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