedonian heresy. These monks, who then
enjoyed a very high reputation at Sebaste for philosophy, were of the
discipline of Eustathius, to whom allusion has been already made as
bishop there, and a leader of the best monks. When Atticus attained
the age of manhood, he embraced the tenets of the Catholic Church. He
possessed more by nature than by learning, and became a participant in
affairs, and was as skillful in carrying on intrigues as in evading
the machinations of others. He was of a very engaging disposition, and
was beloved by many. The discourses which he delivered in the church
did not rise above mediocrity; and although not totally devoid of
erudition, they were not accounted by his auditors of sufficient value
to be preserved in writing. Being intent, if an opportunity offered
itself anywhere, he exercised himself in the most approved Greek
authors; but lest, in conversation about these writers, he might
appear unlettered, he frequently concealed what he did know. It is
said that he manifested much zeal in behalf of those who entertained
the same sentiments as himself, and that he rendered himself
formidable to the heterodox. When he wished he could easily throw them
into alarm; but he at once transformed himself and would appear meek.
Such is the information which those who knew the man have furnished.
John acquired great celebrity even in his exile. He possessed ample
pecuniary resources, and being besides liberally supplied with money
by Olympias, the deaconess, and others, he purchased the liberty of
many captives from the Isaurian robbers, and restored them to their
families. He also administered to the necessities of many who were in
want; and by his kind words comforted those who did not stand in need
of money. Hence he was exceedingly beloved not only in Armenia, where
he dwelt, but by all the people of the neighboring countries, and the
inhabitants of Antioch and of the other parts of Syria, and of
Cilicia, who frequently sought his society.
Footnotes
[1619] Soc. vi. 19, 20, vii. 2; Pallad. Dialog. ibid. Soz. has new
facts, and a sobered judgment of Atticus.
Chapter XXVIII.--Effort of Innocent, Bishop of Rome, to recall John
through a Council. Concerning those who were sent by him to make Trial
of the Matter. The Death of John Chrysostom.
Innocent, bishop of Rome, was very anxious, as appears by his former
letter, to procure the recall of John. [1620] [1621] He sent five
bishops and two presbyters of the Roman church, with the bishops who
had been delegated as ambassadors to him from the East, to the
emperors Honorius and Arcadius, to request the convocation of a
council, and solicit them to name time and place. The enemies of John
at Constantinople framed a charge as though these things were done to
insult the Eastern emperor, and caused the ambassadors to be
ignominiously dismissed as if they had invaded a foreign government.
John was at the same time condemned by an imperial edict to a remoter
place of banishment, and soldiers were sent to conduct him to Pityus;
the soldiers were soon on hand, and effected the removal. It is said
that during this journey, Basiliscus, the martyr, appeared to him at
Comani, in Armenia, and apprised him of the day of his death. Being
attacked with pain in the head, and being unable to bear the heat of
the sun, he could not prosecute his journey, but closed his life in
that town.
Footnotes
[1620] Pallad. Dialog. ibid.; Soc. vi. 21; Theodoret, H. E. v. 34.
Soz. has new material. Cf. Chrys. Epp. in exil., vol. iii.
[1621] PGM.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlychv.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html