READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |
BOOK III.FROM THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS I TO THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE GREAT.A.D. 395-590.CHAPTER I.
ARCADIUS AND HONORIUS.—ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSY.— ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM.
Theodosius left two sons,—Arcadius, aged eighteen, and
Honorius, who was only eleven years of age; the elder succeeded to the
sovereignty of the elder succeeded to the sovereignty of the East, and after
this division the empire in its full extent was never again united. The reigns
of these imbecile princes were full of calamity. Themselves incapable of
governing, each of them was subject to a succession of too powerful ministers
and generals. Of these, Stilicho alone, the general of Honorius, possessed the qualities
which were requisite for the support of the empire. In 403 he defeated Alaric
the Goth at Pollentia, in Liguria; but five years later, at the very time when
his abilities were most urgently needed to meet a renewal of the Gothic
invasion, he fell a victim to the arts of a rival, Olympius. Rome was thrice
besieged by the Goths. The first siege was raised by the payment of a large
ransom; the second resulted in Alaric's setting up as emperor a puppet,
Attalus, whom he afterwards deposed in disgust at his incapacity; in the third,
the city was taken and sacked. Throughout this period we read of revolts in
various provinces, of insurrections of the barbarians who had been admitted
within the Roman territory, and of invasions by fresh hordes from the countries
beyond. These invasions fell more especially on the western division of the
empire. In 404, Honorius, finding himself exposed to the Goths at Milan,
removed to Ravenna, which for the next three centuries continued, throughout
all the changes of government, to be regarded as the capital of Italy.
In 408, Arcadius was succeeded by his son Theodosius
II, a child seven years old. The young prince was at first under the
guardianship of Anthemius, and from 414 under that of his sister Pulcheria, who
for nearly forty years held the virtual sovereignty of the east. Honorius
reigned till 423.
The weakness of the government, the irruptions of the
barbarians, and the changes in the administration, prevented the adoption of
any sustained and uniform policy for the suppression of paganism. Both in the
east and in the west laws were repeatedly issued for the abolition of
sacrifices, and for the confiscation of such allowances and endowments as had
hitherto been left to the heathen priesthood; but the necessity of frequent
re-enactment shows, no less than the occasional relaxations of these laws, that
they were very imperfectly executed. It is a significant circumstance that
heavy penalties are often threatened against magistrates who should neglect to
enforce them; as if the government knew that there were many among its local
officers from whom in such a cause it could not expect any willing service. In
408, under the administration of Olympius, Honorius published a law by which
all but the professors of orthodox Christianity were excluded from employment
about the court. But it is said that Generid, commander
of the troops at Rome, one of the barbarian chiefs on whose arms the degenerate
Romans then depended, indignantly cast away the ensigns of his command, refused
any exemption which should not extend to other heathens, and terrified the
emperor into a hasty repeal of the enactment. In the east, however, similar
laws were passed both by Arcadius and by the younger Theodosius.
Towards the end of the fourth century a tale was
current among the pagans, that St. Peter had by magical arts discovered that
Christianity was to last for 365 years, and was then to perish. The period was
completed in 398, and the hopes of the heathen party had risen high; but they
were disappointed, and other disappointments followed. The barbarian leader
Radagaisus, who, as being himself a heathen, had engaged their sympathies, was
overthrown by Stilicho. When Alaric first laid siege to Rome, the pagan members
of the senate ascribed the calamities of the empire to the neglect of the rites
by which their fathers had obtained the favour of the gods, and had raised
their country to its height of glory. It is said that some Tuscan soothsayers,
who professed to have saved Narni from the invader by drawing down lightnings
for his discomfiture, undertook to deliver Rome in the same manner through the
use of incantations and sacrifices. Even the bishop, Innocent, is stated by a
heathen writer to have consented to the experiment, provided that it were made
in secrecy, preferring the safety of the city to his own opinion. The Tuscans,
however, insisted, as an essential condition, that the rites should be
performed with all form and publicity, in the name of the state and with the
attendance of the senate; and as the senators refused to give this kind of
sanction to idolatry, the soothsayers were dismissed. This tale has probably no
other foundation than that the pagans wished to take advantage of the public
danger in order to attempt a restoration of their religion. Attalus, although
baptized into Arianism, courted them by re-establishing the ancient rites; but
their joy was soon checked by his deposition.
The barbarian irruptions were, in truth, greatly
injurious to paganism. There was no instance of barbarians embracing the old
religion of Greece or Rome; they either adhered to the superstitions of their
own ancestors, or adopted some form of Christianity. Alaric and his Goths, who
were Arians, directed their wrath against heathen temples even more zealously
than the Christians of the empire. It is from Alaric's invasion of Greece that
the suppression of the Eleusinian mysteries is dated. In the capture of Rome
temples were attacked, while churches were reverenced and those who sought a
refuge in them were spared; and some, at. least, of the Gothic soldiers
manifested in their behaviour towards the defenseless some influence of the religion which they professed. The Christians saw the
vengeance of God in the calamities which fell on Rome; they had a story that
Alaric, while on his march, was entreated by a holy monk to spare the city, and
answered that he did not go of his own will, but that One was continually
urging him forward to take it. The pagans, on their side, referred all the
miseries of the time to Christianity—a theory which St. Augustine combated in
many sermons, and in refutation of which he undertook his great work “Of the
City of God”, written between the years 412 and 426. With the same view
Orosius, a Spaniard, at Augustine's desire, drew up about 417 a compendium of
universal history, in which he argued that earlier ages had been as calamitous
as his own, and had been the more wretched in so far as they were without the
remedy of true religion.
Paganism yet lingered long. In the east, Theodosius,
in a law of A.D. 423, affects to question whether it still had any adherents;
but the doubt is refuted by clear evidence of facts. The chief strength of the
old religion, however, lay in the west. In some districts its spirit was still
so powerful, that Christians who attempted to execute the laws against temples
and idols were killed by the exasperated heathens. In many places where the
religion of the gospel was professed, the old tutelary gods still held their
position; and besides the great infusion of a pagan spirit into the
Christianity of the time, many purely heathen ideas and usages were yet
retained among Christians. The conformity of proselytes was often merely
outward; for, as the adherents of the old religion were not generally disposed
either to suffer for its sake, or to forego the advantages which were connected
with a profession of the new faith, many of them submitted to be baptized, and
afterwards, when occasion served, again declared themselves pagans. Hence arose
the necessity of those frequent enactments against apostasy which would appear
unaccountable if the apostates had ever been really Christians.
Africa was a chief stronghold of paganism, and there
the distractions of the Donatistic schism told in its
favour. St. Augustine advised a gentle mode of dealing with the worshippers of
idols as most likely to be effectual. “First”, he says, “we endeavour to break
the idols in their hearts. When they themselves become Christians, they will
either invite us to the good work of destroying their idols, or will anticipate
us in it. Meanwhile we must pray for them, not be angry with them”. He
complains that Christians took part in heathen ceremonies and rejoicings. A
council held at Carthage, in 399, solicited the emperor to suppress certain
banquets which were among the principal means of keeping up the old religion;
and also to order the destruction of all remains of idolatry, together with the
temples which were in rural places. The government was not yet prepared for
such measures; in the same year orders were issued that the public rejoicings
should be celebrated, although without sacrifices or superstition, and that
such of the temples as contained no unlawful things should be left uninjured.
But nine years later, in a law intended for the whole empire, the banquets were
forbidden, and the bishops were authorized to suppress all monuments of
idolatry. Such of the temples as were not ornamental in their architecture were
demolished. It was ordered that those in cities or suburbs should be applied to
public uses; many were shut up, and remained vacant until the Christians took
possession of them and converted them into churches.
The old Roman aristocracy, which had clung to the
religion of its forefathers more from pride than from conviction, was scattered
by the taking of Rome. Many of its members emigrated to their possessions in
Africa, Egypt, or elsewhere, and the pagan interest suffered in consequence.
But in the rural parts of Italy—notwithstanding the law of the year 408,
already mentioned, by which landlords were ordered to destroy temples on their
estates—the ancient worship subsisted, until at a later time it was followed
into its retreats and extirpated by the labour of the monks.
The abolition of the gladiatorial shows at Rome,
against which Christian teachers had long inveighed and pleaded in vain, is
referred to the reign of Honorius. When the emperor, after the victory of
Pollentia, was celebrating a triumph with games of this kind, Telemachus, an
eastern monk, who had made a journey to Rome for the purpose of protesting
against them, leaped into the arena, and attempted to separate the combatants,
but was stoned to death by the spectators, who were enraged at this interference
with their amusement. The emperor acknowledged that such a death deserved the
honours of martyrdom, and, with the willing acquiescence of his people, whose
fury had soon given way to repentance, he abolished the inhuman spectacles.
The disputes as to the opinions of Origen, which had
begun during his lifetime, continued after his death. The martyr Pamphilus, in
conjunction with Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote a defence of him. In the great
controversy of the fourth century, his name was frequently mentioned, and the
tendency of his doctrines was much disputed; for, while the Arians wished to
claim his authority, and some of their extreme opponents, such as Marcellus of
Ancyra, styled him the father of Arianism, his orthodoxy was maintained by St.
Athanasius and other champions of the catholic faith. So long as Arianism and
the doctrines connected with it engrossed all attention, the opinions of Origen
on other subjects did not come into question. His writings exercised an
important influence among the teachers of the eastern church; but, although
these were in general content to draw instruction from him, without regarding
him as faultless, there were two extreme parties, by one of which he was
rejected as a heretic, while the other was unreservedly devoted to him. Thus,
while the monks of Nitria found in his works
provision for their mystic and spiritualizing turn of mind, Pachomius warned
his disciples against Origen as the most dangerous of seducers, whose doctrines
would conduct the reader to perdition.
In the west Origen was known only by name, but the
general impression was unfriendly to him. Jerome attempted to introduce him
more favourably by translating some parts of his writings and embodying them in
commentaries on the Scriptures. In a letter written during his residence at
Rome, he speaks with enthusiastic praise of the “indefatigable
Alexandrian”, and says that he had been condemned at Rome, “not for the novelty
of his doctrines, not for heresy, as mad dogs now pretend against him, but because
his enemies were unable to endure the glory of his eloquence and learning”.
After his final retirement to Bethlehem, Jerome renewed an acquaintance of
earlier days with Rufinus, a native of the diocese of Aquileia. Rufinus had
lived eight years in Egypt, where he visited the monks, studied under the blind
Didymus, and suffered in the persecution of Valens. He had now settled on the
Mount of Olives in company with Melania, a noble and pious Roman widow, and had
been ordained presbyter by John, bishop of Jerusalem. Jerome became very
intimate with him, and celebrated his virtues in terms which are even
extravagant; and the friends agreed in admiration of Origen.
In the year 393, a pilgrim from the west, named Aterbius, arrived at Jerusalem, where, as he had been
accustomed to hear the name of Origen connected with disrepute, he was
astonished at finding that it was held in high honour. In a frantic manner,
according to Jerome, he charged Rufinus with Origenism, and, knowing the
intimacy which existed between the two, he included Jerome in the accusation.
Jerome, keenly sensitive to his reputation for orthodoxy, disavowed the
imputation with great eagerness, saying that he had read Origen only in the
same way as he had read the works of heretics; while Rufinus refused to have
any communication with his accuser, and confined himself to his own house until Aterbius had left Jerusalem.
Soon after this affair, Jerusalem was visited by
Epiphanius, bishop of Constantia (formerly Salamis), in Cyprus, and
metropolitan of that island. Epiphanius had been educated as a monk, and was
then more than eighty years of age. He was a man of vast reading, which
extended to the Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, Egyptian and Latin languages, and he
enjoyed an extraordinary popular fame for sanctity, so that miracles and
prophecies were ascribed to him; but both his conduct and his remaining works
prove him to have been injudicious, weak, vain, narrow-minded, and obstinate.
In his work on Heresies, he had spoken very strongly against. Origen, whom his
character and his education alike unfitted him to appreciate; and he was
connected by friendship with Jerome, who had spent some time with him in Cyprus
while on his way from Rome to the east.
Epiphanius, on his arrival at Jerusalem, accepted the
hospitality of the bishop, John, and behaved with courtesy to Rufinus. The Origenistic question had not been mentioned between him and
his host, when Epiphanius. in preaching at the church of the Resurrection,
broke out into a violent invective against Origenists,
which was evidently intended to reflect on the bishop. Jerome reproaches John
with having indecently expressed his impatience by looks and gestures, and
states that he sent his archdeacon to beg that the preacher would not pursue
the subject. As the two bishops proceeded to the church of the Cross, where
another service was to be held, it was difficult to make way through
the multitudes who crowded round Epiphanius, kissing his feet, touching
the hem of his garment, and holding out children to receive his blessing. These
displays of reverence, it is said, excited the envy of John, and at the service
which followed he preached against anthropomorphism, apparently with an
intention of charging Epiphanius with that error, which was not uncommon among
the extreme opponents of Origen. The old man, when it came to his turn to
speak, declared that he approved all which had been said by John; that he
condemned anthropomorphism; and in return he required that John should
anathematize Origenism.
The dispute thus commenced became more and more
vehement. Epiphanius, in high displeasure on account of a sermon which John had
preached, left Jerusalem and repaired to Bethlehem. He afterwards wrote to
Jerome’s monks, charging them to break off communion with their bishop; and in
the diocese of Eleutheropolis he forcibly ordained
Paulinian, brother of Jerome, to the offices of deacon and presbyter, for the
purpose of ministering to the monks of Bethlehem. John strongly protested
against this invasion of his episcopal rights, and a fierce controversy
followed, which involved questions of doctrine, discipline, and personal
conduct. The errors attributed to Origen were classed under eight heads. He was
charged with heretical views on the relations of the Divine Persons; with
strange and unsound opinions as to the pre-existence of souls, the salvation of
the devil and evil spirits, the resurrection of the dead, the condition of man
before and after the fall; and with singular allegorical misinterpretations of
Scripture, extending even to the denial of its literal truth. Jerome attacked
Rufinus and John with all his acrimony. He complained that the bishop did not
fairly meet him; that he attempted to answer only three out of the eight
charges, and that, instead of discussing the question of doctrine, he dwelt
continually on the irregularity of Paulinian’s ordination. It was in vain that
Archelaus, count of Palestine, and Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, attempted
to interpose as mediators; but at length, as Rufinus was about to leave the
Holy Land in 397, he and Jerome went through a solemn form of reconciliation at
the altar of the church of the Resurrection.
The quarrel, however, was soon revived. Rufinus took
up his abode at Rome, where a friend, who was engaged on a work against
astrology, inquired of him what were Origen's opinions on that subject—being
himself unacquainted with Greek. On this Rufinus translated the Apology of
Pamphilus, and Origen’s own treatise De Principiis,
the most questionable and suspected of all his writings. The translation (by
which alone the greater part of the book is now known) was made on an
extraordinary principle. As Origen had himself complained that his works were
falsified, Rufinus assumed that the suspicious passages were the interpolations
of heretics, and altered them so that they might accord with his own views of
orthodoxy, and with other passages of the author’s writings. In answer to the
presumption of falsification, Jerome well remarked that Pamphilus and Eusebius
had not used any such plea in their defence of Origen; nor was it justifiable
by such means to reduce Origen to consistency with himself, inasmuch as he not
only may have varied in opinion during his long life, but is known to have held
that the difference in character between exoteric and esoteric teaching would
warrant a difference of statement. After having avowedly subjected the text to
his violent editorial process, Rufinus somewhat inconsistently adjured readers
and copyists, in the name of God and by the thought of the resurrection and of
eternal fire, to make no omission, addition, or change of any kind in the
reformed De Principiis.
Jerome, whose old fondness for Origen had been
invidiously mentioned by Rufinus in his preface, was urged by his friends
Pammachius and Oceanus to exhibit the Alexandrian in his true character by
means of a more faithful translation; and he complied with their desire. In a
letter to those who had suggested the task, he earnestly disclaimed the
suspicion of Origenism. “I praised him” (he says) “as an interpreter, not as a
dogmatic teacher; for his genius, not for his faith; as a philosopher, not as
an apostle... If you believe me, I never was an Origenist;
if you do not believe me, I have now ceased to be one”. The question now was,
not whether certain opinions were sound, but whether Origen had held them, and
whether his admirers continued to hold them, notwithstanding all protestations
contrary.
Finding that, although his explanations were
satisfactory to Pope Siricius and to other Italian
bishops, his position at Rome was rendered intolerable through the influence of
Jerome, Rufinus retired to Aquileia, bearing with him a letter of
recommendation from Siricius, who died shortly after
(Nov. 26, 398).
The next bishop of Rome, Anastasius, was solicited to
take up the subject by Theophilus of Alexandria, who had now declared himself
against Origenism; while at home he was stimulated by the importunities of
Marcella and others (chiefly pious and noble ladies), who were under the
direction of Jerome. In consequence of these applications, Anastasius summoned
Rufinus to Rome; and, on his alleging that family reasons detained him at
Aquileia, the bishop, without pronouncing against Rufinus himself, condemned
Origen and the translations from his works— declaring that, until these
appeared, he had neither known who Origen was nor what he had written. The
letter which contains this judgment also mentions an imperial order (of which
nothing is otherwise known) against reading the Alexandrian’s writings.
Jerome and Rufinus carried on a war of angry apologies
and counter-apologies, in which their old familiarity was remembered only as
affording the means of reproaching each other with the sayings and the actions
of former days. Augustine was so distressed by witnessing such a dispute
between men of advanced age and of great reputation for learning and
piety—ancient friends, too, and fellow-students of Scripture,—that, in writing
to Jerome himself, and on the supposition that his representations were correct,
lie could only express his sorrow at the unseemly spectacled Jerome in one of
his tracts assumes a tone of seeming moderation and gentleness. He entreats
Rufinus to let the matter drop; if (he says) they had erred in youth, they
ought to be wiser in age, and to rejoice in each other’s improvement; but, with
an inconsistency not unusual in controversialists who advise moderation, he
insists that the difference shall be ended on his own terms—by his opponent’s
joining in abjuration of Origen.
Rufinus appears to have been at length weary of the
contest, and ceased to write. He was driven from Aquileia by the troubles of
Italy, and once more set out with Melania for the Holy Land, but died by the
way in Sicily—having seen along the opposite coast the fires of the devastation
by Alaric’s army. Jerome at a later time spoke of him by the name of Grunnius (the grunter); and in his preface to Ezekiel he
refers to his opponent's death in terms which indicate an undiminished rancour
: “The scorpion is buried under the soil of Sicily, with Enceladus and
Porphyrion; the many-headed hydra has ceased to hiss against us”.
In another quarter the Origenistic controversy involved the fate of one of the most eminent men who adorned the
ancient church.
John, who for his eloquence has received the name of
Chrysostom (or Golden-mouthed), was born at Antioch about the year 347. While
very young he lost his father, a military officer of rank, and was left to the
care of a pious and truly admirable mother, Anthusa.
He became a pupil of the famous rhetorician Libanius, but was preserved by an
unintermitted study of the Scriptures from the dangers to which the faith of
Christian youths were exposed in the pagan schools and so strongly was his
master impressed by his talents, that on being asked, many years after, to name
a successor for himself in his chair, he answered that John would have been the
worthiest, if the Christians had not stolen him. At the age of twenty
Chrysostom began to practise at the bar; but his conscience took offence at the
arts which were common among the advocates of Antioch, and he resolved to
devote himself to a religious life. He now received baptism from the bishop,
Meletius; and, as Anthusa’s earnest and pathetic
entreaties restrained him from fulfilling his wish to rush at once into
monastic retirement, he was ordained a reader, and continued to reside with
her, in the practice of a strict asceticism, until her death, after which he
withdrew to the mountains near Antioch. Here he spent four years in a
monastery, and had lived for two years as a hermit in a cave, when sickness,
brought on by his austerities, compelled him to return to the city. He was
ordained deacon in 381, and while a member of that order he wrote his dialogue
On the Priesthood, which, notwithstanding all the difference of circumstances,
still retains a high value and popularity as a manual of pastoral duty. In 386
Flavian ordained him presbyter, and appointed him chief preacher at Antioch. In
this office, his eloquence excited immense admiration.
Sometimes his sermons were carefully prepared; at
other times they were altogether extemporal; sometimes he combined the two
methods, —departing from his intended plan so as to take advantage, with
singular readiness and felicity, of any topic which the moment might suggest.
His diction is clear and flowing, his illustrations are copious, varied, and
apposite; he is distinguished by good sense, and by a knowledge of the heart,
learnt rather from his own inward experience than through intercourse with others.
In his expository discourses, which extend over the greater part of the New
Testament, with some books of the Old, he adheres to the literal sense of
Scripture, and never loses sight of a practical application. Among the most
celebrated of his other homilies are those On the Statues, delivered on
occasion of the sedition in which the statues of Theodosius and his family were
thrown down at Antioch. While the inhabitants were in trembling expectation of
some fearful punishment, and while the aged Flavian was absent on a mission of
intercession to the emperor, Chrysostom daily preached to anxious multitudes in
a tone of solemn and awakening eloquence. The pulpit triumphed over the
theatres and the circus, to which the people of Antioch were usually devoted;
and the preacher endeavoured to make the terror and excitement of the time
become the foundation of a lasting reform.
When Chrysostom had been nearly twelve years preacher
at Antioch. the see of Constantinople fell vacant by the death of Nectarius, in
September 397. The possession of so eminent a dignity excited much ambition;
candidates resorted to discreditable intrigues and solicitations, and party
spirit ran high. At length the emperor Arcadius was requested to put an end to
the confusion by nominating a bishop; and his choice was directed to Chrysostom
through the influence of the eunuch Eutropius, who, on a late journey in Syria,
had listened with admiration to the great orator’s eloquence. Perhaps the
minister may have reckoned on benefiting his own reputation by so laudable an
exercise of his patronage; perhaps, too, he may have hoped to secure the
bishop’s subservience by establishing a hold on his gratitude. As there was
reason to apprehend that the people of Antioch might break out into tumult if
their preacher were openly taken away from them, Chrysostom was decoyed by the
count of the East to a place without the city, and thence was privately sent
off to Constantinople.
In order that his appointment might have all the
advantage of solemnity, a council was summoned on the occasion. Theophilus of
Alexandria, on being required to take the chief part in the consecration of the
new bishop, hesitated, from jealousy of the precedence lately assigned to
Constantinople over his own see, and from a wish that the vacancy should be
filled with one of the Alexandrian clergy; for it is said that his skill in
physiognomy had warned him at the first interview that he must not expect to find
a tool in Chrysostom. Eutropius, however, frightened the Egyptian primate into
compliance, by producing a schedule of charges against him, and threatening to
bring him to trial for his misdemeanours; and Chrysostom was consecrated on the
26th of February 398.
The eloquence which had won for him the admiration of
Antioch was no less effective at Constantinople. The multitudes of the capital
flocked to hear him, and were zealous for his cause in his after trials; and
among the well-disposed of the higher classes (especially among pious ladies),
his influence soon became very powerful. Much of his attention was engaged by
the Arian heresy, which, notwithstanding the severity of the penal laws,
continued to lurk among the Greeks, while it was the professed creed of the
Gothic barbarians, who were now numerous and formidable at Constantinople. With
a view of converting these to orthodoxy, he ordained clergy of their own race,
gave up one of the churches for a service in their native language, and himself
often preached there, his words being rendered into Gothic by an interpreter.
When Gainas the Goth, who was at the time predominant at Constantinople,
demanded a church for the exercise of Arian worship, Chrysostom alone dared to
meet him with a firm denial at a conference in the emperor's presence, and
obliged Arcadius to refuse; and by conduct so strikingly contrasting with that
of the pusillanimous court he won the respect of the barbarian himself. While
thus zealous for the suppression of error within his own sphere, the archbishop
also laboured for the propagation of the gospel by sending missions to the
unconverted Goths and Scythians; and by obtaining an imperial warrant for the
destruction of the temples in Phoenicia, which was executed at the expense of
his female friends, he contributed to the extirpation of the ancient idolatry.
His influence was beneficially exerted to heal the
schism of his native city. On the death of Paulinus, who had been acknowledged
as bishop of Antioch by Egypt and the west, his party consecrated Evagrius; but this bishop did not long survive, and they
were again left without a head. Through the intervention of Chrysostom, in the
first year of his episcopate, both Innocent of Rome and Theophilus were
persuaded to acknowledge Flavian, who thereupon inserted the names of both
Paulinus and Evagrius in the diptychs of his church.
Thus the later separation—that which Lucifer had occasioned by consecrating
Paulinus—was brought to an end, although some remains of the old Eustathian party continued to exist without any bishop. The
schism was eventually terminated by the conciliatory measures of Alexander,
bishop of Antioch, in 415.
But as Chrysostom’s new position was more conspicuous
than that which he had formerly held, it also exposed him to dangers from which
he had until now been exempt. Although he possessed in very large measure such
a knowledge of the heart as fitted him to be a wise practical teacher of
religion, he was wanting in that acquaintance with the world, and in that
understanding of individual character, which are necessary for the
administration of important office, and are nowhere more necessary than in high
ecclesiastical office. His temper was naturally warm, and the opposition which
he met with in his endeavours at reform provoked him to expressions of anger,
which both raised up enemies and supplied them with weapons against him.
Reform was indeed very necessary. Nectarius, having
grown old in the habits of secular rank, did not greatly alter them after his
sudden promotion to the episcopate; and under him the clergy
of Constantinople in general fell into a style of easy living, while some
of them were even scandalous in their conduct. Chrysostom sold the rich carpets
and handsome furniture which had belonged to his predecessor; he even sold some
of the marbles and other ornaments of the churches, in order to obtain funds for
the establishment of hospitals and for other charitable purposes; he expended
the whole of his own income on such objects, and was indebted for maintenance
to a pious widow, Olympias. Partly from a distaste for general society, and
partly from feeble health, he always took his meals alone—neither giving nor
accepting hospitality; and to those who wished to engage him in idle
conversation, he plainly intimated that it was tedious to him. The contrast
between such a way of life and that of the former bishop was naturally noted to
his disadvantage, and became the ground for charges of pride, moroseness, and
parsimony. The bishops who visited Constantinople no longer found the episcopal
palace open to them; for Chrysostom thought this unnecessary, since there were
so many of the faithful among whom he supposed that they might be sure to find
a welcome. Acacius of Berrhoea, in Syria, was so
provoked by the insufficiency of the accommodations which had been provided for
him on a visit to the capital, that he is said to have exclaimed, “I will
season his pot for him!”
Chrysostom attempted to introduce an improvement among
his clergy by enforcing simplicity of life and rousing them to activity in
their calling. He deposed some of them on charges of murder and adultery, and
interfered with the practice of entertaining “spiritual sisters”. The
institution of services at night, for the benefit of persons unable to attend
those of the day, gave deep offence to some clergymen, whose ease was infringed
on by the imposition of additional duties. It would appear that, in the manner
of his dealings with his clerical brethren, the bishop was too much influenced
by his archdeacon Serapion, a proud, violent, and unpopular man, who is
reported to have told him that the only way of managing them was “to drive them
all with one stick”. Among the monks, too, there were many who regarded the
archbishop with an unkindly feeling; for he made it no secret that in
proportion to his love for the monastic life was his indignation against the
strolling and greedy pretenders who disgraced it; and he excited much wrath,
both among the monks and among the clergy, by advising Olympias not to bestow
her bounty indiscriminately.
While his popularity as a preacher excited envy, his
eloquence sometimes hurried him into the use of expressions which were liable
to misconstruction. Thus he was reported to have said in a sermon, “If thou sin
and repent a thousand times, come hither”. There can be no doubt that the
intended meaning of the words was innocent (if indeed they were used at all);
but Sisinnius, the Novatianist bishop—who with the
severe notions of his sect as to penance somewhat incongruously combined the
reputation of a wit and a handsome style of dress and living—took occasion from
them to write a book against him.
Chrysostom also drew enmity on himself by the
unsparing manner. in which he attacked the prevailing vices—extending his
rebukes even to the court. The rapacity which the empress Eudoxia exercised in
order to support her eunuchs provoked him not only to remonstrances in private,
but to public censures.
Eutropius was disappointed in his hope of a
subservient bishop, and had frequent disputes with Chrysostom. The victims of
the favourite’s extortions often took refuge in churches, and he produced from
the feeble emperor a law abolishing the privilege of sanctuary. But soon after,
Eutropius himself was suddenly over thrown; whereupon he fled in terror to the
cathedral, and laid hold on the altar for protection Chrysostom withstood the
soldiers who were sent to seize the fallen minister; and on the following day,
when the church was crowded by a multitude of people, such as was usually
assembled only at Easter, he discoursed on the instability of human greatness.
While Eutropius lay crouching under the holy table, the archbishop reminded him
of his former opposition to the very privilege from which he was then seeking
his safety, and entreated the congregation to intercede for him both with the
emperor and with God. This address—evidently intended to disarm the anger of
the hearers by exhibiting the abject condition of Eutropius—was misrepresented
as an exultation over his calamity; and at the same time offence was taken on
account of the protection which Chrysostom had offered to the eunuch. The
archbishop was even arrested, and carried before the emperor; but he fearlessly
asserted the right of the church to shelter the wretched, and the claim was
acknowledged, although Eutropius, by leaving the sanctuary, again exposed
himself to his enemies, and in consequence of his rashness was put to death.
In the last days of the year 400, Chrysostom set out
for Ephesus. Antoninus, bishop of that city, had been accused of selling
ordination to bishoprics, and of other offences, but had died before the
charges could be satisfactorily examined and the Ephesian clergy requested the
intervention of the archbishop of Constantinople. Six bishops were convicted of
having bought their office from Antoninus, and were deposed. Chrysostom
ordained a new bishop for Ephesus, and on his way homewards he deposed several
unworthy bishops, and transferred some churches from sectaries to the
Catholics. Some of these acts were afterwards brought against him as having
been done in excess of his jurisdiction; and in the meantime, Severian, bishop
of Gabala in Syria, a celebrated preacher, whom he had left in charge of his
flock, had been busily endeavouring to supplant him. Chrysostom, on being
informed of this by the archdeacon Serapion, with whom Severian had quarrelled,
forbade him to preach in Constantinople. Severian withdrew from the city, but
was recalled by the empress, who effected a reconciliation between him and the
archbishop. But the desire of vengeance rankled in Severian’s breast, and there
were many others whom Chrysostom had offended—clergy, monks, courtiers, wealthy
ladies, and even the empress herself. Acacius of Berrhoea (whose dissatisfaction has been already mentioned), and Antiochus, another
Syrian bishop, made common cause with Severian. They endeavoured, by inquiries
at Antioch, to discover some ground of accusation in the archbishop’s earlier
life; and, although in this their malice was disappointed, they soon found an
unexpected opportunity of gratifying it.
Theophilus succeeded Timothy at Alexandria in 385, and
held the see until 412. He was able, bold, crafty, unscrupulous, corrupt,
rapacious, and domineering. In the first controversy between Jerome and
Rufinus, he had acted the creditable part of a mediator. His own inclinations
were undoubtedly in favour of Origen; he had even deposed a bishop named Paul
for his hostility to that teacher : but he now found it expedient to take a
different line of conduct.
We have seen that, while the monks of Nitria were admirers of Origen, others among the Egyptian
recluses held him in detestation. The latter class very generally fell into the
error of anthropomorphism. Thus it is related of Serapion, an aged monk of
great reputation for holiness, that, when he had with much difficulty been
brought to understand the falsehood of this opinion, and while the friends who
had argued with him were engaged in thanksgiving for the result, he suddenly
cried out, in distress at missing the image which he had been accustomed to
place before his mind in prayer—“Woe is me! You have robbed me of my God, and I
know not whom to worship!”. As it was the custom of the Alexandrian bishops, in
issuing the annual letters by which the time of Easter was fixed, to annex some
pastoral instructions on other subjects, Theophilus, in his paschal letter of
399, took the opportunity of denouncing anthropomorphism. On this the monks who
held the doctrine exclaimed against the archbishop as a blasphemer, and a party
of them rushed to Alexandria, with the intention, as was supposed, of killing
him. But when Theophilus saluted them with the words “I behold you as if it
were the face of God”, they were pacified by his seeming agreement with their
notions; at their desire he condemned Origen, and from that time he used the
fanaticism of these monks, and the odium attached to the name of Origen, as
instruments of his designs.
Among the most eminent of the Nitrian monks were four brothers, known as the “long” or “tall brothers”—Dioscorus,
Ammonius (perhaps the same whose determined refusal of a bishopric has been
noticed in the preceding chapter), Eusebius, and Euthymius. Theophilus
conceived a high regard for these brothers; he compelled Dioscorus to accept
the bishopric of Hermopolis, the diocese in which the Nitrian mountain was situated, and, having drawn
Eusebius and Euthymius from their solitude, he employed them in the financial
business of his church. But while thus engaged they made discoveries which
greatly shocked them as to the means by which Theophilus obtained funds to
gratify his passion for church-building; whereupon, fearing to endanger their
souls by becoming his accomplices, they left Alexandria under pretext of a wish
to return to their monastic life. Theophilus soon learnt that this was not
their principal motive, and resolved that they should feel his vengeance.
About the same time Isidore, master of a hospital at
Alexandria, who had been ordained presbyter by Athanasius, and was now eighty
years of age, incurred the archbishop’s enmity by opposing him in some intended
iniquities as to money. Theophilus charged the old man with abominable
offences, of which he professed to have received information eighteen years
before, although the paper which contained it had been accidentally mislaid;
and Isidore, knowing his persecutor’s unrelenting character, sought a refuge in Nitria.
The archbishop excited the anthropomorphite monks against the objects of his hatred by representing these as Origenists; he procured from an Alexandrian synod a
condemnation of them for Origenism and magic; he denounced the Nitrians to the governor of Egypt as insubordinate, invaded
their solitude with soldiers and hostile monks, and committed great
outrages—burning cells, destroying the books and other things which were found
in them, and even killing some of the recluses. Dioscorus was violently dragged
from his episcopal throne by Ethiopians, and about three hundred monks were
driven from their retreat. The “long brothers” disavowed the opinions imputed
to them, saying, like Rufinus, that these had been foisted by heretics into
Origen’s works. With more than eighty companions they fled into Palestine; and
having been dislodged thence through the interest of Theophilus, they, with
about fifty others, sought a refuge at Constantinople. Chrysostom, having
ascertained from some Alexandrian clergy who were then in the capital that they
were men of good repute, provided them with a lodging in the buildings of the
Anastasia, and wrote in their behalf to Theophilus; but, although he allowed
them to join in the prayers of the church, he did not admit them to the communion
of the Eucharist, lest the archbishop of Alexandria should be offended.
The delicacy of this behaviour, however, was
fruitless. It was reported at Alexandria that Chrysostom had admitted the
brothers to full communion; and Theophilus, animated not only by the
Alexandrian jealousy of Constantinople, but by personal dislike of the man whom
he had unwillingly consecrated to the see of the New Rome, angrily answered his
letter by desiring him to respect the fifth Nicene canon, which ordered that
all causes should be terminated in the province where they arose. He also sent
some monks to accuse the refugees before the emperor. Chrysostom had earnestly
dissuaded the brothers from carrying their complaints to the court; but on
hearing of the step which their persecutor had taken, they addressed the
empress as she was on her way to a church, and prayed her to grant an inquiry
before a council into certain charges against Theophilus. Eudoxia was moved by
their entreaties, and Theophilus was summoned to Constantinople : but as he
delayed his appearance, his emissaries were examined by a prefect, and were
condemned as false accusers to imprisonment, in which some of them died before
their employer’s arrival.
In the meanwhile Theophilus circulated a monstrous set
of propositions, which he ascribed to Origen, and actively endeavoured to
enlist supporters. Jerome, exasperated by his controversies with John of
Jerusalem and Rufinus, eagerly lent his aid; he overwhelmed Theophilus with
praises, and translated into Latin three of his paschal letters against Origen,
with other documents relating to the controversy. Some years before, Theophilus
had stigmatized Epiphanius as a heretic and schismatic, on account of the anthropomorphism
which was imputed to him, and of his proceedings in the Holy Land; but he now
applied to him, begging that he would join in the movement, and would write to
Constantinople and elsewhere for the purpose of obtaining a general
condemnation of Origenism. On this Epiphanius held a synod of Cypriot bishops,
condemned the reading of Origen’s works, and wrote to desire that Chrysostom
would do the like; and, as Chrysostom took no step in the matter, the old man
himself proceeded to Constantinople. Immediately after landing, he ordained a
deacon, in defiance of the archbishop’s rights. He refused the offers of honour
and hospitality which Chrysostom pressed on him, and protested that he would
hold no communication with him unless Origen were condemned and the “long
brothers” were expelled. Chrysostom answered that he left both Origen and the
brothers to the judgment of the council which had been summoned. Epiphanius
then endeavoured, although with very little success, to obtain a declaration
against Origen from the bishops who happened to be at Constantinople. An
interview with the brothers, however, appears to have convinced him that the
cause of his Egyptian ally was not altogether pure, so that without waiting for
the expected synod, he embarked for Cyprus; and either on the voyage or soon
after reaching home, he died, at the age of nearly a hundred years.
Theophilus at length set out for Constantinople,
taking the circuitous way by land through Syria and Asia Minor. Although he had
been cited as a defendant, and was expected to appear alone, he was attended by
a train of Egyptian bishops, and had so assured himself of support that he
declared his business to be the deposition of Chrysostom. He entered the city
with great pomp, and took up his abode at a suburban palace belonging to the
emperor, where he remained for three weeks, refusing all communication with
Chrysostom, and strengthening his interest by bribery, hospitalities,
solicitations, and such other means as were likely to be effectual with persons
of influence. Arcadius, who was probably not in the secret of Eudoxia’s policy,
desired Chrysostom to proceed to a trial; but the archbishop declined, on the
ground that offences committed in another province did not belong to his
jurisdiction.
Theophilus, when he had matured his plans, summoned
Chrysostom to appear before a synod at the Oak, a villa near Chalcedon, on the
opposite side of the Bosphorus to Constantinople. The president of this synod
was the bishop of Heraclea, who, as metropolitan of the province within which
the new dignity of Constantinople had been erected, was naturally disposed to
lend himself to the humiliation of its occupant. A long list of charges, mostly
false or grossly exaggerated, and concocted by Theophilus with the help of two
deacons who had been deposed for serious crimes, was produced against
Chrysostom. They related to faults in the administration of his church and its
funds; to his conduct towards the clergy, in depriving some, severely reproving
others, and the like; to his private habits of life; to ritual irregularities;
to doctrines which he had vented, and expressions which he had used, in his
sermons : but, although Origenism was the pretext for the Alexandrian bishop's
whole proceedings, he did not venture to include it in the indictment.
Chrysostom had with him forty bishops—a larger assemblage than the synod of his
opponents, and more fairly composed, inasmuch as of the thirty-six bishops who
met at the Oak all but seven belonged to the Egyptian province. He earnestly
besought his partisans to avoid a rupture, even although it were necessary that
he himself should be sacrificed for the sake of peace. Two bishops from the
hostile synod entered the assembly, and in an insolent manner summoned
Chrysostom to appear at the Oak. The bishops who surrounded him answered that
Theophilus ought rather to come and take his trial before themselves; but
Chrysostom professed himself ready to meet all accusations before the irregular
tribunal, provided that his declared enemies, Theophilus, Acacius, Antiochus,
and Severian, were not allowed to sit as judges. The citation was repeated a
second and third time, but he continued to disregard it. After many hours had
been spent in these fruitless communications, the bishops at the Oak received a
message from the court, urging them to pronounce a decision; whereupon they
condemned Chrysostom as contumacious, and added that he was also guilty of
treason, but that, as that offence was beyond their jurisdiction, they left the
punishment of it to the emperor. Arcadius did not proceed to the extent which
this malicious sentence suggested, but contented himself with condemning the
archbishop to deposition and banishment.
Chrysostom held himself bound not to abandon his post,
unless compelled by force. He was anxiously guarded by his people for three
days, until, hearing that the emperor intended to seize him, and dreading some
serious tumult, he surrendered himself, and was immediately sent across the
Bosphorus. The people, on learning that he was in custody, beset the palace
with cries for their pastor, and in the course of the following night the city
was shaken by an earthquake. The empress, alarmed both by the danger of an
insurrection and by supernatural terrors, hastily dispatched a messenger to the
archbishop, with a letter in which she assured him that she was guiltless of
his banishment, and desired him to return. In the meantime the agitation at
Constantinople was extreme. The entrance of Theophilus into the city was the
signal for affrays between the populace and his Alexandrian sailors, which
became so serious that he thought it well to retire; and Severian, who ventured
to preach against Chrysostom, was forcibly driven out.
The archbishop’s return was hailed with enthusiasm.
The Bosphorus was covered with vessels of all sizes, which were crowded by
multitudes eager to welcome him. It had been his intention to remain without
the city until his deposition should be annulled by a council greater than that
which had condemned him; but the excitement of the people, and a fear lest it
should be turned against the emperor, induced him to proceed to the cathedral,
where, yielding to the cries of the congregation, he took his seat on the
throne, and delivered an extemporal address, in which the invasion of his
church by the bishop of Alexandria was paralleled with the seizure and the
forced restoration of Abraham’s wife by the Egyptian king. Theophilus forthwith
set out for Alexandria, covering his discomfiture by the pretext that his flock
could no longer endure his absence.
Chrysostom’s triumph appeared to be complete; but
before two months had passed his enemies found a new ground for attacking him.
A silver statue of the empress was erected near the cathedral, and was
inaugurated with the unruly and somewhat heathenish rejoicings which were usual
on such occasions. The archbishop—after (it is said) having sent remonstrances
to the court, which were intercepted by the way—expressed in a sermon his
strong condemnation of the scenes which were taking place almost at the doors of
his church, and his language was repeated, probably with malicious
exaggeration, so that the empress was violently offended. The offence was
increased by a sermon preached on the festival of the Beheading of St. John the
Baptist, which is said to have opened with the words, “Again Herodias rages;
again Herodias is agitated; again she requires the head of John”. It is
incredible that Chrysostom could have meant to point these words at the
empress; it is doubtful whether he used them at all; but his enemies either
invented or misapplied them, and hopefully resumed their intrigues. Theophilus
did not again venture to go to Constantinople, but from his own city directed
the proceedings of Severian and his other allies.
At Christmas 403, Arcadius announced to the archbishop
that he could not communicate with him until he had cleared himself of certain
accusations. A synod was held early in the following year, and Chrysostom was
charged before it with having violated the twelfth canon of Antioch (originally
enacted against St. Athanasius) by resuming his see without ecclesiastical
sanction after having been deposed by a council. His friends—for he had
forty-two bishops on his side—replied that the canon did not apply to his case,
and, moreover, that it was the work of heretics; one of them caused some
confusion among the opposite party by proposing, in the emperor's presence,
that those who wished to act on the canon should sign the creed of its authors.
The objections, however, were overruled, and Chrysostom was condemned.
At the approach of Easter, Arcadius, urged on by the
archbishop’s enemies, intimated to him that, after having been sentenced to
deposition by two synods, he must not enter the church. On Easter-eve, during
the administration of baptism which was customary on that vigil, several of the
churches were attacked by soldiers, who drove out the congregations— among them
the women who were undress for baptism—and committed gross profanations. The
candidates for baptism took refuge in the baths of Constantine, where the
administration of the sacrament was continued, and, when driven thence, they
repaired to a circus outside the walls, from which also they were dislodged it
would seem, however, that Chrysostom was afterwards allowed to resume
possession of the churches. Within a short space of time two attempts were made
on his life by assassins. In Whitsun-Week the emperor sent him a mandate to
leave the episcopal house. As it was evident that he must now yield to force,
he took a solemn farewell of his friends. To each class he addressed suitable
admonitions; he entreated that they would not despair for the loss of an
individual, but would receive any bishop who should be appointed by general
consent; and, while his mule was held in waiting at one door of the cathedral,
in order to divert the attention of his people, who for weeks had guarded him
day and night, he left the building by an opposite door, and gave himself up,
declaring that he referred his cause to an impartial council.
The discovery of his removal from Constantinople
produced a great excitement. Next day the cathedral and the splendid palace of
the senate were burnt. Each party charged the other with incendiarism; but the Joannites (as Chrysostom’s adherents were called), being
obnoxious to the imperial government, were cruelly treated on account of the
fire, and some of them were put to death. Among others, Olympias was questioned
on suspicion of having been concerned in the fire. “My life hitherto” she said,
“is an answer to the charge. One who has spent much on building churches is not
a likely person to destroy them”. Arsacius, a man of
eighty, brother to Nectarius, was appointed to the see of Constantinople, and,
after having feebly held it for a year, was succeeded by Atticus. In the
meantime the Joannites saw the vengeance of heaven in
earthquakes and hailstorms, in the death of Eudoxia (Oct. 6th, 404), and in the
calamities which befell other persons who had been conspicuous among the
enemies of the expelled archbishop.
Chrysostom, after having been carried across the
Bosphorus, was allowed to remain nearly a month at Nicaea. He earnestly pressed
for an investigation of his cause, but in vain. It was in vain, too, that both
he and his friends entreated that some endurable residence might be assigned as
the place of his banishment. After a toilsome and tedious journey, in which he
was in danger from robbers, and much more from fanatical monks, he reached Cucusus, among the ridges of Mount Taurus, the scene of the
exile and death of his predecessor Paul. During his sojourn in this remote and
wretched little town, he suffered from want of provisions, from the alternate
excesses of heat and cold, from frequent sicknesses, in which it was impossible
to obtain medicines, and from the ravages of Isaurian robbers, which at length
compelled him to take shelter in the fortress of Arabissus.
But the years of his banishment were fuller of honour and influence than any
portion of his previous life. He kept up a correspondence with churches in all
quarters; even the bishop of Rome, Innocent, who was strongly interested in his
favour, treated him on terms of equality. From the bishop of Cucusus and his other neighbours he met with reverential kindess. Many pilgrims sought him out in his secluded
abode, from a desire to express their veneration for him. He directed
missionary labours in Persia and among the Goths while his friends at a
distance supplied him with funds so amply, that he was not only able to support
these missions and to redeem captives, but even had to request that their
overflowing liberality might be directed into other channels. He wrote frequent
letters of advice and consolation to the bishops and clergy who had been
involved in his fall, and to his adherents at Constantinople, who were
subjected to great severities for refusing to communicate with his intruded
successors. The western emperor and the bishop of Rome joined in desiring that
his cause should be again tried by an impartial council of the whole church;
but the relations of the divisions of the empire towards each other were
unfavourable to the success of the proposal, and some envoys who were sent from
the west to the court of Arcadius were imprisoned and were treated with great
in dignity.
After Chrysostom had spent three years in exile, the
interest which he continued to excite provoked his enemies to still more
rigorous measures against him. He was sentenced to be removed to Pityus, a town on the extreme frontier of the empire, to
the east of the Euxine; and in the summer of 407 he was carried off from Arabissus. On the journey his bodily ailments were renewed
or aggravated by exposure to violent heat. At Comana,
a city of Pontus (now Gumenek), he requested his
conductors to halt, as he felt the approach of death. He exchanged his mean
dress for the best which he possessed; he received the holy eucharist, and,
after uttering the words, “Glory be to God for all things!” he expired as he
added “Amen”.
The Joannites remained a
separate body for some years longer. Theophilus—although after Chrysostom’s
banishment he wrote a brutal book against him, which was eagerly translated
into Latin by Jerome—advised Atticus to deal leniently with them. Alexander of
Antioch (the same who succeeded in putting an end to the Eustathian schism) led the way in acknowledging the orthodoxy of Chrysostom by inserting
his name in the diptychs of his church, and the example was followed elsewhere,
until at length Atticus, at the urgent entreaty of the people and the court,
and with a view to obtaining the communion of the west, consented to admit the
name into the diptychs of Constantinople. By this act, and by the general
observance of a moderate and conciliatory policy, he regained many Joannites to his communion and the schism was finally
extinguished in 438, under the episcopate of Proclus, when the relics of the
banished archbishop were translated from Comana. As
the vessel which bore them approached the capital, the population, in numbers
far greater than those which had welcomed the living Chrysostom's return from
exile, swarmed forth over the Bosphorus in boats; and the emperor, Theodosius
II, bending over the coffin, entreated the saint to forgive the guilt of
Arcadius and Eudoxia.
But the see of Constantinople never recovered the wound which it had received in the banishment of Chrysostom. Its patriarchs, with few exceptions, were, from that time, little more than pliant officers of the court
|
||