The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus
Advanced Information
Revised, with Notes, by the Rev. A. C. Zenos, D.D.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the Theological
Seminary at Hartford, Conn.
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 VI.
Introduction.
The commission with which you charged us, O holy man of God, Theodore,
we have executed in the five foregoing books; in which to the best of
our ability, we have comprised the history of the Church from the time
of Constantine. Notice, however, that we have been by no means
studious of style; for we considered that had we showed too great
fastidiousness about elegance of expression we might have defeated the
object in view. [817] But even supposing our purpose could still have
been accomplished, we were wholly precluded from the exercise of that
discretionary power of which ancient historians seem to have so
largely availed themselves, whereby any one of them imagined himself
quite at liberty to amplify or curtail matters of fact. Moreover,
refined composition would by no means be edifying to the masses and
illiterate men, who are intent merely on knowing the facts, and not on
admiring beauty of diction. In order therefore not to render my
production unprofitable to both classes of readers,--to the learned on
the one hand, because no elaboration of language could satisfy them to
rank it with the magniloquence of the writers of antiquity, and to the
unlearned on the other, because they could not understand the facts,
should they be clouded by a parade of words,--we have purposely
adopted a style, divested indeed of all affectation of sublimity, but
at the same time clear and perspicuous.
As we begin, however, our sixth book, we must premise this, that in
undertaking to detail the events of our own age, we are apprehensive
of advancing such things as may be unpalatable to many: either
because, according to the proverb, `Truth is bitter;' on account of
our not mentioning with encomium the names of those whom some may
love; or from our not magnifying their actions. The zealots of our
churches will condemn us for not calling the bishops `Most dear to
God,' `Most holy,' and such like. Others will be litigious because we
do not bestow the appellations `Most divine,' and `Lords' on the
emperors, nor apply to them such other epithets as they are commonly
assigned. But since I could easily prove from the testimony of ancient
authors, [818] that among them the servant was accustomed to address
his master simply by name, without reference to his dignity or titles,
on account of the pressure of business, I shall in like manner obey
the laws of history, which demand a simple and faithful narration,
unobscured by a veil of any kind. I shall proceed to record accurately
what I have either myself seen, or have been able to ascertain from
actual observers; having tested the truth by the unanimity of the
witnesses that spoke of the same affairs, and by every means I could
possibly command. The process of ascertaining the truth was indeed
laborious, inasmuch as many and different persons gave different
accounts and some claimed to be eyewitnesses, while others professed
to be more intimately acquainted with these things than any others.
Footnotes
[817] Cf. V. Int.
[818] The comic poets, e.g. Menander, Plautus, Terence.
Chapter I.--On the Death of Theodosius his Two Sons divide the Empire.
Rufinus is slain at the Feet of Arcadius.
After the death of the Emperor Theodosius, in the consulate of
Olybrius and Probinus or the seventeenth of January, his two sons
undertook the administration of the Roman empire. Thus Arcadius
assumed the government of the East, and Honorius of the West. [819] At
that time Damasus was bishop of the church at Imperial Rome, and
Theophilus of that of Alexandria, John of Jerusalem, and Flavian of
Antioch; while the episcopal chair at Constantinople or New Rome was
filled by Nectarius, as we mentioned in the foregoing book. [820] The
body of the Emperor Theodosius was taken to Constantinople on the 8th
of November in the same consulate, and was honorably interred by his
son Arcadius with the usual funeral solemnities. [821] Not long
afterwards on the 28th day of the same month the army also arrived,
which had served under the Emperor Theodosius in the war against the
usurper. When therefore according to custom the Emperor Arcadius met
the army without the gates, the soldiery slew Rufinus the Prætorian
prefect. For he was suspected of aspiring to the sovereignty, and had
the reputation of having invited into the Roman territories the Huns,
[822] a barbarous nation, who had already ravaged Armenia, and were
then making predatory incursions into other provinces of the East. On
the very day on which Rufinus was killed, Marcian bishop of the
Novatians died, and was succeeded in the episcopate by Sisinnius, of
whom we have already made mention. [823]
Footnotes
[819] Cf. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Rom. Empire, chap. 29.
[820] V. 8.
[821] See Bennett, Christian Archæology, p. 210 seq., and Bingham,
Christ. Antiq. XXII. 1 and 2, for details on the burial of the dead in
the early Church.
[822] Zosimus (V. 5) says Rufinus invited Alaric and the Goths to
invade the Roman territories; Valesius reconciles Socrates' and
Zosimus' statements by assuming that they are partial and
supplementary to one another; Rufinus, according to him, invited both
the Huns and the Goths.
[823] V. 10, 21, et al.
Chapter II.--Death of Nectarius and Ordination of John.
A short time after Nectarius [824] also, bishop of Constantinople
died, during the consulate of Cæsarius and Atticus, [825] on the 27th
of September. A contest thereupon immediately arose respecting the
appointment of a successor, some proposing one person, and some
another: at length however it was determined to send for John, [826] a
presbyter of the church at Antioch, for there was a report that he was
very instructive, and at the same time eloquent. By the general
consent therefore of both the clergy and laity, he was summoned very
soon afterwards to Constantinople by the Emperor Arcadius: and to
render the ordination more authoritative and imposing, several
prelates were requested to be present, among whom also was Theophilus
bishop of Alexandria. [827] This person did everything he could to
detract from John's reputation, being desirous of promoting to that
see, Isidore [828] a presbyter of his own church, to whom he was
greatly attached, on account of a very delicate and perilous affair
which Isidore had undertaken to serve his interests. What this was I
must now unfold. While the Emperor Theodosius was preparing to attack
the usurper Maximus, Theodosius sent Isidore with gifts giving twofold
letters, and enjoining him to present both the gifts and the proper
letters to him who should become the victor. In accordance with these
injunctions Isidore on his arrival at Rome awaited there the event of
the war. But this business did not long remain a secret: for a reader
who accompanied him privately sequestered the letters; upon which
Isidore in great alarm returned to Alexandria. This was the reason why
Theophilus so warmly favored Isidore. The court however gave the
preference to John: and inasmuch as many had revived the accusations
against Theophilus, and prepared for presentation to the bishops then
convened memorials of various charges, Eutropius [829] the chief
officer of the imperial bed-chamber collected these documents, and
showed them to Theophilus, bidding him `choose between ordaining John,
and undergoing a trial on the charges made against him.' Theophilus
terrified at this alternative, consented to ordain John. Accordingly
John was invested with the episcopal dignity on the 26th of February,
under the following consulate, [830] which the Emperor Honorius
celebrated with public games at Rome, and Eutychian, then Prætorian
prefect, at Constantinople. But since the man is famous, both for the
writings he has left, and the many troubles he fell into, it is proper
that I should not pass over his affairs in silence, but to relate as
compendiously as possible whence he was, and from what ancestry; also
the particulars of his elevation to the episcopate, and the means by
which he was subsequently degraded; and finally how he was more
honored after his death, than he had been during his life.
Footnotes
[824] Cf. V. 8.
[825] 397 a.d.
[826] The well-known bishop of Antioch and Constantinople, who on
account of his extraordinary gift of eloquence was surnamed
Chrysostom, `the Golden-mouth.' See The Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, Vol. IX. Prolegomena on the life and writings of St. John
Chrysostom by Dr. Schaff. Also cf. ancient authorities: Palladius,
Dialogus historicus de vita et conversatione beati Joannis Chrysostomi
cum Theodoro Ecclesiæ Romanæ diacono; Jerome, de Viris Illustribus, c.
129; Sozomen, VIII. 2-23; Theodoret, H. E. V. 27-36; and modern Smith
and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog.; F. W. Farrar, Lives of the Fathers,
Vol. II. p. 460-527, and many monograms and longer or briefer notices
in the standard church histories.
[827] Cf. Theodoret, V. 22, under this Theophilus the pagan temples of
Mithras and Serapis were attacked, as related above in V. 16 and 17.
For a fuller notice of Theophilus, see Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ.
Biog.
[828] Cf. chap. 9 of this book.
[829] Cf. Zosimus, V. 3, 8, 10, 17, 18, and Eunapius, Fragm. 53, 56.
[830] 398 a.d.
Chapter III.--Birth and Education of John Bishop of Constantinople.
John was a native of Antioch in Syria-Coele, son of Secundus and
Anthusa, and scion of a noble family in that country. He studied
rhetoric under Libanius the sophist, and philosophy under Andragathius
the philosopher. [831] Being on the point of entering the practice of
civil law, and reflecting on the restless and unjust course of those
who devote themselves to the practice of the forensic courts, he was
turned to the more tranquil mode of life, which he adopted, following
the example of Evagrius. [832] Evagrius himself had been educated
under the same masters, and had some time before retired to a private
mode of life. Accordingly he laid aside his legal habit, and applied
his mind to the reading of the sacred scriptures, frequenting the
church with great assiduity. He moreover induced Theodore and Maximus,
who had been his fellow-students under Libanius the sophist, to
forsake a profession whose primary object was gain, and embrace a life
of greater simplicity. Of these two persons, Theodore afterwards
became bishop of Mopsuestia [833] in Cilicia, and Maximus of Seleucia
in Isauria. At that time being ardent aspirants after perfection, they
entered upon the ascetic life, under the guidance of Diodorus [834]
and Carterius, who then presided over a monastic institution. The
former of these was subsequently elevated to the bishopric of Tarsus,
and wrote many treatises, in which he limited his attention to the
literal sense of scripture, avoiding that which was mystical. [835]
But enough respecting these persons. Now John was then living on the
most intimate terms with Basil, [836] at that time constituted a
deacon by Meletius, but afterwards ordained bishop of Cæsarea in
Cappadocia. Accordingly Zeno [837] the bishop on his return from
Jerusalem, appointed him a reader in the church at Antioch. While he
continued in the capacity of a reader he composed the book Against the
Jews. Meletius having not long after conferred on him the rank of
deacon, he produced his work On the Priesthood, [838] and those
Against Stagirius; and moreover those also On the Incomprehensibility
of the Divine Nature, and On the Women [839] who lived with the
Ecclesiastics. Afterwards, upon the death of Meletius at
Constantinople,--for there he had gone on account of Gregory
Nazianzen's ordination,--John separated himself from the Meletians,
without entering into communion with Paulinus, and spent three whole
years in retirement. Later, when Paulinus was dead, he was ordained a
presbyter by Evagrius the successor of Paulinus. Such is a brief
outline of John's career previous to his call to the episcopal office.
It is said that on account of his zeal for temperance he was stern and
severe; and one of his early friends has said `that in his youth he
manifested a proneness to irritability, rather than to modesty.'
Because of the rectitude of his life, he was free from anxiety about
the future, and his simplicity of character rendered him open and
ingenuous; nevertheless the liberty of speech he allowed himself was
offensive to very many. In public teaching he was powerful in
reforming the morals of his auditors; but in private conversation he
was frequently thought haughty and assuming by those who did not know
him.
Footnotes
[831] Sozomen (VIII. 2) also says that Chrysostom went from the school
of Libanius to a private life instead of the legal profession as was
expected of him, but from some utterances of Libanius, as well as from
Chrysostom's own representation, de Sacerdot. I. 1. 4, it appears that
he had spent some time in the practice of the law.
[832] It is not certain who this Evagrius was. Valesius thinks he was
the presbyter of that name mentioned by Jerome, de Scriptor. Eccl.
[833] It has been supposed by some that this was the Theodore
addressed in II. 1, VI. Int. and VII. 47; but not with good reason.
Cf. note 4, p. xii. of Int. On Theodore of Mopsuestia, the great
`Exegete' and theologian, see Smith and Wace; also Sieffert, Theodor.
Mopsuestenus Vet. Test. Sobrie Interpret. Vindex and H. B. Swete,
Theodori Episc. Mopsuestiæ in Epp. B. Pauli. Commentarii.
[834] Sozomen also attests the simplicity of Diodorus' interpretations
of the Old Testament. The principle which he adopted, of seeking for a
literal and historical meaning in preference to the allegorical and
mystical interpretations attached to the Old Testament by Origen and
the Alexandrians, became the corner-stone of the Antiochian system of
interpretation as elaborated by his pupils Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Theodoret.
[835] theorias lit. `speculations' by which are evidently meant the
allegorical and subjective or contemplative explanations of the
Alexandrians.
[836] `Socrates and Kurtz (in the tenth edition of his
Kirchengeschichte, I. 223) confound this Basil with Basil the Great of
Cappadocia, who was eighteen years older than Chrysostom, and died in
379. Chrysostom's friend was probably (as Baronius and Montfaucon
conjecture) identical with Basil, bishop of Raphanea in Syria, near
Antioch, who attended the Council of Constantinople in 381.' Comp.
Venables in Smith and Wace; Schaff in Prolegomena to Vol. IX. of The
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, p. 6, note 2. The conjecture of
Baronius is assented to also by Valesius.
[837] According to Baronius, this Zeno was bishop of Tyre, but
Valesius makes an ingenious objection to this view, and asserts that
some other city must have been the real see of Zeno.
[838] This treatise, commonly termed de Sacerdotio, and the Homilies
are the most famous of Chrysostom's works; for a full account, as well
as translation, of these works, see Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. IX.
[839] These were women who lived in the houses of the clergy as
sisters, and exercised themselves in works of piety and charity. At a
very early period, however, scandal seems to have arisen from this
practice, and strong measures were repeatedly adopted by the Church
for their suppression. Paul of Samosata was, according to Eusebius (H.
E. VII. 30), deposed partly for keeping these sisters in his house.
They were called Syneisactæ (Suneisaktoi ). Cf. Bingham, Christ.
Antiq. XVII. 5. 20, and Council of Nicæa, Can. 3. Hefele, Hist. of Ch.
Councils, Vol. I. p. 379.
Chapter IV.--Of Serapion the Deacon on whose Account John becomes
Odious to his Clergy.
Being such in disposition and manners, and promoted to the episcopacy,
John was led to conduct himself toward his clergy with more than
proper superciliousness, designing to correct the morals of the clergy
under him. Having thus chafed the temper of the ecclesiastics, he was
disliked by them; and so many of them stood aloof from him as a
passionate man, and others became his bitter enemies. Serapion, a
deacon of his retinue, led him to alienate their minds still more from
him; and once in presence of the whole assembled clergy he cried out
with a loud voice to the bishop--`You will never be able to govern
these men, my lord, unless you drive them all with a rod.' This speech
of his excited a general feeling of animosity against the bishop; the
bishop also not long after expelled many of them from the church, some
for one cause, and some for another. And, as it usually happens when
persons in office adopt such violent measures, those who were thus
expelled by him formed combinations and inveighed against him to the
people. What contributed greatly to gain credence for these complaints
was the fact that the bishop was not willing to eat with any one else,
and never accepted an invitation to a feast. On account of this the
plot against him became widespread. His reasons for not eating with
others no one knew with any certainty, [840] but some persons in
justification of his conduct state that he had a very delicate
stomach, and weak digestion, which obliged him to be careful in his
diet, and therefore he ate alone; while others thought this was due to
his rigid and habitual abstinence. Whatever the real motive may have
been, the circumstance itself contributed not a little to the grounds
of accusation by his calumniators. The people nevertheless continued
to regard him with love and veneration, on account of his valuable
discourses in the church, and therefore those who sought to traduce
him, only brought themselves into contempt. How eloquent, convincing,
and persuasive his sermons were, both those which were published by
himself, and such as were noted down by short-hand writers as he
delivered them, why should we stay to declare? Those who desire to
form an adequate idea of them, must read for themselves, and will
thereby derive both pleasure and profit.
Footnotes
[840] These reasons are given by Palladius as follows: `He was
accustomed to eat alone, as I partially know, for these reasons:
first, he drank no wine...secondly, his stomach was, on account of
certain infirmities, irregular, so that often the food prepared for
him was repugnant, and other food not put before him was desired.
Again he at times neglected to eat, lengthening out his meal until
evening, sometimes being absorbed in ecclesiastical cares and
sometimes in contemplation;...but it is a custom with table companions
if we do not relish the same articles of food which they do, or laugh
at insignificant witticisms...to make this an occasion of ill-speech.'
Palladius, de Vita S. Joannis, 12.
Chapter V.--John draws down upon Himself the Displeasure of Many
Persons of Rank and Power. Of the Eunuch Eutropius.
As long as John was in conflict with the clergy only, machinations
against him were utterly powerless; but when he proceeded to rebuke
many of those in public office also with immoderate vehemence, the
tide of unpopularity began to set against him with far greater
impetus. Hence many stories were told to his disparagement. And most
of these found attentive and believing listeners. This growing
prejudice was not a little increased by an oration which he pronounced
at that time against Eutropius. For Eutropius was the chief eunuch of
the imperial bed-chamber, and the first of all eunuchs that was
admitted to the dignity of consul. He, desiring to inflict vengeance
on certain persons who had taken refuge in the churches, induced the
emperors to make a law [841] excluding delinquents from the privilege
of sanctuary, and authorizing the seizure of those who had sought the
shelter of the sacred edifices. But its author was punished for this
almost immediately; for scarcely had the law been promulgated, before
Eutropius himself, having incurred the displeasure of the emperor,
fled for protection to the church. [842] The bishop therefore, while
Eutropius trembling with fear lay under the table of the altar,
mounting the pulpit [843] from which he was accustomed to address the
people in order to be the more distinctly heard, uttered an invective
against him: wherefore he seemed to create greater displeasure in
some, as he not only denied compassion to the unfortunate, but added
insult to cruelty. By the emperor's order however, for certain
offences committed by him, Eutropius, though bearing the consulate,
was decapitated, and his name effaced from the list of consuls, that
of Theodore his colleague being alone suffered to remain as in office
for that year. [844] It is said that John afterwards used the same
license towards Gaïnas also, who was then commander-in-chief of the
army; treating him with characteristic rudeness, because he had
presumed to request the emperor to assign the Arians, with whom he
agreed in sentiment, one of the churches within the city. Many others
also of the higher orders, for a variety of causes, he censured with
the same unceremonious freedom, so that by these means he created many
powerful adversaries. Wherefore Theophilus bishop of Alexandria,
immediately after his ordination, was plotting his overthrow; and
concerted measures for this purpose in secret, both with the friends
who were around him, and by letter with such as were at a distance.
For it was not so much the boldness with which John lashed whatever
was obnoxious to him, that affected Theophilus, as his own failure to
place his favorite presbyter Isidore in the episcopal chair of
Constantinople. In such a state were the affairs of John the bishop at
that time; mischief thus threatened him at the very commencement of
his episcopate. But we shall enter into these things more at large as
we proceed.
Footnotes
[841] Sozomen (VIII. 7) says that this law was rescinded very soon
afterwards.
[842] See also Chrysostom, Orat. in Eutropium, 1. 3 (Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IX. p. 251). From these statements it
appears that Zosimus is in error when he says (V. 18) that Eutropius
was seized in violation of the law of sanctuary and taken out of the
church. Chrysostom assigns his seizure to a time when he had left the
church for some purpose or other.
[843] ambon, high reading-desk from which the Scriptures were recited,
situated toward the middle of the church and distinguished from the
altar, where the main service of worship was chanted. Bishops were
accustomed to preach from the steps of the altar (cf. Bingham Christ.
Antiq. VIII. 4. 5); but Chrysostom, on account of his little stature,
as some say, used the `ambôn' as a pulpit.
[844] 399 a.d.
Chapter VI.--Gaïnas the Goth attempts to usurp the Sovereign Power;
after filling Constantinople with Disorder, he is slain.
I shall now narrate some memorable circumstances that occurred at that
period, in which it will be seen how Divine Providence interposed by
extraordinary agencies for the preservation of the city and Roman
empire from the utmost peril. Gaïnas was a barbarian by extraction but
after becoming a Roman subject, and having engaged in military
service, and risen by degrees from one rank to another, he was at
length appointed general-in-chief both of the Roman horse and foot.
When he had obtained this lofty position, he forgot his position and
relations, and was unable to restrain himself and on the other hand
according to the common saying `left no stone unturned' in order to
gain control of the Roman government. To accomplish this he sent for
the Goths out of their own country, and gave the principal commissions
in the army to his relations. Then when Tribigildus, one of his
kinsmen who had the command of the forces in Phrygia, had at the
instigation of Gaïnas broken out into open revolt, and was filling the
people of Phrygia with confusion and dismay, he managed to have
deputed to him the oversight of matters in the disturbed province. Now
the Emperor Arcadius not suspecting [any harm] committed the charge of
these affairs to him. Gaïnas therefore immediately set out at the head
of an immense number of the barbarous Goths, apparently on an
expedition against Tribigildus, but with the real intention of
establishing his own unjust domination. On reaching Phrygia he began
to subvert everything. Consequently the affairs of the Romans were
immediately thrown into great consternation, not only on account of
the vast barbarian force which Gaïnas had at his command, but also
because the most fertile and opulent regions of the East were
threatened with desolation. In this emergency the emperor, acting with
much prudence, sought to arrest the course of the barbarian by
address: he accordingly sent him an embassy with instructions to
appease him for the present by every kind of concession. Gaïnas having
demanded that Saturninus and Aurelian, two of the most distinguished
of the senatorial order, and men of consular dignity, whom he knew to
be unfavorable to his pretensions, should be delivered up to him, the
emperor most unwillingly yielded to the exigency of the crisis; and
these two persons, prepared to die for the public good, nobly
submitted themselves to the emperor's disposal. They therefore
proceeded to meet the barbarian, at a place used for horse-racing some
distance from Chalcedon, being resolved to endure whatever he might be
disposed to inflict; but however they suffered no harm. The usurper
simulating dissatisfaction, advanced to Chalcedon, whither the emperor
Arcadius also went to meet him. Both then entered the church where the
body of the martyr Euphemia is deposited, and there entered into a
mutual pledge on oath that neither would plot against the other. The
emperor indeed kept his engagement, having a religious regard to an
oath, and being on that account beloved of God. But Gaïnas soon
violated it, and did not swerve from his original purpose; on the
contrary he was intent on carnage, plunder, and conflagration, not
only against Constantinople, but also against the whole extent of the
Roman empire, if he could by any means carry it into effect. The city
was accordingly quite inundated by the barbarians, and its residents
were reduced to a condition equivalent to that of captives. Moreover
so great was the danger of the city that a comet of prodigious
magnitude, reaching from heaven even to the earth, such as was never
before seen, gave forewarning of it. [845] Gaïnas first most
shamelessly attempted to make a seizure of the silver publicly exposed
for sale in the shops: but when the proprietors, advised beforehand by
report of his intention, abstained from exposing it on their counters,
his thoughts were diverted to another object, which was to send an
immense body of barbarians at night for the purpose of burning down
the palace. Then indeed it appeared distinctly that God had
providential care over the city: for a multitude of angels appeared to
the rebels, in the form of armed men of gigantic stature, before whom
the barbarians, imagining them to be a large army of brave troops,
turned away with terror and departed. When this was reported to
Gaïnas, it seemed to him quite incredible--for he knew that the
greatest part of the Roman army was at a distance, dispersed as a
garrison over the Eastern cities--and he sent others on the following
night and repeatedly afterwards. Now as they constantly returned with
the same statement--for the angels of God always presented themselves
in the same form--he came with a great multitude, and at length became
himself a spectator of the prodigy. Then supposing that what he saw
was really a body of soldiers, and that they concealed themselves by
day, and baffled his designs by night, he desisted from his attempt,
and took another resolution which he conceived would be detrimental to
the Romans; but the event proved it to be greatly to their advantage.
Pretending to be under demoniacal possession, he went forth as if for
prayer to the church of St. John the Apostle, which is seven miles
distant from the city. Together with him went barbarians who carried
out arms, having concealed them in casks and other specious coverings.
And when the soldiers who guarded the city gates detected these, and
would not suffer them to pass, the barbarians drew their swords and
put them to death. A fearful tumult thence arose in the city, and
death seemed to threaten every one; nevertheless the city continued
secure at that time, its gates being every where well defended. The
emperor with timely wisdom proclaimed Gaïnas a public enemy, and
ordered that all the barbarians who remained shut up in the city
should be slain. Thus one day after the guards of the gates had been
killed, the Romans attacked the barbarians within the walls near the
church of the Goths--for thither such of them as had been left in the
city had betaken themselves--and after destroying a great number of
them they set the church on fire, and burnt it to the ground. Gaïnas
being informed of the slaughter of those of his party who did not
manage to get out of the city, and perceiving the failure of all his
artifices, left St. John's church, and advanced rapidly towards
Thrace. On reaching the Chersonnese he endeavored to pass over from
thence and take Lampsacus, in order that from that place he might make
himself master of the Eastern parts. As the emperor had immediately
dispatched forces in pursuit both by land and by sea, another
wonderful interposition of Divine Providence occurred. For while the
barbarians, destitute of ships, hastily put together rafts and were
attempting to cross on them, suddenly the Roman fleet appeared, and
the west wind began to blow hard. This afforded an easy passage to the
Romans; but the barbarians with their horses, tossed up and down in
their frail barks by the violence of the gale, were at length
overwhelmed by the waves; many of them also were destroyed by the
Romans. In this manner during the passage a vast number of the
barbarians perished; but Gaïnas departing thence fled into Thrace,
where he fell in with another body of the Roman forces and was slain
by them together with the barbarians that attended him. [846] Let this
cursory notice of Gaïnas suffice here.
Those who may desire more minute details of the circumstances of that
war, should read The Gaïnea of Eusebius Scholasticus, [847] who was at
that time a pupil of Troïlus the sophist; and having been a spectator
of the war, related the events of it in an heroic poem consisting of
four books; and inasmuch as the events alluded to had but recently
taken place, he acquired for himself great celebrity. The poet
Ammonius has also very lately composed another description in verse of
the same transactions, which he recited before the emperor in the
sixteenth consulate [848] of Theodosius the younger, which he bore
with Faustus.
This war was terminated under the consulate of Stilicho and Aurelian.
[849] The year following, [850] the consulate was celebrated by
Fravitus also a Goth by extraction, who was honored by the Romans, and
showed great fidelity and attachment to them, rendering important
services in this very war. For this reason he attained to the dignity
of consul. In that year on the tenth of April there was born a son to
the Emperor Arcadius, the good Theodosius.
But while the affairs of the state were thus troubled, the dignitaries
of the Church refrained not in the least from their disgraceful cabals
against each other, to the great reproach of the Christian religion;
for during this time the ecclesiastics incited tumults against each
other. The source of the mischief originated in Egypt in the following
manner.
Footnotes
[845] Cf. Vergil, Georg. I. 488, `Nec diri toties arsere cometæ'; and
Am. X. 272-274.
[846] Cf. an account of Gaïnas and his rebellion in Zosimus, V. 18-22.
[847] On the surname of `Scholasticus,' see Introd. p. ix. note 20,
also Macar. Homil. 15, §24. On Eusebius Scholasticus, see Smith and
Wace, Eusebius (134) Scholasticus.
[848] 438 a.d.
[849] 400 a.d.
[850] 401 a.d.
Chapter VII.--Dissension between Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria and
the Monks of the Desert. Condemnation of Origen's Books.
The question had been started a little before, [851] whether God is a
corporeal existence, and has the form of man; or whether he is
incorporeal, and without human or, generally speaking, any other
bodily shape? From this question arose strifes and contentions among a
very great number of persons, some favoring one opinion on the
subject, and others patronizing the opposite. Very many of the more
simple ascetics asserted that God is corporeal, and has a human
figure: but most others condemn their judgment, and contended that God
is incorporeal, and free of all form whatever. With these latter
Theophilus bishop of Alexandria agreed so thoroughly that in the
church before all the people he inveighed against those who attributed
to God a human form, expressly teaching that the Divine Being is
wholly incorporeal. When the Egyptian ascetics were apprised of this,
they left their monasteries and came to Alexandria; where they excited
a tumult against the bishop, accusing him of impiety, and threatening
to put him to death. Theophilus becoming aware of his danger, after
some consideration had recourse to this expedient to extricate himself
from the threatened death. Going to the monks, he in a conciliatory
tone thus addressed them: `In seeing you, I behold the face of God.'
The utterance of this saying moderated the fury of these men and they
replied: `If you really admit that God's countenance is such as ours,
anathematize Origen's book; [852] for some drawing arguments from them
oppose themselves to our opinion. If you will not do this, expect to
be treated by us as an impious person, and the enemy of God.' `But as
far as I am concerned,' said Theophilus, `I will readily do what you
require: and be ye not angry with me, for I myself also disapprove of
Origen's works, and consider those who countenance them deserving of
censure.' Thus he succeeded in appeasing and sending away the monks at
that time; and probably the whole dispute respecting this subject
would have been set at rest, had it not been for another circumstance
which happened immediately after. Over the monasteries in Egypt there
were four devout persons as superintendents named Dioscorus, Ammonius,
Eusebius, and Euthymius: these men were brothers, and had the
appellation of `the Tall Monks' given them on account of their
stature. They were moreover distinguished both for the sanctity of
their lives, and the extent of their erudition, and for these reasons
their reputation was very high at Alexandria. Theophilus in
particular, the prelate of that city, loved and honored them
exceedingly: insomuch that he constituted one of them, Dioscorus,
bishop of Hermopolis [853] against his will, having forcibly drawn him
from his retreat. Two of the others he entreated to continue with him,
and with difficulty prevailed upon them to do so; still by the
exercise of his authority as bishop he accomplished his purpose: when
therefore he had invested them with the clerical office, he committed
to their charge the management of ecclesiastical affairs. They,
constrained by necessity, performed the duties thus imposed on them
successfully; nevertheless they were dissatisfied because they were
unable to follow philosophical pursuits and ascetic exercises. And as
in process of time, they thought they were being spiritually injured,
observing the bishop to be devoted to gain, and greedily intent on the
acquisition of wealth, and according to the common saying `leaving no
stone unturned' for the sake of gain, they refused to remain with him
any longer, declaring that they loved solitude, and greatly preferred
it to living in the city. As long as he was ignorant of the true
motive for their departure, he earnestly begged them to abide with
him; but when he perceived that they were dissatisfied with his
conduct, he became excessively irritated, and threatened to do them
all kinds of mischief. But they making little account of his menaces
retired into the desert; upon which Theophilus, who was evidently of a
hasty and malignant temperament, raised not a small clamor against
them, and by every contrivance earnestly sought to do them injury. He
also conceived a dislike against their brother Dioscorus, bishop of
Hermopolis. He was moreover extremely annoyed at the esteem and
veneration in which he was held by the ascetics. Being aware, however,
that he would be able to do no harm to these persons unless he could
stir up hostility in the minds of the monks against them, he used this
artifice to effect it. He well knew that these men in their frequent
theological discussions with him, had maintained that the Deity was
incorporeal, and by no means had a human form; because [they argued]
such a constitution would involve the necessary accompaniment of human
passions. Now this has been demonstrated by the ancient writers and
especially Origen. Theophilus, however though entertaining the very
same opinion respecting the Divine nature, yet to gratify his
vindictive feelings, did not hesitate to pervert what he and they had
rightly taught: but imposed upon the majority of the monks, men who
were sincere but `rude in speech,' [854] the greater part of whom were
quite illiterate. Sending letters to the monasteries in the desert, he
advised them not to give heed either to Dioscorus or to his brothers,
inasmuch as they affirmed that God had not a body. `Whereas,' said he,
`according to the sacred Scripture God has eyes, ears, hands, and
feet, as men have; but the partisans of Dioscorus, being followers of
Origen, introduce the blasphemous dogma that God has neither eyes,
ears, feet, nor hands.' By this sophism he took advantage of the
simplicity of these monks and thus a hot dissension was stirred up
among them. Such as had a cultivated mind indeed were not beguiled by
this plausibility, and therefore still adhere to Dioscorus and Origen;
but the more ignorant who greatly exceeded the others in number,
inflamed by an ardent zeal without knowledge, immediately raised an
outcry against their brethren. A division being thus made, both
parties branded each other as impious; and some listening to
Theophilus called their brethren `Origenists,' and `impious' and the
others termed those who were convinced by Theophilus
`Anthropomorphitæ.' On this account violent altercation arose, and an
inextinguishable war between the monks. Theophilus on receiving
intimation of the success of his device, went to Nitria where the
monasteries are, accompanied by a multitude of persons, and armed the
monks against Dioscorus and his brethren; who being in danger of
losing their lives, made their escape with great difficulty.
While these things were in progress in Egypt John bishop of
Constantinople was ignorant of them, but flourished in eloquence and
became increasingly celebrated for his discourses. Moreover he first
enlarged the prayers contained in the nocturnal hymns, for the reason
I am about to assign.
Footnotes
[851] By Audius or Audæus, the founder of the Audian heresy. Cf.
Epiphan. Hær. LXX.; Walch, Histor. der Ketzereien, Vol. III. p. 300;
also Iselin, Audios und die Audianer, in Jahrbücher für Protestant.
Theologie, April, 1890; p. 298 seq.
[852] On the dispute concerning Origen's views, see below, chap. 13.
[853] There were two cities named Hermopolis in Egypt; the most
important of these in the Thebaid was known as Hermopolis proper,
whereas the other (the one here alluded to) was situated in lower
Egypt and designated Hermopolis parva.
[854] 2 Cor. xi. 6.
Chapter VIII.--The Arians and the Supporters of the `Homoousion' hold
Nocturnal Assemblies and sing Antiphonal Hymns, a Species of
Composition ascribed to Ignatius, surnamed Theophorus. [855] Conflict
between the Two Parties.
The Arians, as we have said, held their meetings without the city. As
often therefore as the festal days occurred--I mean Saturday [856] and
Lord's day--in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the
churches, they congregated within the city gates about the public
squares, and sang responsive verses adapted to the Arian heresy. This
they did during the greater part of the night: and again in the
morning, chanting the same songs which they called responsive, they
paraded through the midst of the city, and so passed out of the gates
to go to their places of assembly. But since they did not desist from
making use of insulting expressions in relation to the Homoousians,
often singing such words as these: `Where are they that say three
things are but one power?'--John fearing lest any of the more simple
should be drawn away from the church by such kind of hymns, opposed to
them some of his own people, that they also employing themselves in
chanting nocturnal hymns, might obscure the effort of the Arians, and
confirm his own party in the profession of their faith. John's design
indeed seemed to be good, but it issued in tumult and dangers. For as
the Homoousians performed their nocturnal hymns with greater
display,--for there were invented by John silver crosses for them on
which lighted wax-tapers were carried, provided at the expense of the
empress Eudoxia,--the Arians who were very numerous, and fired with
envy, resolved to revenge themselves by a desperate and riotous attack
upon their rivals. For from the remembrance of their own recent
domination, they were full of confidence in their ability to overcome,
and of contempt for their adversaries. Without delay therefore, on one
of these nights, they engaged in a conflict; and Briso, one of the
eunuchs of the empress, who was at that time leading the chanters of
these hymns, was wounded by a stone in the forehead, and also some of
the people on both sides were killed. Whereupon the emperor being
angered, forbade the Arians to chant their hymns any more in public.
Such were the events of this occasion.
We must now however make some allusion to the origin of this custom in
the church of responsive singing. Ignatius [857] third bishop of
Antioch in Syria from the apostle Peter, who also had held intercourse
with the apostles themselves, saw a vision of angels hymning in
alternate chants the Holy Trinity. Accordingly he introduced the mode
of singing he had observed in the vision into the Antiochian church;
whence it was transmitted by tradition to all the other churches. Such
is the account [we have received] in relation to these responsive
hymns.
Footnotes
[855] Theophoros = `borne by God,' used in the sense of being
`possessed by a god,' `inspired,' by Æsch. Agam. 1150; but here `borne
in the arms of God' or `carried by God,' and applied to Ignatius
because tradition made him the very child whom the Saviour `took up in
his arms,' and set in the midst of his disciples. Cf. Mark ix. 36; to
be distinguished therefore from Theophoros, `bearing' or `carrying a
god.'
[856] The ancient Christians observed the Lord's day as the greatest
day of the week, and also in the second place the Jewish Sabbath or
Saturday. See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. XX. 2, on the Lord's day, and 3,
on the Sabbath.
[857] There has been some difference of opinion as to whether Socrates
is correct in here ascribing the institution of responsive chants to
Ignatius. Valesius doubts Socrates' accuracy, but other authorities
are inclined to the view that Ignatius did introduce these chants, and
Flavian and Diodorus, during the reign of Constantine, to whom
Valesius ascribes their origin, simply developed them. Cf. Bingham,
Christ. Antiq. XIV. 1.
Chapter IX.--Dispute between Theophilus and Peter leading to an
Attempt on the Part of the Former to depose John Bishop of
Constantinople.
Not long after this, the monks of the desert, together with Dioscorus
and his brothers, came to Constantinople. There was also with them
Isidore, [858] formerly the most intimate friend of the bishop
Theophilus, but then become his bitterest enemy, on account of the
following circumstance: A certain man named Peter was at that time the
archpresbyter [859] of the Alexandrian church; Theophilus being
irritated against this person, determined to eject him from the
church; and as the ground of expulsion, he brought the charge against
him of having admitted to a participation of the sacred mysteries, a
woman of the Manichæan sect, without first compelling her to renounce
her Manichæan heresy. As Peter in his defence declared, that not only
had the errors of this woman been previously abjured, but that
Theophilus himself had sanctioned her admission to the eucharist,
Theophilus became indignant, as if he had been grievously calumniated;
whereupon he affirmed that he was altogether unacquainted with the
circumstance. Peter therefore summoned Isidore to bear witness to the
bishop's knowledge of the facts concerning the woman. Now Isidore
happened to be then at Rome, on a mission from Theophilus to Damasus
the prelate of the imperial city, for the purpose of affecting a
reconciliation between him and Flavian bishop of Antioch; for the
adherents of Meletius had separated from Flavian in detestation of his
perjury, as we have already observed. [860] When Isidore had returned
from Rome, and was cited as a witness by Peter, he deposed that the
woman was received by consent of the bishop; and that he himself had
administered the sacrament to her. Upon this Theophilus became enraged
and in anger ejected them both. This furnished the reason for
Isidore's going to Constantinople with Dioscorus and his brethren, in
order to submit to the cognizance of the emperor, and John the bishop,
the injustice and violence with which Theophilus had treated them.
John, on being informed of the facts, gave the men an honorable
reception, and did not exclude them from communion at prayers, but
postponed their communion of the sacred mysteries, until their affairs
should be examined into. Whilst matters were in this posture, a false
report was brought to Theophilus' ears, that John had both admitted
them to a participation of the mysteries, and was also ready to give
them assistance; wherefore he resolved not only to be revenged on
Isidore and Dioscorus, but also if possible to cast John out of his
episcopal chair. With this design he wrote to all the bishops of the
various cities, and concealing his real motive, ostensibly condemned
therein the books of Origen merely: which Athanasius, [861] his
predecessor, had used in confirmation of his own faith, frequently
appealing to the testimony and authority of Origen's writings, in his
orations against the Arians.
Footnotes
[858] For an account of Theophilus' outrageous treatment of Isidore,
see Palladius, Vita S. Joannis Chrysost. chap. 6.
[859] See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. II. 19-18, for a statement of the
functions of this office.
[860] See above, V. 15.
[861] Cf. Athan. de Decr. Nic. 27.
Chapter X.--Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus convenes a Synod to condemn
the Books of Origen.
He moreover renewed his friendship with Epiphanius [862] bishop of
Constantia in Cyprus, with whom he had formerly been at variance. For
Theophilus accused Epiphanius of entertaining low thoughts of God, by
supposing him to have a human form. [863] Now although Theophilus was
really unchanged in sentiment, and had denounced those who thought
that the divinity was human in form, yet on account of his hatred of
others, he openly denied his own convictions; and he now professed to
be friendly with Epiphanius, as if he had altered his mind and agreed
with him in his views of God. He then managed it so that Epiphanius by
letter should convene a Synod of the bishops in Cyprus, in order to
condemn the writings of Origen. Epiphanius being on account of his
extraordinary piety a man of simple mind and manners was easily
influenced by the letters of Theophilus: having therefore assembled a
council of bishops in that island, he caused a prohibition to be
therein made of the reading of Origen's works. He also wrote to John,
exhorting him to abstain from the study of Origen's books, and to
convoke a Synod for decreeing the same thing as he had done.
Accordingly when Theophilus had in this way deluded Epiphanius, who
was famous for his piety, seeing his design prosper according to his
wish, he became more confident, and himself also assembled a great
number of bishops. In that convention, pursuing the same course as
Epiphanius, he caused a like sentence of condemnation to be pronounced
on the writings of Origen, who had been dead nearly two hundred years:
not having this as his first object, but rather his purpose of revenge
on Dioscorus and his brethren. John paying but little attention to the
communications of Epiphanius and Theophilus, was intent on instructing
the churches; and he flourished more and more as a preacher, but made
no account of the plots which were laid against him. As soon, however,
as it became apparent to every body that Theophilus was endeavoring to
divest John of his bishopric, then all those who had any ill-will
against John, combined in calumniating him. And thus many of the
clergy, and many of those in office, and of those who had great
influence at the court, believing that they had found an opportunity
now of avenging themselves upon John, exerted themselves to procure
the convocation of a Grand Synod at Constantinople, partly by sending
letters and partly by dispatching messengers in all directions for
that purpose.
Footnotes
[862] There were thirty-five bishops, besides several presbyters and
laymen of some distinction in the ancient church, who bore the name of
Epiphanius. The bishop here mentioned is the most illustrious of them
all, being the author of the well-known treatise de Hæres. His
see--that of Constantia in Cyprus--was the old `Salamis' of Acts xiii.
5.
[863] It seems strange that Epiphanius should be classed with the
Anthropomorphitæ as Epiphanius himself repudiates their views
according to the testimony of Jerome. Cf. Jerome, ad Pammachium, 2 et
seq. Socrates must have been imposed upon by some Origenist, as the
Origenists were accustomed to call all who condemned their views
Anthropomorphitæ. Cf. above, chap. 7.
Chapter XI.--Of Severian and Antiochus: their Disagreement from John.
The odium against John Chrysostom was considerably increased by
another additional event as follows: two bishops flourished at that
time, Syrians by birth, named Severian and Antiochus; Severian
presided over the church at Gabala, a city of Syria, and Antiochus
over that of Ptolemaïs in Phoenicia. They were both renowned for their
eloquence; but although Severian was a very learned man, he did not
succeed in using the Greek language perfectly; and so while speaking
Greek he betrayed his Syrian origin. Antiochus came first to
Constantinople, and having preached in the churches for some time with
great zeal and ability, and having thus amassed a large sum of money,
[864] he returned to his own church. Severian hearing that Antiochus
had collected a fortune by his visit to Constantinople, determined to
follow his example. He therefore exercised himself for the occasion,
and having composed a number of sermons, set out for Constantinople.
Being most kindly received by John, to a certain point, he soothed and
flattered the man, and was himself no less beloved and honored by him:
meanwhile his discourses gained him great celebrity, so that he
attracted the notice of many persons of rank, and even of the emperor
himself. And as it happened at that time that the bishop of Ephesus
died, John was obliged to go to Ephesus for the purpose of ordaining a
successor. On his arrival at that city, as the people were divided in
their choice, some proposing one person, and some another, John
perceiving that both parties were in a contentious mood, and that they
did not wish to adopt his counsel, he resolved without much ado to end
their dispute by preferring to the bishopric a certain Heraclides, a
deacon of his own, and a Cypriot by descent. And thus both parties
desisting from their strife with each other had peace. [865] Now as
this detention [at Ephesus] was lengthened, Severian continued to
preach at Constantinople, and daily grew in favor with his hearers. Of
this John was not left ignorant, for he was promptly made acquainted
with whatever occurred, Serapion, of whom we have before spoken, [866]
communicating the news to him and asserting that the church was being
troubled by Severian; thus the bishop was aroused to a feeling of
jealousy. Having therefore among other matters deprived many of the
Novatians and Quartodecimans of their churches, he returned to
Constantinople. [867] Here he resumed himself the care of the churches
under his own especial jurisdiction. But Serapion's arrogance no one
could bear; for thus having won John's unbounded confidence and
regard, he was so puffed up by it that he treated every one with
contempt. And on this account also animosity was inflamed the more
against the bishop. On one occasion when Severian passed by him,
Serapion neglected to pay him the homage due to a bishop, but
continued seated [instead of rising], indicating plainly how little he
cared for his presence. Severian, unable to endure patiently this
[supposed] rudeness and contempt, said with a loud voice to those
present, `If Serapion should die a Christian, Christ has not become
incarnate.' Serapion, taking occasion from this remark, publicly
incited Chrysostom to enmity against Severian: for suppressing the
conditional clause of the sentence, `If Serapion die a Christian,' and
saying that he had made the assertion that `Christ has not become
incarnate,' he brought several witnesses of his own party to sustain
this charge. But on being informed of this the Empress Eudoxia
severely reprimanded John, and ordered that Severian should be
immediately recalled from Chalcedon in Bithynia. He returned
forthwith; but John would hold no intercourse whatever with him, nor
did he listen to any one urging him to do so, until at length the
Empress Eudoxia herself, in the church called The Apostles, placed her
son Theodosius, who now so happily reigns, but was then quite an
infant, before John's knees, and adjuring [868] him repeatedly by the
young prince her son, with difficulty prevailed upon him to be
reconciled to Severian. In this manner then these men were outwardly
reconciled; but they nevertheless continued cherishing a rancorous
feeling toward each other. Such was the origin of the animosity [of
John] against Severian.
Footnotes
[864] The offerings of the congregations seem to have been divided
usually among the officiating clergymen. Cf. Bingham, Christ. Antiq.
V. 4. 1.
[865] In another version of this eleventh Chapter of the sixth book,
appended at the end of the sixth book in the Greek text of Bright,
instead of the sentence beginning `And thus both parties,' &c. is
found the following more consistent statement: `Inasmuch, however, as
on this account a tumult arose at Ephesus, on the ground that
Heraclides was not worthy of the bishopric, it became necessary for
John to remain in Ephesus for a long time.'
[866] The alternative version inserts here the following sentence:
`And who was very much beloved by John and had been intrusted with the
whole care of the episcopal administration, on account of his piety
and faithfulness and watchfulness in respect to details of every sort,
and diligence in matters pertaining to the interests of the bishop.'
[867] From this point to within one or two sentences of the end of the
Chapter the parallel version is so different at times that it will be
well to insert it entire here for the purpose of comparison. It runs
thus: `Not long afterward John came to Constantinople and assumed
himself the churches which belonged to his jurisdiction. But between
Serapion, the deacon, and Severian there had arisen a certain
coolness; Serapion was opposed to Severian because the latter seemed
desirous of excelling John in public speaking, and Severian was
jealous of Serapion because the bishop John favored him, and the care
of the bishopric had been intrusted to him. They being thus disposed
toward one another, it happened that the evil of hatred was increased
from the following cause. As Severian was passing by on one occasion
Serapion did not render him the homage due to a bishop, but he
continued sitting; whether because he had not noticed him, as he
afterwards affirmed upon oath before a council, or because he cared
little for him, being himself the vicegerent of a bishop, as Severian
asserted, I am unable to say; God only knows. At the time, however,
Severian did not tolerate the contempt; but immediately, and in
anticipation of a public investigation before a council, he condemned
Serapion upon oath, and not only declared him deposed from the dignity
of the diaconate, but also put him out of the church. John upon
learning this was very much grieved. As the matter afterwards was
investigated by a council and Serapion defended himself declaring that
he had not perceived [the approach of the bishop], and summoned
witnesses to the fact, the common verdict of the assembled bishops was
in favor of acquitting him and urging Severian to accept the apology
of Serapion. The Bishop John, for his part, to satisfy Severian,
suspended Serapion from the diaconate for a week; although he used him
in all his affairs as his right hand, because he was very keen and
diligent in ecclesiastical disputation. Severian however was not
satisfied with these measures, but used all means to effect the
permanent deposition of Serapion from the diaconate and his
excommunication. John was extremely grieved at these words and arose
from the council, leaving the adjudication of the case to the bishops
present, saying to them, "Do you examine the matter in hand and render
judgment according to your own conclusions; as for me I resign my part
in the arbitration between them." These things having been said by
John as he arose, the council likewise arose and left the case, as it
stood, blaming Severian the more for not yielding to the request of
the Bishop John. After this John never received Severian into a
private interview; but advised him to return to his own country,
communicating to him the following message: "It is not expedient,
Severian," said he, "that the parish intrusted to you should remain
for so long without care and bereft of a bishop; wherefore hasten and
take charge of your churches, and do not neglect the gift which is in
you." As he now prepared for his journey and started, the Empress
Eudoxia, on being informed of the facts,' &c. From this point the
variations are few, verbal, and unimportant.
[868] The ancients often swore by their children, especially when they
wished to entreat others most earnestly. Cf. Vergil, Æneid, VI. 364,
`Per caput hoc juro, per spem surgentis Juli.' The form of abjuration
used by Eudoxia was probably this: `By this little child of mine, and
your spiritual son, whom I brought forth and whom you received out of
the sacred font, be reconciled to Severian.' Valesius, however, doubts
the reality of this affair.
Chapter XII.--Epiphanius, in order to gratify Theophilus, performs
Ordinations at Constantinople without John's Permission.
Not long after this, at the suggestion of Theophilus, the bishop
Epiphanius again came from Cyprus to Constantinople; he brought also
with him a copy of the synodical decree in which they did not
excommunicate Origen himself but condemned his books. On reaching St.
John's church, which is seven miles distant from the city, he
disembarked, and there celebrated a service; then after having
ordained a deacon, [869] he again entered the city. In complaisance to
Theophilus he declined John's courtesy, and engaged apartments in a
private house. He afterwards assembled those of the bishops who were
then in the capital, and producing his copy of the synodical decree
condemnatory of Origen's works, recited it before them; not being able
to assign any reason for this judgment, than that it seemed fit to
Theophilus and himself to reject them. Some indeed from a reverential
respect for Epiphanius subscribed the decree; but many refused to do
so among whom was Theotimus bishop of Scythia, who thus addressed
Epiphanius:--`I neither choose, Epiphanius,' said he, `to insult the
memory of one who ended his life piously long ago; nor dare I be
guilty of so impious an act, as that of condemning what our
predecessors did not reject: and especially when I know of no evil
doctrine contained in Origen's books.' Having said this, he brought
forward one of that author's works, and reading a few passages
therefrom, showed that the sentiments propounded were in perfect
accordance with the orthodox faith. He then added, `Those who speak
evil of these writings are unconsciously casting dishonor upon the
sacred volume whence their principles are drawn.' Such was the reply
which Theotimus, a bishop celebrated for his piety and rectitude of
life, made to Epiphanius.
Footnotes
[869] It was contrary to the canons of the church for a bishop to
ordain a presbyter or a deacon in another's diocese. Cf. Apostol. Can.
35. `Let not a bishop dare to ordain beyond his own limits in cities
and places not subject to him. But if he be convicted of doing so
without the consent of those persons who have authority over such
cities and places, let him be deposed, and those also whom he has
ordained.' Also Can. 16 of the Council of Nicæa; `If any one should
dare to steal, as it were, a person who belongs to another [bishop],
and to ordain him for his own church, without permission of the bishop
from whom he was withdrawn, the ordination shall be void.'
Chapter XIII.--The Author's Defence of Origen. [870]
But since carping detractors have imposed upon many persons and have
succeeded in deterring them from reading Origen, as though he were a
blasphemous writer, I deem it not unseasonable to make a few
observations respecting him. Worthless characters, and such as are
destitute of ability to attain eminence themselves, often seek to get
into notice by decrying those who excel them. And first Methodius,
bishop of a city in Lycia named Olympus, labored under this malady;
next Eustathius, who for a short time presided over the church at
Antioch; after him Apollinaris; and lastly Theophilus. This quaternion
of revilers has traduced Origen, but not on the same grounds, one
having found one cause of accusation against him, and another another;
and thus each has demonstrated that what he has taken no objection to,
he has fully accepted. For since one has attacked one opinion in
particular, and another has found fault with another, it is evident
that each has admitted as true what he has not assailed, giving a
tacit approbation to what he has not attacked. Methodius indeed, when
he had in various places railed against Origen, afterwards as if
retracting all he had previously said, expresses his admiration of the
man, in a dialogue which he entitled Xenon. [871] But I affirm that
from the censure of these men, greater commendation accrues to Origen.
For those who have sought out whatever they deemed worthy of
reprobation in him, and yet have never charged him with holding
unsound views respecting the holy Trinity, are in this way most
distinctly shown to bear witness to his orthodox piety: and by not
reproaching him on this point, they commend him by their own
testimony. But Athanasius the defender of the doctrine of
consubstantiality, in his Discourses against the Arians [872]
continually cites this author as a witness of his own faith,
interweaving his words with his own, and saying, `The most admirable
and assiduous Origen,' says he, `by his own testimony confirms our
doctrine concerning the Son of God, affirming him to be co-eternal
with the Father.' Those therefore who load Origen with opprobrium,
overlook the fact that their maledictions fall at the same time on
Athanasius, the eulogist of Origen. So much will be enough for the
vindication of Origen; we shall now return to the course of our
history.
Footnotes
[870] The views of Origen met with opposition from the very outset.
During his own lifetime he was condemned at Alexandria, and after his
death repeatedly until 541 a.d., and perhaps also by the fifth general
council held at Constantinople in 553. For a full account of the
Origenistic Controversy, see Smith and Wace, Dict. of Christ. Biog.
and Antiq., art. Origenistic Controversies.
[871] `The house of entertainment for strangers.' Methodius' works
were in the literary form of the dialogue. Cf. his Convivum decem
Virginum in Migne's Patrologia Græca, Vol. XVIII.
[872] Athan. de Decr. Nic. 27.
Chapter XIV.--Epiphanius is asked to meet John; on refusing he is
admonished concerning his Anticanonical Proceedings; alarmed at this
he leaves Constantinople.
John was not offended because Epiphanius, contrary to the
ecclesiastical canon, had made an ordination in his church; [873] but
invited him to remain with him at the episcopal palace. He, however,
replied that he would neither stay nor pray with him, unless he would
expel Dioscorus and his brethren from the city, and with his own hand
subscribe the condemnation of Origen's books. Now as John deferred the
performance of these things, saying that nothing ought to be done
rashly before investigation by a general council, John's adversaries
led Epiphanius to adopt another course. For they contrived it so that
as a meeting was in the church named The Apostles, Epiphanius came
forth and before all the people condemned the books of Origen,
excommunicated Dioscorus with his followers, and charged John with
countenancing them. These things were reported to John; whereupon on
the following day he sent the appended message to Epiphanius just as
he entered the church:
`You do many things contrary to the canons, Epiphanius. In the first
place you have made an ordination in the churches under my
jurisdiction: then without my appointment, you have on your own
authority officiated in them. Moreover, when heretofore I invited you
hither, you refused to come, and now you take that liberty yourself.
Beware therefore, lest a tumult being excited among the people, you
yourself should also incur danger therefrom.'
Epiphanius becoming alarmed on hearing these admonitions, left the
church; and after accusing John of many things, he set out on his
return to Cyprus. Some say that when he was about to depart, he said
to John, `I hope that you will not die a bishop': to which John
replied, `Expect not to arrive at your own country.' I cannot be sure
that those who reported these things to me spoke the truth; but
nevertheless the event was in the case of both as prophesied above.
For Epiphanius did not reach Cyprus, having died on board the ship
during his voyage; and John a short time afterwards was driven from
his see, as we shall show in proceeding.
Footnotes
[873] See above, chap. 12 and note 1.
Chapter XV.--John is expelled from his Church by a Synod held at
Chalcedon on account of his Dispraise of Women.
When Epiphanius was gone, John was informed by some person that the
Empress Eudoxia had stimulated Epiphanius against him. And being of a
fiery temperament, and of a ready utterance, he soon after pronounced
a public invective against women in general. The people readily took
this as uttered indirectly against the empress and so the speech was
laid hold of by evil-disposed persons, and reported to those in
authority. At length on being informed of it the empress immediately
complained to her husband, telling him that the insult offered to
herself was equally an insult against him. The emperor therefore
authorized Theophilus to convoke a Synod without delay against John;
Severian also co-operated in promoting this, for he still retained his
grudge against Chrysostom. Not long time accordingly intervened before
Theophilus arrived, having induced several bishops from different
cities to accompany him; these however had been summoned by the
emperor's orders also. Many of the bishops in Asia John had deposed
when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. Accordingly they all
by previous agreement assembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Cyrinus was
at that time bishop of Chalcedon, an Egyptian by birth, who said many
things to the bishops in disparagement of John, denouncing him as `the
impious,' `the haughty,' `the inexorable.' They indeed were very much
satisfied at these denunciations. But Maruthas bishop of Mesopotamia
having involuntarily trod on Cyrinus' foot, he was severely hurt by it
and was unable to embark with the rest for Constantinople, but
remained behind at Chalcedon. The rest crossed over. Now Theophilus
had so openly avowed his hostility to John, that none of the clergy
would go forth to meet him, or pay him the least honor; but some
Alexandrian sailors happening to be on the spot--for at that time the
grain transporting vessels were there--greeted him with joyful
acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took up
his abode at one of the imperial mansions called `The Placidian.' Then
on this account a torrent of accusations began to be poured forth
against John; for no mention was now made of Origen, but all were
intent on urging a variety of criminations, many of which were
ridiculous. Preliminary matters being thus settled, the bishops were
convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, a place called `The Oak,'
[874] and immediately cited John to answer the charges which were
brought against him. He also summoned Serapion the deacon; Tigris the
eunuch presbyter, and Paul the reader, were likewise summoned to
appear there with him, for these men were included in the
impeachments, as participators in his guilt. And since John taking
exception to those who had cited him, on the ground of their being his
enemies, refused to attend, [875] and demanded a general council,
without delay they repeated their citation four times in succession;
and as he persisted in his refusal to meet them as his judges, always
giving the same answer, they condemned him, and deposed him without
assigning any other cause for his deposition but that he refused to
obey the summons. This decision on being announced towards evening,
incited the people to a most alarming sedition; insomuch that they
kept watch all night, and would by no means suffer him to be removed
from the church, but cried out that his cause ought to be determined
in a larger assembly. A decree of the emperor, however, commanded that
he should be immediately expelled, and sent into exile; which as soon
as John was apprised of, he voluntarily surrendered himself about noon
unknown to the populace, on the third day after his condemnation: for
he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account, and was
accordingly led away.
Footnotes
[874] Hence this is called the Synod at `the Oak' (Synodus ad
Quercum). See Hefele, History of the Church Councils, Vol. II. p. 430.
[875] For a similar action of Athanasius based on the same reason, see
I. 31.
Chapter XVI.--Sedition on Account of John Chrysostom's Banishment. He
is recalled.
The people then became intolerably tumultuous; and as it frequently
happens in such cases, many who before were adversely disposed against
him, now changed their hostility into compassion, and said of him whom
they had so recently desired to see deposed, that he had been
traduced. By this means therefore they became very numerous who
exclaimed against both the emperor and the Synod of bishops; but the
origin of the intrigue they more particularly referred to Theophilus.
For his fraudulent conduct could no longer be concealed, being exposed
by many other indications, and especially by the fact of his having
held communion with Dioscorus, and those termed `the Tall Monks,'
[876] immediately after John's deposition. But Severian preaching in
the church, and thinking it a suitable occasion to declaim against
John, said: `If John had been condemned for nothing else, yet the
haughtiness of his demeanor was a crime sufficient to justify his
deposition. Men indeed are forgiven all other sins: but "God resisteth
the proud," [877] as the Divine Scriptures teach us.' These reproaches
made the people still more inclined to opposition; so that the emperor
gave orders for his immediate recall. Accordingly Briso a eunuch in
the service of the empress [878] was sent after him, who finding him
at Prænetum--a commercial town situated over against
Nicomedia--brought him back toward Constantinople. And as he had been
recalled, John refused to enter the city, declaring he would not do so
until his innocence had been admitted by a higher tribunal. Thus he
remained at a suburb called Marianæ. Now as he delayed at that place
the commotion increased, and caused the people to break forth into
very indignant and opprobrious language against their rulers,
wherefore to check their fury John was constrained to proceed. On his
way a vast multitude, with veneration and honor, conducted him
immediately to the church; there they entreated him to seat himself in
the episcopal chair, and give them his accustomed benediction. When he
sought to excuse himself, saying that `this ought to be brought about
by an order from his judges, and that those who condemned him must
first revoke their sentence,' they were only the more inflamed with
the desire of seeing him reinstated, and of hearing him address them
again. The people finally prevailed on him to resume his seat, and
pray as usual for peace upon them; after which, acting under the same
constraint, he preached to them. This compliance on John's part
afforded his adversaries another ground of crimination; but respecting
this they took no action at that time.
Footnotes
[876] See above, chap. 7.
[877] 1 Pet. v. 5; James iv. 6.
[878] Chap. 8.
Chapter XVII.--Conflict between the Constantinopolitans and
Alexandrians on Account of Heraclides; Flight of Theophilus and the
Bishops of his Party.
In the first place, then, Theophilus attempted to investigate the case
of the ordination of Heraclides, [879] that thereby he might if
possible find occasion of again deposing John. Heraclides was not
present at this scrutiny. He was nevertheless judged in his absence,
on the charge of having unjustly beaten some persons, and afterwards
dragged them in chains through the midst of the city of Ephesus. As
John and his adherents remonstrated against the injustice of passing
sentence upon an absent person, the Alexandrians contended that they
ought to hear the accusers of Heraclides, although he was not present.
A sharp contest therefore ensued between the Alexandrians and the
Constantinopolitans, and a riot arose whereby many persons were
wounded, and some were killed. Theophilus, seeing what was done, fled
to Alexandria without ceremony; and the other bishops, except the few
who supported John, followed his example, and returned to their
respective sees. After these transactions, Theophilus was degraded, in
every one's estimation: but the odium attached to him was exceedingly
increased by the shameless way in which he continued to read Origen's
works. And when he was asked why he thus countenanced what he had
publicly condemned, he replied, `Origen's books are like a meadow
enameled with flowers of every kind. If, therefore, I chance to find a
beautiful one among them, I cull it: but whatever appears to me to be
thorny, I step over, as that which would prick.' But Theophilus gave
this answer without reflecting on the saying of the wise Solomon,
[880] that `the words of the wise are as goads'; and those who are
pricked by the precepts they contain, ought not to kick against them.
For these reasons then Theophilus was held in contempt by all men.
Dioscorus bishop of Hermopolis, one of those termed `the Tall Monks,'
died a short time after the flight of Theophilus, and was honored with
a magnificent funeral, being interred in the church at `The Oak,'
where the Synod was convened on John's account. John meanwhile was
sedulously employed in preaching. He ordained Serapion bishop of
Heraclea in Thrace, on whose account the odium against himself had
been raised. Not long after the following events occurred.
Footnotes
[879] See above, chap. 11.
[880] Eccl. xii. 11.
Chapter XVIII.--Of Eudoxia's Silver Statue. On account of it John is
exiled a Second Time.
At this time a silver statue of the Empress Eudoxia covered with a
long robe was erected [881] upon a column of porphyry supported by a
lofty base. And this stood neither near nor far from the church named
Sophia, but one-half the breadth of the street separated them. At this
statue public games were accustomed to be performed; these John
regarded as an insult offered to the church, and having regained his
ordinary freedom and keenness of tongue, he employed his tongue
against those who tolerated them. Now while it would have been proper
to induce the authorities by a supplicatory petition to discontinue
the games, he did not do this, but employing abusive language he
ridiculed those who had enjoined such practices. The empress once more
applied his expressions to herself as indicating marked contempt
toward her own person: she therefore endeavored to procure the
convocation of another council of bishops against him. When John
became aware of this, he delivered in the church that celebrated
oration commencing with these words: [882] `Again Herodias raves;
again she is troubled; she dances again; and again desires to receive
John's head in a charger.' This, of course, exasperated the empress
still more. Not long after the following bishops arrived: Leontius
bishop of Ancyra in Asia, Ammonius of Laodicea in Pisidia, Briso of
Philippi in Thrace, Acacius of Beroea in Syria, and some others. John
presented himself fearlessly before them, and demanded an
investigation of the charges which were made against him. But the
anniversary of the birth of our Saviour having recurred, the emperor
would not attend church as usual, but sent Chrysostom a message to the
effect that he should not partake of the communion with him until he
had cleared himself of the crimes with which he stood impeached. Now
as John maintained a bold and ardent bearing, and his accusers seemed
to grow faint-hearted, the bishops present, setting aside all other
matters, said they would confine themselves to this sole
consideration, that he had on his own responsibility, after his
deposition, again seated himself in the episcopal chair, without being
authorized by an ecclesiastical council. As he alleged that sixty-five
bishops who had held communion with him had reinstated him, the
partisans of Leontius objected, saying: `A larger number voted against
you, John, in the Synod.' But although John then contended that this
was a canon of the Arians, and not of the catholic church, and
therefore it was inoperative against him--for it had been framed in
the council convened against Athanasius at Antioch, for the subversion
of the doctrine of consubstantiality [883] --the bishops would not
listen to his defence, but immediately condemned him, without
considering that by using this canon they were sanctioning the
deposition of Athanasius himself. This sentence was pronounced a
little before Easter; the emperor therefore sent to tell John that he
could not go to the church, because two Synods had condemned him.
Accordingly Chrysostom was silenced, and went no more to the church;
but those who were of his party celebrated Easter in the public baths
which are called Constantianæ, and thenceforth left the church. Among
them were many bishops and presbyters, with others of the clerical
order, who from that time held their assemblies apart in various
places, and were from him denominated `Johannites.' For the space of
two months, John refrained from appearing in public; after which a
decree of the emperor sent him into exile. Thus he was led into exile
by force, and on the very day of his departure, some of the Johannites
set fire to the church, which by means of a strong easterly wind,
communicated with the senate-house. This conflagration happened on the
20th of June, under the sixth consulate of Honorius, which he bore in
conjunction with Aristænetus. [884] The severities which Optatus, the
prefect of Constantinople, a pagan in religion, and a hater of the
Christians, inflicted on John's friends, and how he put many of them
to death on account of this act of incendiarism, I ought, I believe,
to pass by in silence. [885]
Footnotes
[881] From Prosper Aquitamus and Marcellinus' Chronicon, we learn that
this was done in 403 a.d., or rather the consulship of Theodosius the
younger and Rumoridius.
[882] This discourse entitled `In decollationem Præcursoris et
baptistæ Joannis' is to be found in Migné's Patrologia Græcia, Vol.
LIV. p. 485, and in Savile's edition of Chrysostom's works, Vol. VII.
545. Savile, however, places it among the spurious pieces, and
considers it unworthy of the genius of Chrysostom.
[883] Cf. II. 8.
[884] 404 a.d.
[885] Some of these details presumably are given by Sozomen in VIII.
23 and 24.
Chapter XIX.--Ordination of Arsacius as John's Successor.
Indisposition of Cyrinus Bishop of Chalcedon.
After the lapse of a few days, Arsacius was ordained bishop of
Constantinople; he was a brother of Nectarius who so ably administered
the see before John, although he was then very aged, being upwards of
eighty years old. While he very mildly and peacefully administered the
episcopate, Cyrinus bishop of Chalcedon, upon whose foot Maruthas
bishop of Mesopotamia had inadvertently trodden, became so seriously
affected by the accident, that mortification ensued, and it became
necessary to amputate his foot. Nor was this amputation performed once
only, but was required to be often repeated: for after the injured
limb was cut off, the evil so permeated his whole system, that the
other foot also having become affected by the disease had to submit to
the same operation. [886] I have alluded to this circumstance, because
many have affirmed that what he suffered was a judgment upon him for
his calumnious aspersions of John, whom he so often designated as
arrogant and inexorable, [887] as I have already said. [888]
Furthermore as on the 30th of September, in the last-mentioned
consulate, [889] there was an extraordinary fall of hail of immense
size at Constantinople and its suburbs, it also was declared to be an
expression of Divine indignation on account of Chrysostom's unjust
deposition: and the death of the empress tended to give increased
credibility to these reports, for it took place four days after the
hail-storm. Others, however, asserted that John had been deservedly
deposed, because of the violence he had exercised in Asia and Lydia,
in depriving the Novatians and Quartodecimans of many of their
churches, when he went to Ephesus and ordained Heraclides. But whether
John's deposition was just, as his enemies declare, or Cyrinus
suffered in chastisement for his slanderous revilings; whether the
hail fell, or the empress died on John's account, or whether these
things happened for other reasons, or for these in connection with
others, God only knows, who is the discerner of secrets, and the just
judge of truth itself. I have simply recorded the reports which were
current at that time.
Footnotes
[886] Palladius makes mention of this case without, however, naming
Cyrinus. Cf. Vit. S. Joan. Chrysostom, chap. 17 (Vol. XIII. p. 63 A.
of Benedictine ed. of Chrysostom).
[887] anonaton, lit. = `kneeless.'
[888] Cf. chap. 15, above.
[889] 404 a.d.
Chapter XX.--Death of Arsacius, and Ordination of Atticus.
But Arsacius did not long survive his accession to the bishopric; for
he died on the 11th of November under the following consulate, which
was Stilicho's second, and the first of Anthemius. [890] In
consequence of the fact that the bishopric became desirable and many
aspired to the vacant see, much time elapsed before the election of a
successor: but at length in the following consulate, which was the
sixth of Arcadius, and the first of Probus, [891] a devout man named
Atticus was promoted to the episcopate. He was a native of Sebastia in
Armenia, and had followed an ascetic life from an early age: moreover
in addition to a moderate share of learning, he possessed a large
amount of natural prudence. But I shall speak of him more particularly
a little later. [892]
Footnotes
[890] 405 a.d.
[891] 406 a.d.
[892] Cf. VII. 2.
Chapter XXI.--John dies in Exile.
John taken into exile died in Comana on the Euxine, on the 14th of
September, in the following consulate, which was the seventh of
Honorius, and the second of Theodosius. [893] A man, as we have before
observed, [894] who on account of zeal for temperance was inclined
rather to anger than forbearance: and his personal sanctity of
character led him to indulge in a latitude of speech which to others
was intolerable. Indeed, it is most inexplicable to me, how with a
zeal so ardent for the practice of self-control and blamelessness of
life, he should in his sermons appear to teach a loose view of
temperance. For whereas by the Synod of bishops repentance was
accepted but once from those who had sinned after baptism; he did not
scruple to say, `Approach, although you may have repented a thousand
times.' [895] For this doctrine, many even of his friends censured
him, but especially Sisinnius bishop of the Novatian; who wrote a book
condemnatory of the above quoted expression of Chrysostom's, and
severely rebuked him for it. But this occurred long before. [896]
Footnotes
[893] 407 a.d.
[894] Cf. above, chap. 3.
[895] These words are not found in any of Chrysostom's extant
homilies. There is no reason, however, for thinking that they were not
uttered by him in a sermon now not in existence. Socrates' remarks on
Chrysostom's attitude made here are among the considerations which
have led some to think that he was a Novatian. Cf. Introd. p. x.
[896] For further particulars on Chrysostom's life and the
circumstances of his death, see authorities mentioned in chap. 2, note
3.
Chapter XXII.--Of Sisinnius Bishop of the Novatians. His Readiness at
Repartee.
It will not be out of place here, I conceive, to give some account of
Sisinnius. He was, as I have often said, [897] a remarkably eloquent
man, and well-instructed in philosophy. But he had particularly
cultivated logic, and was profoundly skilled in the interpretation of
the holy Scriptures; insomuch that the heretic Eunomius often shrank
from the acumen which his reasoning displayed. As regards his diet he
was not simple; for although he practised the strictest moderation,
yet his table was always sumptuously furnished. He was also accustomed
to indulge himself by wearing white garments, and bathing twice a day
in the public baths. And when some one asked him `why he, a bishop,
bathed himself twice a day?' he replied, `Because it is inconvenient
to bathe thrice.' Going one day from courtesy to visit the bishop
Arsacius, he was asked by one of the friends of that bishop, `why he
wore a garment so unsuitable for a bishop? and where it was written
that an ecclesiastic should be clothed in white?' `Do you tell me
first,' said he, `where it is written that a bishop should wear
black?' When he that made the inquiry knew not what to reply to this
counter-question: `You cannot show,' rejoined Sisinnius, `that a
priest should be clothed in black. But Solomon is my authority, whose
exhortation is, "Let thy garments be white." [898] And our Saviour in
the Gospels appears clothed in white raiment: [899] moreover he showed
Moses and Elias to the apostles, clad in white garments.' His prompt
reply to these and other questions called forth the admiration of
those present. Again when Leontius bishop of Ancyra in Galatia Minor,
who had taken away a church from the Novatians, was on a visit to
Constantinople, Sisinnius went to him, and begged him to restore the
church. But he received him rudely, saying, `Ye Novatians ought not to
have churches; for ye take away repentance, and shut out Divine
mercy.' As Leontius gave utterance to these and many other such
revilings against the Novatians, Sisinnius replied: `No one repents
more heartily than I do.' And when Leontius asked him `Why do you
repent?' `That I came to see you,' said he. On one occasion John the
bishop having a contest with him, said, `The city cannot have two
bishops.' [900] `Nor has it,' said Sisinnius. John being irritated at
this response, said, `You see you pretend that you alone are the
bishop.' `I do not say that,' rejoined Sisinnius; `but that I am not
bishop in your estimation only, who am such to others.' John being
still more chafed at this reply, said, `I will stop your preaching;
for you are a heretic.' To which Sisinnius good-humoredly replied, `I
will give you a reward, if you will relieve me from so arduous a
duty.' John being softened a little by this answer, said, `I will not
make you cease to preach, if you find speaking so troublesome.' So
facetious was Sisinnius, and so ready at repartee: but it would be
tedious to dwell further on his witticisms. Wherefore by means of a
few specimens we have illustrated what sort of a person he was,
deeming these as sufficient. I will merely add that he was celebrated
for erudition, and on account of it all the bishops who succeeded him
loved and honored him; and not only they but all the leading members
of the senate also esteemed and admired him. He is the author of many
works: but they are characterized by too great an affectation of
elegance of diction, and a lavish intermingling of poetic expressions.
On which account he was more admired as a speaker than as a writer;
for there was dignity in his countenance and voice, as well as in his
form and aspect, and every movement of his person was graceful. On
account of these features he was loved by all the sects, and he was in
especial favor with Atticus the bishop. But I must conclude this brief
notice of Sisinnius.
Footnotes
[897] Cf. V. 10 and 21.
[898] Eccl. ix. 8.
[899] Matt. xvii. 2; Mark ix. 3; Luke ix. 29. On the clothing of the
clergy, see Bingham, Christ. Antiq. VI. 4. 18.
[900] The canons forbade the existence of two authoritative bishops in
one city. Cf. V. 5, note 3. It was supposed to be an apostolic
tradition that prescribed this practice, and the faithful always
resisted and condemned any attempts to consecrate a second bishop in a
city. Thus `when Constantius proposed that Liberius and Felix should
sit as co-partners in the Roman see and govern the church in common,
the people with one accord rejected the proposal, crying out "One God,
one Christ, one bishop." The rule, however, did not apply to the case
of coadjutors, where the bishop was too old or infirm to discharge his
episcopal duties.' See Bingham, Christ. Antiq. II. 13.
Chapter XXIII.--Death of the Emperor Arcadius.
Not long after the death of John, the Emperor Arcadius died also. This
prince was of a mild and gentle disposition, and toward the close of
his life was esteemed to be greatly beloved of God, from the following
circumstance. There was at Constantinople an immense mansion called
Carya; for in the court of it there is a walnut tree on which it is
said Acacius suffered martyrdom by hanging; on which account a chapel
was built near it, which the Emperor Arcadius one day thought fit to
visit, and after having prayed there, left again. All who lived near
this chapel ran in a crowd to see the emperor; and some going out of
the mansion referred to, endeavored to preoccupy the streets in order
to get a better view of their sovereign and his suite, while others
followed in his train, until all who inhabited it, including the women
and children, had wholly gone out of it. No sooner was this vast pile
emptied of its occupants, the buildings of which completely environed
the church, than the entire building fell. On which there was a great
outcry, followed by shouts of admiration, because it was believed the
emperor's prayer had rescued so great a number of persons from
destruction. This event occurred in that manner. On the 1st of May,
Arcadius died, leaving his son Theodosius only eight years old, under
the consulate of Bassus and Philip, in the second year of the 297th
Olympiad. [901] He had reigned thirteen years with Theodosius his
father, and fourteen years after his death, and had then attained the
thirty-first year of his age. This book includes the space of twelve
years and six months. [902]
Footnotes
[901] 408 a.d.
[902] The Greek editions [of Stephens, Valesius, Hussey, Bright, &c.]
add the alternate form of chap. 11 at this place. For purposes of
convenience in comparing the two versions we have given the variants
with Chapter 11.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/earlychv.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE1@mb-soft.com
The main BELIEVE web-page (and index to subjects) is at:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/