The Best New True Crime Stories Serial Killers

Mitzi Szereto download

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-best-new-true-crime-stories-
serial-killers-mitzi-szereto-10583926

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

The Best New True Crime Stories Serial Killers Mitzi Szereto

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-best-new-true-crime-stories-serial-
killers-mitzi-szereto-53875804

The Best New True Crime Stories Mitzi Szereto Szereto Mitzi

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-best-new-true-crime-stories-mitzi-
szereto-szereto-mitzi-33263992

The Best New True Crime Stories Wellmannered Crooks Rogues Criminals
True Crime Gift Mitzi Szereto

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-best-new-true-crime-stories-
wellmannered-crooks-rogues-criminals-true-crime-gift-mitzi-
szereto-46274566

The Best New True Crime Stories Partners In Crime Mitzi Szereto

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-best-new-true-crime-stories-
partners-in-crime-mitzi-szereto-37597888
The Best New True Crime Stories Mitzi Szereto

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-best-new-true-crime-stories-mitzi-
szereto-33652016

Superwellness Become Your Own Best Healer The Revolutionary New

Formula For Creating True Vibrant Health Dr Edith Ubuntu Chan Chan

https://ebookbell.com/product/superwellness-become-your-own-best-
healer-the-revolutionary-new-formula-for-creating-true-vibrant-health-
dr-edith-ubuntu-chan-chan-23947952

Your Body Your Best Friend End The Confidencecrushing Pursuit Of

Unrealistic Beauty Standards And Embrace Your True Power 1st Edition
Erica Mather

https://ebookbell.com/product/your-body-your-best-friend-end-the-
confidencecrushing-pursuit-of-unrealistic-beauty-standards-and-
embrace-your-true-power-1st-edition-erica-mather-51675416

Your Body Your Best Friend End The Confidencecrushing Pursuit Of

Unrealistic Beauty Standards And Embrace Your True Power 1st Edition
Erica Mather

https://ebookbell.com/product/your-body-your-best-friend-end-the-
confidencecrushing-pursuit-of-unrealistic-beauty-standards-and-
embrace-your-true-power-1st-edition-erica-mather-51675418

The Best New Horror 7 Stephen Jones Ramsey Campbell

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-best-new-horror-7-stephen-jones-
ramsey-campbell-7689974
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
amphitheatre? They are gone, they are all gone; one rude blast has
shattered all the leaves, and shows us the tree stripped quite bare,
and shaken to its very roots.”... “These things were but as visions of
the night, which fade at dawn; or vernal flowers, which wither when
the spring is past; as shadows which flitted away, as bubbles which
burst, as cobwebs which rent.”... “Therefore we chant continuously
this heavenly strain: ματαιότης ματαιοτήτων καὶ πάντα ματαιότης.
For these are words which should be inscribed on our walls and on
our garments, in the market-place, by the wayside, on our doors,
but above all should they be written in the conscience, and engraved
upon the mind of every one.” Then, turning towards the pitiable
figure by the holy table: “Did I not continually warn thee that wealth
was a runaway slave, a thankless servant? but thou wouldst not
heed, thou wouldst not be persuaded. Lo! now experience has
proved to thee that it is not only fugitive and thankless, but
murderous also; for this it is which has caused thee to tremble now
with fear. Did not I declare, when you rebuked me for telling you the
truth, ‘I love thee better than thy flatterers; I who reprove thee care
for thee more than thy complaisant friends?’ Did I not add that the
wounds inflicted by a friend were to be valued more than the kisses
given by an enemy? If thou hadst endured my wounds, the kisses of
thy enemies would not have wrought thee this destruction.”... “We
act not like thy false friends, who have fled from thee, and are
procuring their own safety through thy distress; the Church, which
you treated as an enemy, has opened her bosom to receive thee;
the theatre, which you favoured, has betrayed thee, and whetted
the sword against thee.”483 He thus depicted, he said, the abject
condition of the minister, not from any desire to insult the prostrate,
not to drown one who was tossed on the billows of misfortune; but
to warn those who were still sailing with a fair wind, lest they should
be hurried into the same abyss. Who had been more exalted than
this man? Had he not surpassed all in wealth? had he not climbed to
the very pinnacle of grandeur? yet now he had become more
miserable than a prisoner, more pitiable than a slave.... It was the
glory of the Church to have afforded shelter to an enemy; the
suppliant was the ornament of the altar. “What!” you say, “is this
iniquitous, rapacious creature an ornament to the altar?” Hush! the
sinful woman was permitted to touch the feet of Jesus Christ
Himself, a permission which excites not our reproach, but our
admiration and praise.... The degradation of Eutropius was a
wholesome example both to the rich and poor. “Let some rich man
enter the church, and he will derive much advantage from what he
sees. The spectacle of one, lately at the pinnacle of power, now
crouching with fear like a hare or a frog, chained to yonder pillar not
by fetters, but by fright, will repress arrogance, and subdue pride,
and will teach him the truth of the Scripture precept: ‘All flesh is
grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass.’ On the other
hand, let a poor man enter, and he will learn not to be discontented,
or to deplore his lot; but will be grateful to his poverty, which is to
him as a most secure asylum, a most tranquil haven, a most
impenetrable fortress.”484 The Archbishop concluded by exhorting
the people to mercy and forgiveness, following the example of their
Emperor. How else could they with a clear conscience join in the
Holy Mysteries about to be celebrated, or join in the prayer: “Forgive
us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us?” He
did not deny that the offender had committed great crimes, but the
present was a season not for judgment but for mercy. If they would
enjoy the favour of God, who had declared, “I will have mercy and
not sacrifice,” they would intercede with the Emperor for the life of
their enemy. So would they obtain the mercy of God for themselves,
and remission of their own sins; so would they shed glory on their
Church, and win the praise of their humane sovereign, while their
own clemency would be extolled to the ends of the earth.”
The people probably thought that sufficient mercy had already
been exercised by respecting the asylum of the Church as against
the law, and no further effort, so far as is known, was made on
behalf of the fallen minister. He remained for several days more in
the sanctuary, and then secretly and suddenly quitted it. Whether he
fled designedly, mistrusting the security of his retreat, perhaps even,
with the suspiciousness natural to a deceitful person, mistrusting the
fidelity of his protectors, and hoping to make his escape from
Constantinople in disguise; or whether he surrendered himself on
the condition that exile should be substituted for capital punishment,
cannot with perfect certainty be determined. It is implied by one
writer485 that he was seized and forcibly removed from the
sanctuary. Chrysostom, on the other hand, declares that he would
never have been given up, had he not abandoned the Church.486
However and wherever he may have been captured, some promise
appears to have been made that his life at least should be spared.
He was put on board a vessel which conveyed him to Cyprus, that
island being designed, it was said, to be the place of his banishment
for the remainder of his life.487 But his enemies had determined that
his life should be brief. A suit was instituted against him at
Constantinople on a variety of charges under the presidency of
Aurelian, Prætorian Prefect. Over and above all his other crimes, he
was found guilty of mingling with the ordinary costume of the consul
certain ornaments or badges which belonged exclusively to the
Emperors, and even of harnessing to his chariot animals of the
imperial colour and breed. These were found to be treasonable
offences, on the strength of which, in spite of some misgivings and
hesitation on the part of Arcadius, which were overruled by Eudoxia
and Gaïnas, the miserable culprit was recalled from Cyprus to
Chalcedon, and there beheaded. As he entered that city, he might
have seen affixed to the walls the imperial sentence, by the terms of
which his property was declared confiscated to the State, his acts as
consul were cancelled, the title of the year was changed, the world
invited to rejoice at the purification of the consulship, and to cease
to groan over the sight of the monstrosity which had disgraced and
disfigured the divine honour of that sacred office. Finally, it was
commanded that all statues or representations whatever of
Eutropius in public places should be thrown down and broken in
pieces.488
Thus the earnest desire of Eudoxia was accomplished: she
remained mistress of the field, mistress, as she fondly hoped, of the
Empire. The government for the present passed from the hands of a
eunuch and slave into the hands of a woman. The possible rivals to
her supremacy were the Gothic commander Gaïnas and the
Archbishop. In what manner she was brought into hostile collision
with these two very different personages remains now to be related.
The Goth was determined in the ambitious pursuit of power, the
Archbishop equally determined in the conscientious discharge of
duty. The collision of the ruling powers with him was yet to come,
but the contest with Gaïnas immediately succeeded the fall of
Eutropius.
The Empress procured the elevation of Aurelian, Prætorian
Prefect, to the consulship, and of her favourite (some said her
criminal lover489), Count John, to the office of Comptroller of the
Royal Treasury, or sacred largesses. The public affairs of the Empire
were discussed and settled in a sort of cabinet council by her and
her friends, of whom three wealthy but avaricious ladies, Castricia,
Eugraphia, and Marcia, were the most influential. The haughty and
manly spirit of the Gothic warrior naturally disdained to be directed
by a coterie of women. He united his army with that of Tribigild, and
the two forces assumed a menacing attitude in the vicinity of
Constantinople, on the Asiatic side of the Bosporus. Gaïnas opened
negotiations with the Emperor, refusing to communicate with any
lesser power, complained that his services had been inadequately
requited, and demanded, as a preliminary to any further
correspondence, the surrender of three principal favourites at Court
—Aurelian the Consul, Saturninus the husband of Castricia, and the
Count John. The embarrassment of the Court was extreme; but the
three ministers, in a genuine spirit, to all appearance, of Roman
courage and self-sacrifice for the good of the State, crossed the
Bosporus, and sent word to the camp of Gaïnas that they had come
to surrender themselves into his hands. The chieftain subjected
them to a grim practical jest. He caused them to be loaded with
chains, and received them in his tent in the presence of an
executioner. After all manner of insults had been heaped upon them,
the executioner approached and swung his sword over them with a
furious countenance as if on the point of decapitating, but, checking
the impending blow, only made a slight scratch on their necks so as
just to draw blood. This savage farce having been performed, the
three were simply detained in the camp without suffering further
violence.490
Chrysostom appears to have laboured diligently to mitigate the
demands of Gaïnas. His language, in a homily delivered just after the
surrender of the three captives, implies that some degree of success
had attended his efforts, but it manifests also a feeling of great
depression, caused by the unsettled, indeed anarchical, state of
public affairs.
“After a long interval of silence, I return to you, my beloved
disciples—a silence occasioned, not by any indifference or indolence,
but by my absence spent in earnest endeavours to allay a tempest,
and to bring into a haven those who were beginning to drown.”...
“For this purpose I have withdrawn from you for a time, going
backwards and forwards” [across the Bosporus], “exhorting,
beseeching, supplicating, so as to avert the calamity which was
impending over the higher powers. But now that these dismal
matters have been concluded I return to you....” He had gone to
rescue those who were falling and tempest-tossed; he came back to
confirm those who were still standing and at rest, lest they should
become victims of some calamity. “For there is nothing secure,
nothing stable in human affairs; they are like a raging sea, every day
producing strange and fearful shipwrecks. The world is full of tumult
and confusion; everywhere are cliffs and precipices, rocks and reefs,
fearfulness and trembling, peril and suspicion. No one trusts any
one; each man is afraid of his neighbour. The time is at hand which
the prophet depicted in those words: ‘Trust not in a friend, put not
confidence in a guide’ (Micah vii. 5); civil strife prevails everywhere,
not honest open warfare, but veiled under ten thousand masks.
Many are the fleeces beneath which are concealed innumerable
wolves; so that one might live more safely among enemies than
among those who appear to be friends.”491
 It is possible that the intercessions of Chrysostom may have
saved the lives of the three captives, or averted any immediate
assault of the Gothic army; but Gaïnas was in a position to dictate
any terms he pleased, and his army was like a great swelling wave,
threatening at any moment to break in overwhelming force upon the
capital. An interview with the Emperor, protected from any insidious
attack by the solemn oath of each party, took place in the church of
St. Euphemia, situated on a lofty eminence above the city of
Chalcedon. The Gothic leader no longer pretended to disguise his
ambitious designs. He demanded to be made Consul and
Commander-in-chief of the Imperial army, cavalry and infantry,
Roman as well as barbarian troops; in short, he aspired to be in
position the Stilicho of the East. The Emperor yielded to these
ignominious terms, which in effect placed his capital at the mercy of
a foreign invader. The troops were rapidly transported from the
Asiatic side of the Bosporus and occupied Constantinople. They
waited but the word of their commander to fly upon the booty with
which the wealthy and luxurious city teemed, and which they beheld
with hungry eyes; but for a time the signal was not given.492
Gaïnas, either from sincere attachment to the Arian form of faith,
or possibly from ambition to display his power to his countrymen,
who were mainly of the Arian persuasion, demanded the abolition of
that law of Theodosius by which Arians were prohibited from public
worship inside the city walls. He represented that it was specially
indecorous for the Commander-in-chief of the Imperial forces to go
outside the city to pay his public devotions. Arcadius, intimidated,
and as usual on the point of yielding, referred the matter to the
Archbishop. Chrysostom earnestly and indignantly deprecated any
concession; to give up one of the Catholic churches to the Arians
would be to cast things holy to the dogs, and to reward the impious
at the expense of the reverent worshippers of Jesus Christ. He
begged the Emperor to allow the whole matter to be discussed
between himself and Gaïnas in the royal presence, when he trusted
that, by the help of God, he should succeed in silencing the Gothic
heretic, and in repressing any repetition of his profane demand.493
Gaïnas was not averse from the interview; he rather prided himself
on his skill in theological debate, and boasted of having vanquished
the monk Nilus on the question of the identity, or similarity, of
substance in the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity.494 The
Emperor was well satisfied to act the part of a quiet, irresponsible
auditor. Accordingly, on the following day, Chrysostom appeared at
the palace, accompanied by all those bishops who were in
Constantinople at the time. Gaïnas put forward his demand. The
Archbishop replied that it was impossible for a prince who laid claim
to piety to take any step adverse to the interests of the Catholic
faith. If Gaïnas wished to worship inside the walls, all the churches
in the city were open to him. When the Goth claimed a right to
possess one for his own sect, in consideration of his great services to
the State, Chrysostom repelled the demand with indignant scorn.
“You have already rewards far exceeding your deserts; you are
Commander-in-chief and Consul. Consider what once you were, and
what now you are; consider your former destitution and your
present abundance. Look at the magnificence of your consular
robes, and remember the rags in which you crossed the Danube.
Speak not then of ingratitude on the part of those who have laden
you with honours. Remember the oaths by which you swore fidelity
to the great Theodosius and to his children.” He then cited the
prohibitory law issued by Theodosius in a.d. 381, called upon the
Emperor to enforce it, and on the Gothic commander to observe it.
The ecclesiastical historians concur in affirming that the Goth was
completely vanquished by the authoritative demeanour and
eloquence of the Archbishop, and for the time at least desisted from
pressing his demand; but it appears that Arcadius was obliged to
satisfy his rapacity by melting the plate of the Apostles’ Church.495
Possibly, indeed, extortion of money had been the object of
Gaïnas from the beginning in making his demand for an Arian
church. The plunder-loving spirit of his army was aroused, and the
gold and silver visible on the counters of money-changers, and in
the shops of wealthy jewellers, was a temptation constantly dangling
before their eyes, till a rumour of violent intentions, or perhaps
common prudence, caused the owners to remove these alluring
treasures into secret places of safety. If the enemy had entertained
any design upon the shops, it was transferred from them to the
palace, upon which they made a nocturnal assault. According to
some accounts, it was repulsed by the vigorous courage of the
citizens, who fell with arms upon the assailants; according to others,
Gaïnas was scared in several attempts by a vision of an angelic host
planted in bright array around the walls of the palace.496 The
materials for the history of these occurrences are so meagre that it
is impossible to ascertain details, but, from whatever cause, Gaïnas
resolved to escape from the city. Fearing that if he attempted to quit
it openly with his troops, he might be forcibly stopped or impeded in
his departure, he pretended to be under the influence of a demon
and that he desired to offer up prayers for relief from his affliction at
the martyry of St. John at Hebdomon, seven miles outside
Constantinople.
As he was going out, however, by one of the gates on this
pretext, the guards stationed at the gate perceived that his followers
were taking with them a quantity of arms which they endeavoured
to conceal. The guards refused to let them pass; a fray ensued in
which the guards were killed. The inhabitants were seized with
mingled rage and terror. Gaïnas was declared by royal decree a
public enemy. He himself was outside the walls, and the city gates
were now all closed to cut him off and such forces as were with him
from those who were left inside Constantinople. A large number of
these assembled in and around the church of the Goths. Here they
were attacked by the infuriated populace, which set fire to the
building. The Goths perished wholesale in the flames or by the
sword. Gaïnas, with the remainder of his followers, betook himself to
a life of plunder in the Thracian Chersonese. But he found the
inhabitants generally prepared to offer a stout resistance to his
pillaging bands, which were soon reduced to great straits for
subsistence. Meanwhile, a countryman of his in Constantinople was
organising measures for his destruction. Fravitta was one of those
Goths who had become assimilated to the people among whom they
lived. He had married a Roman lady, and was eminent alike for
refinement of manners, for valour in arms, and for honest fidelity to
the government which he served.497 He offered to lead out such
forces as could be placed at his disposal, pledged himself to clear
the Chersonese of the rebels, and drive them, if necessary, beyond
the Danube. The offer was accepted with joy, and Fravitta defeated
the enemy in several engagements. Gaïnas attempted to cross the
Hellespont, and throw his troops again into the fertile regions of Asia
Minor; but his flimsy fleet of hastily-constructed rafts, being attacked
by a well-managed body of galleys in the middle of the passage, was
dispersed or broken in pieces, and a large part of his army was
drowned. Gaïnas then determined, with the remnant of his followers,
to beat a hasty retreat in the direction of the Danube, where he
hoped to be joined by some of his own countrymen, and renew the
offensive. The accounts of his march are not quite harmonious, and
somewhat obscure. According to Zosimus,498 he was hotly pursued
by Fravitta from place to place, across the range of Hæmus up to
the shores of the Danube, into the waters of which he plunged on
horseback, and with a scanty band of followers gained the opposite
bank, intending thence to make his way to the settlements of his
forefathers on the banks of the Pruth or Borysthenes. But his design
was frustrated by an unexpected enemy. The Huns occupied at that
time the region immediately north of the Danube, and their king,
Uldes or Uldin, was disposed to enter into friendly relations with the
Roman Empire. He took up the pursuit which Fravitta had
abandoned at the river frontier, chased the unhappy Goth like a wild
beast from one hiding-place to another, till at last the prey was
caught and killed. His head was carried on the point of a lance to
Constantinople, as a visible pledge of the good-will of the Hunnish
chief. Sozomen and Socrates,499 on the other hand, represent him to
have been overtaken, routed, and slain by Roman troops in
Thrace.500
Theodoret has a vague story of his own, that when Gaïnas was
ravaging Thrace, neither warrior nor ambassador could be found
courageous enough to encounter him but Chrysostom, who, yielding
to the public appeal, set forth to intercede, and was most
respectfully received by the barbarian, who placed the right hand of
the Archbishop on his own eyes, and brought his children to his
knees—it may be presumed, to receive his blessing. Theodoret does
not venture to affirm that the mission availed to induce the Goth to
lay down his arms, and the whole story has an unreal and romantic
character.501
Three aspirants to the absolute control of the Eastern Empire,
widely different in race, character, and original condition of life—
Rufinus, Eutropius, Gaïnas—had alike perished by a violent death.
Fravitta was made consul, but he was too loyal or too unambitious to
go beyond the line of his legitimate power. Eudoxia now stood
without a rival in the management of the Emperor and the kingdom.
Her influence over her husband was enhanced by the birth of a
prince, who afterwards mounted the throne as Theodosius II.; and
thus the final obstacle was removed to her being solemnly
proclaimed Empress under the venerable title of Augusta.
 CHAPTER XVI.
CHRYSOSTOM’S VISIT TO ASIA—DEPOSITION OF SIX SIMONIACAL BISHOPS—
LEGITIMATE EXTENT OF HIS JURISDICTION—RETURN TO CONSTANTINOPLE
—RUPTURE AND RECONCILIATION WITH SEVERIAN, BISHOP OF GABALA—
CHRYSOSTOM’S INCREASING UNPOPULARITY WITH THE CLERGY AND
WEALTHY LAITY—HIS FRIENDS—OLYMPIAS THE DEACONESS—FORMATION
OF HOSTILE FACTIONS, WHICH INVITE THE AID OF THEOPHILUS,
PATRIARCH OF ALEXANDRIA. A.D. 400, 401.
Up to this point the episcopal career of Chrysostom may be
pronounced eminently successful. He had distinguished himself not
only as a vigorous reformer of ecclesiastical discipline, an eloquent
master of pure Christian doctrine, and preacher of lofty Christian
morality, but he had done good service to the State; and even while
he upheld with inflexible firmness the full rights of the Church, he
had not by overbearing or haughty independence forfeited the
goodwill, respect, and admiration of the Emperor and Eudoxia. But
now the horizon gradually darkens. We have to begin unravelling a
tangled skein of troubles, to trace a series of subtle intrigues,
against which the single-minded honesty of Chrysostom was ill
matched, ultimately bringing about his degradation, exile, and death.
We are fortunate in possessing, to guide us among these
complicated proceedings, the narrative of one who was not only an
eye-witness, but an actor in many of the scenes which he relates.502
In the spring of the year a.d. 400, during the military usurpation
of Gaïnas, twenty-two prelates had assembled in Constantinople to
confer with the Archbishop on ecclesiastical business.503 Palladius
has mentioned the names of a few, Theotimus from Scythia, Ammon
an Egyptian from Thrace, Arabianus from Galatia. One Sunday when
the conclave was sitting, Eusebius, bishop of Valentinopolis in Asia,
apparently not himself a member of the synod, entered the place of
assembly, and presented a document addressed to the Archbishop
as President, which contained seven grave charges against
Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus: “He had melted down some of the
sacred vessels to make plate for his son; he had transferred some of
the marble at the entrance of the baptistry to his own bath; he had
placed some fallen columns which belonged to the Church in his own
dining-room; he had retained in his employment a servant who had
committed murder; he had taken possession of some property in
land which had been left to the Church by Basilina, the mother of
Julian; he had resumed intercourse with his wife, and had children
born to him, after his ordination; lastly, the worst offence of all, he
had instituted a regular system of selling bishoprics on a scale
proportioned to the revenue of the sees.” Chrysostom probably
perceived, or suspected from the eagerness of the accuser, that he
entertained some personal animosity towards the accused. He
replied with calmness and caution: “Brother Eusebius, since
accusations made under the influence of agitated feelings are often
not easy to prove, let me beseech you to withdraw the written
accusation, while we endeavour to correct the causes of your
annoyance.” Eusebius waxed hot, and repeated his tale of charges
with much vehemence and acrimony of tone. The hour of service
was approaching; Chrysostom committed to Paul, bishop of
Heraclea, who appeared friendly to Antoninus, the task of
attempting to conciliate Eusebius, and passed with the remainder of
the prelates into the cathedral.
The opening salutation, “Peace be with you,” was pronounced by
the Archbishop as he took his seat in the centre of the other
bishops, ranged, according to custom, on either side of him round
the wall of the choir or tribune. The service was proceeding, when,
to the amazement alike of the clergy and the congregation, Eusebius
abruptly entered the choir, hurried up to the Archbishop, and again
presented the document of charges, adjuring him by the life of the
Emperor and other tremendous oaths to attend to its contents. From
the agitation of his manner, the people imagined that he must be a
suppliant entreating the Archbishop to intercede with the Emperor
for his life. To avoid a disturbance in the face of the congregation,
Chrysostom received the paper of charges, but when the lessons for
the day had been read, and the Liturgy of the Faithful (Missa
Fidelium) was about to begin, he desired Pansophius, bishop of
Pissida, to “offer the gifts,” and, with the rest of the prelates, quitted
the church. His serenity of mind was ruffled by the impetuous
behaviour of Eusebius, and he dreaded the possibility of infringing
our Lord’s command to abstain from bringing a gift to the altar when
“thy brother hath aught against thee.” After the conclusion of the
service, he took his seat with the other bishops in the baptistry, and
summoned Eusebius into the presence of the conclave. Once more
the accuser was warned not to advance charges which he might not
be able to substantiate, and was reminded that when once the
indictment had been formally lodged, he could not, being a bishop,
retract the prosecution. Eusebius, however, intimated his willingness
to accept all the responsibility of persevering with the accusation.
The list of charges was then formally read. The bishops concurred in
pronouncing each of the alleged offences to be a gross violation of
ecclesiastical law, but recommended that Antoninus should be tried
upon the cardinal crime of simony, since this transcended, and in a
manner comprehended, all the rest. “Love of money was the root of
all evil;” and he who would basely sell for money the highest
spiritual office, would not scruple to dispose of sacred vessels,
marbles, or land belonging to the Church. The Archbishop then
turned to the accused: “What say you, brother Antoninus, to these
things?” The Bishop of Ephesus replied by a flat denial of the
charges. A similar question being addressed to some of the bishops
there present, described as purchasers of their sees, was answered
by a similar denial. An examination of such witnesses as could be
procured lasted till two o’clock in the day, when, owing to the lack of
further evidence, the proceedings were adjourned. Considering the
gravity of the affair, and the inconvenience of collecting the
witnesses from Asia, the Archbishop announced his intention of
paying a visit to Asia Minor in person. Antoninus, conscious of guilt,
and aware of the rigorous scrutiny to which his conduct would be
subjected, was now thoroughly alarmed. He made interest with a
nobleman at court, whose estates he managed (contrary to
ecclesiastical law) in Asia, and besought him to prevent the visit of
the Archbishop, pledging himself to present the necessary witnesses
at Constantinople. The Archbishop, accordingly, found his intended
departure opposed by the Court. It was represented that the
absence of the chief pastor from the capital, undesirable at all times,
might be especially inconvenient at a crisis when tumults were
apprehended from the movements of Gaïnas; and it was
unnecessary, as the appearance of witnesses from Asia in due time
was guaranteed.504 Any delay was an immediate relief to the
accused; and there was a further hope that, by bribery or
intimidation, the ultimate production of the witnesses might be
prevented. But he was disappointed; for though the Archbishop
consented to defer his own visit to Asia, he appointed, with the
sanction of the synod, three delegates to proceed thither
immediately and institute an inquiry into the case of Antoninus.
The delegates were instructed to hold their court at Hypœpœ, a
town not far from Ephesus, in conjunction with the bishops of the
province; and the Archbishop and his synod further determined, that
if either the accuser or accused failed to appear there within two
months, he should be excommunicated. One of the delegates,
Hesychius, bishop of Parium on the Hellespont, was a friend of
Antoninus, and withdrew from the mission under the pretence of
illness; the other two, Syncletius, bishop of Trajanopolis in Thrace,
and Palladius, bishop of Hellenopolis in Bithynia, proceeded to
Smyrna, announced their arrival to the accuser and defendant by
letter, and summoned them to appear at Hypœpœ within the
appointed time. The summons was obeyed, but the appearance of
the two was only for the purpose of playing off a farce before the
commissioners. Strange to relate, a reconciliation had taken place
between Antoninus and his apparently implacable accuser. Eusebius
had yielded to the temptation to commit the very crime which he
had so vehemently denounced. A bribe of money had quelled his
righteous indignation; plaintiff and defendant were now accomplices,
whose one interest was to conceal their joint iniquities. They
professed great willingness to produce their witnesses, but pleaded
the difficulty of collecting persons who lived in different and distant
places, and were engaged in various occupations. The
commissioners requested the accuser to name a period within which
he could guarantee the appearance of his witnesses. Eusebius
required forty days. As this space of time covered the hottest part of
the summer, it was hoped that the patience or health of the
commissioners would be too much exhausted at the expiration of it
to prosecute the inquiry. Eusebius then departed, ostensibly to
search for witnesses; but, in fact, he quietly sneaked away to
Constantinople, and concealed himself in some obscure corner in
that great city. The forty days expired, and, Eusebius not appearing,
the two delegates wrote to the bishops of Asia, pronouncing him
excommunicated for contumacy. They lingered a whole month
longer in Asia, and then returned to Constantinople. Here they
chanced to light upon Eusebius, and upbraided him with his faithless
conduct. He affected to have been ill, and renewed his promises to
produce witnesses. During these prolonged delays Antoninus died;
and Chrysostom now received earnest solicitations from the clergy of
Ephesus, and from the neighbouring bishops, to apply a healing
hand to the wounds and diseases of the Asiatic Church. “We
beseech your Dignity505 to come down and stamp a divine impress
on the Church of Ephesus, which has long been distressed, partly by
the adherents of Arius, partly by those who, in the midst of their
avarice and arrogance, pretend to be on our side; for very many are
they who lie in wait like grievous wolves, eager to seize the
episcopal throne by money.”506
The death of Gaïnas in January, a.d. 401, set Chrysostom free to
comply with this earnest appeal to his authority and aid. It was the
depth of the winter season; his health was infirm and impaired by
the strain of the past year’s anxiety and toil; but the zeal of the
Archbishop disregarded these impediments. He embarked at
Constantinople without delay, leaving Severian, Bishop of Gabala, to
act as deputy bishop in his absence. Such a violent north wind
sprang up soon after starting, that the crew of the vessel, afraid of
being driven on Proconnesus, lay at anchor for two days under
shelter of the promontory of Trito. On the third day they took
advantage of a southerly breeze to land near Apamea in Bithynia,
where Chrysostom was joined by three bishops, Paul of Heraclea,
Cyrinus of Chalcedon, and Palladius of Hellenopolis. With these
companions he proceeded by land to Ephesus. There he was
received with hearty welcome by the clergy and by seventy bishops.
The first business to which the Archbishop and this council of
prelates addressed themselves was the election of a new bishop to
the see of Ephesus. As usual there were many rival candidates, and
factions supporting each with equal vehemence. Chrysostom fell
back on the expedient of putting forward a candidate regarded with
indifference by all parties. The plan succeeded, and Heracleides was
elected. He was a deacon of three years’ standing, ordained by
Chrysostom, and in immediate attendance on him; a native of
Cyprus, who had received an ascetic training in the desert of Scetis,
a man of ability and learning. He comes before us again as a fellow-
sufferer with the Archbishop, to whom he had owed his elevation.
Not long after the arrival of Chrysostom, Eusebius, the original
persecutor of Antoninus and of the simoniacal bishops, appeared,
and requested to be re-admitted to communion with his brethren.
The request was not immediately granted; but it was determined to
proceed with the trial of the accused bishops, to prove whose guilt
Eusebius affirmed that he could produce abundant evidence. The
witnesses were examined, and the crime being considered fully
proven in the case of six bishops, the offenders were summoned into
the presence of the council. At first they stoutly denied their guilt,
but finally gave way before the minute and circumstantial
depositions of lay, clerical, and even female witnesses as to the
place, time, and quality of the purchases which they had transacted.
They pleaded partly the prevalence of the custom in excuse for their
crime, and partly their anxiety to be exempted from the burden of
discharging curial duties; that is, from serving on the common and
municipal council of their city. Every estate-holder to the amount of
twenty-five acres of land was bound to serve in the curia of his city.
Many of the functions incident to that office, such as the assessment
and collection of imposts, were (especially under an ill-administered
despotism) invidious and onerous. Constantine had exempted the
clergy from curial office, and the consequence was that many men
got themselves ordained simply to evade the disagreeable duty; and
this becoming detrimental both to the Church and State, the law of
Constantine underwent modifications by his successors. The Church
passed canons forbidding those who were curiales to be ordained,
the effect of which was to diminish the number of wealthy men who
entered the ranks of the clergy.507 The Asiatic bishops, therefore, if
curiales when ordained, had acted against the laws of the Church,
and could not legally have claimed exemption from curial duties on
the ground of their orders. They sued for mercy to the council; they
entreated that, if deprived of their sees, the money which they had
paid to obtain them might be returned. In many cases it had been
procured with much difficulty; some had even parted with the
furniture of their wives to raise the requisite amount. The Archbishop
undertook to intercede with the Emperor for their exemption from
curial duty; the ecclesiastical question he submitted to the council.
The decision of the prelates, under the influence of their president,
was temperate and wise. The six bishops were to be deprived of
their sees, but allowed to receive the Eucharist inside the altar rails
with the clergy, and the heirs of Antoninus were required to restore
their purchase-money to them. The deposed prelates were
superseded by the appointment of six men, unmarried, eminent for
learning and purity of life.508
On his return through Bithynia the Archbishop was detained by a
not less difficult and delicate piece of business. Gerontius,
Archbishop of Nicomedia, the metropolitan of Bithynia, was a
singular specimen of an ecclesiastical adventurer. He had been a
deacon at Milan, but was expelled by Ambrose for misconduct. He
made his way to Constantinople, where, by general cleverness, and
by some real or pretended skill in medicine, he became a favourite
with people of rank, and through the interest of some influential
friends obtained the See of Nicomedia. He was consecrated by
Helladius, bishop of Heraclea, for whose son Gerontius had managed
to procure a high appointment in the army. The new bishop of
Nicomedia gained the attachment of his people, again it is said,
through his skill in curing diseases of the body rather than of the
soul. Ambrose incessantly demanded of Nectarius, then Patriarch of
Constantinople, that he should be deposed; but Nectarius did not
venture to incur the displeasure of the Nicomedians. The bolder
spirit and more scrupulous conscience of Chrysostom did not
hesitate to strike the blow which his more worldly and courtly
predecessor had shrunk from striking. Gerontius was deposed,
whether by the sole authority of the Archbishop, or by the decree of
a council acting under his influence, is not stated. Pansophius,
formerly tutor to the Empress, a man of piety, wisdom, and
gentleness, was promoted to the see. But the Nicomedians bewailed
the loss of their favourite; they went about the streets in procession,
singing litanies, as if in the time of some great national calamity.509
Before quitting Asia, Chrysostom is also said to have taken active
measures for the suppression of the worship of Midas at Ephesus,
and of Cybele in Phrygia.510 All these proceedings are worth
recording, not only as of some ecclesiastical interest in themselves,
but also because they were all remembered and turned against him
by his enemies. It has been much debated whether Chrysostom, by
his acts in Asia, overstrained his legal powers, or rather, whether he
exceeded the legal boundaries of his jurisdiction as Patriarch of
Constantinople. The fact seems to be that the importance of his see
was in that growing state which enabled the possessor of it, if a man
of energy and ability, to go great lengths without any exception
being taken to his authority, unless and until a hostile feeling was
provoked against him. By the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, the
Patriarch of that city was restricted in his jurisdiction to the diocese
of Thrace.511 His authority over the dioceses of Asia Minor and
Pontus was not established till the Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451,
when there was a long discussion on the subject, and the papal
legates especially resisted any claim to such an extension; but it was
affirmed that the Patriarchs had long enjoyed the privilege of
ordaining metropolitans to the provinces of those dioceses, and so it
was finally conveyed to them by that Council; and the additional
right was granted them of hearing appeals from these
metropolitans.512 Theodoret (c. 28) simply observes that the
jurisdiction of Chrysostom extended not only over the six provinces
of Thrace, but also over Asia and Pontus. The Council of
Constantinople gave the bishop of that see the first rank after the
Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople was “a new Rome.” The
Council of Chalcedon declared him for the same reason to be
invested with equal privileges.
Chrysostom was welcomed, on his return to Constantinople, with
hearty demonstrations of joy. On the following day he was at his
post in the cathedral, and once more addressing his beloved flock. In
somewhat rapturous language he expresses his thankfulness at
learning that their fidelity to the Church, and their attachment to
their spiritual father, had not been impaired by his absence, which
had lasted more than a hundred days. They were disappointed that
he had not returned in time to celebrate Easter with them. But he
consoles them by representing that every participation of the
Eucharist was a kind of Easter. “As often as ye eat this bread, ye do
show forth the Lord’s death till He come.” “They were not tied to
time and place like the Jew. Wherever and whenever the Christian
celebrated that holy feast with joy and love, there was the true
Paschal Festival.”513 They regretted also that so many had been
baptized by other hands than his. “What then? that does not impair
the gift of God; I was not present when they were baptized, but
Christ was present.” “In a document signed by the Emperor, the only
question of importance is the autograph; the quality of the ink and
paper matters not. Even so in baptism, the tongue and the hand of
the priest are but as the paper and pen: the hand which writes is the
Holy Spirit Himself.”514
The thankfulness and joy of Chrysostom at the affectionate
reception with which he was greeted by the people were probably
felt and expressed the more warmly, owing to some unpleasant
accounts which had been forwarded to him by his deacon Serapion,
that Severian, Bishop of Gabala, had been endeavouring to
undermine his influence in his absence. It will be remembered that
to Severian Chrysostom had intrusted his episcopal duties during his
visitation journey in Asia. The circumstance of a bishop of Syria
residing for so long a time in Constantinople is worth considering,
and affords a curious insight into the character of the times.
Antiochus, Bishop of Ptolemais in Phœnicia, had a reputation as a
learned and eloquent man; he paid a visit to Constantinople, and
excited much admiration by his discourses. Severian, hearing of his
success, was animated by a spirit of emulation, if not envy, which
could not be satisfied till he had exhibited his powers on the same
theatre. He carefully composed a large stock of sermons, and set out
to try his fortune in the capital. The unsuspicious and generous
Archbishop received him cordially, and frequently invited him to
preach. Severian possessed some powers of speaking, though he
had a harsh provincial accent, and he exerted all his eloquence in
the church, and all his arts of flattery out of it, to win the confidence
and admiration, not only of the Archbishop, but also of the chief
personages at court, and even the Emperor and Empress. It was
with their full approval that he remained as deputy of the Archbishop
during his sojourn in Asia. But he found himself narrowly and
suspiciously watched by the Archdeacon Serapion, who opposed
some of his proceedings as arbitrary, and made no concealment of
his dislike. One day after the return of Chrysostom, Severian passed
through an apartment of the episcopal palace where Serapion was
sitting. Serapion rose not to make the customary salutation of
respect. Severian, irritated by his discourtesy, exclaimed in a loud
voice: “If Serapion dies a Christian, then Jesus Christ was not
incarnate.” The last clause only of the sentence was repeated by
Serapion to Chrysostom. It was corroborated by witnesses; the
indignation of the Archbishop was excited. Severian was
peremptorily commanded to quit the city. The Empress resented the
expulsion of a favourite preacher, and commanded the Archbishop to
recall him. Chrysostom yielded so far, but was inflexible in his refusal
to admit the offender to communion, till Eudoxia came in person to
the Church of the Apostles, placed her infant son Theodosius on his
knees, and conjured him by solemn oaths to listen to her request.
The Archbishop then, but with some reluctance, consented.515 He
was, however, thoroughly honest in doing that to which he had once
made up his mind. Fearing that his congregation, in their zealous
attachment to him, might disapprove of the reconciliation, he
delivered a short address on the subject. He was their spiritual
father, and he trusted therefore they would extend to him the
respect and obedience of affectionate and dutiful children. He came
to them with the most appropriate message that could be delivered
by the mouth of a bishop—a message of peace and love. There was
also a further duty incumbent on all—respectful submission to the
civil powers. If the apostle Paul said, “Be subject to principalities and
powers” (Tit. iii. 1), how especially was this precept incumbent on
the subjects of a religious sovereign who laboured for the good of
the Church? He besought them to receive Severian with a full heart
and with open arms. The request was received by the congregation
with expressions of approbation. He thanked them for their
obedience, and concluded with a prayer that God would grant a
fixed and lasting peace to His Church.
Severian addressed them the next day in a rhetorical and
artificial discourse on the beauty and blessings of peace—a subject
painfully incongruous with the subsequent conduct of the speaker;
for this misunderstanding with the Bishop of Gabala was the first
muttering of the storm which was soon to burst over the head of the
doomed Archbishop.516
The inevitable fate of one who attempts to reform a deeply
corrupt society, and a secularised clergy, on an ascetic model befell
Chrysostom. He lashed with almost equal severity the most
unpardonable crimes and the more venial foibles and follies of the
age. His denunciations of heartless rapacity, sensuality, luxury,
addiction to debasing and immoral amusements, might have been
borne; but he presumed—an intolerable offence!—to censure the
fashionable ladies for setting off their complexions with paint, and
surmounting their heads with piles of false hair. The clergy, too,
might have tolerated his condemnation of the grosser offences, such
as simony or concubinage, but they resented his restraint of their
indulgence in the pleasures of society, and of their propensity to
frequent the entertainments of the noble and wealthy. He was, as
Palladius expresses it, “like a lamp burning before sore eyes,” for
what he bade others be, that he was pre-eminently himself.517 None
could say that he was one man in the pulpit and another out of it. To
set an example to his worldly clergy, and to avoid contamination, he
gave up his episcopal income, save what sufficed to supply his
simple daily wants. He resolutely abstained from mingling in general
society, and ate his frugal meals in the seclusion of his own
apartment. Thus, with the exception of a few deeply attached
friends, who measured practical Christianity by the same standard as
himself, he became deeply unpopular among the upper ranks of
society. With the poor it was otherwise; they regarded him as a kind
of champion, because he denounced the oppressions and extortions
of the rich, and the tyranny of masters over slaves, and because he
was ever inculcating the duty of almsgiving. In the eyes of his
friends he was the saint, pure in life, severe in discipline, sublime in
doctrine; in the eyes of his enemies he was the sacerdotal tyrant,
odious to the clergy as an inexorable enforcer of a rule of life
intolerably rigid, odious to clergy and laity as an inhospitable, if not
haughty recluse; a vigilant and merciless censor who rode
roughshod over established customs. Individuals at last, among
clergy and laity, who conceived that they themselves, or at any rate
the section of society to which they belonged, were the butts at
which more especially the Archbishop aimed his shafts, began to
discuss their grievances, till their conferences gradually assumed the
shape of positive organised hostility against the disturber of their
peace. But before entering on the troublous history of his enemies’
machinations, it may be well to take a glance at the most
conspicuous of Chrysostom’s friends.
The list of those who are known to us by more than their mere
names is soon exhausted. Among the clergy may be reckoned
Heracleides, made Bishop of Ephesus in the place of Antoninus;
Proclus, afterwards (in a.d. 434) Patriarch of Constantinople, at
present the receiver of those who demanded audiences with the
Patriarch; Cassianus, founder of the Monastery of St. Victor at
Marseilles, and his friend and companion Germanus; Helladius, the
priest of the palace, probably equivalent to private chaplain;
Serapion, the deacon518 or archdeacon,519 afterwards made Bishop
of Heraclea in Thrace, from which see he was expelled in the
persecution which befell Chrysostom’s followers. With most of these
men he maintained a constant and affectionate intercourse or
correspondence during his exile to the close of his life. With such
intimate companions and friends the austerity and reserve of
manner which he assumed towards those outside this circle
vanished. All the natural amiability and playful humour of his
disposition shone out when he was in their company; he called some
of them by nicknames of his own invention, especially those who
practised such ascetic exercises as he specially approved.520
Three ladies are distinguished as among his most faithful friends.
Salvina was the daughter of the African rebel Gildo, and had been
married by Theodosius to Nebridius, nephew of his Empress, in the
hope—a vain one as it proved—that this tie would attach Gildo to the
Empire. Her husband died young; she vowed perpetual widowhood,
and became the patroness and protectress at the court of Arcadius
of oriental churches and ecclesiastics.
Pentadia was wife of the consul Timasius; and when her husband
was banished by Eutropius to the Oasis of Egypt, she had been
persecuted by the merciless tyrant, and fled for refuge to the
Church, where she was protected in sanctuary by the Archbishop in
spite of the opposition of her persecutor.
But by far the most eminent of Chrysostom’s female friends was
the deaconess Olympias. She sprang from a noble but Pagan family.
Her grandfather, Ablavius, was a prætorian prefect, highly esteemed
and trusted by Constantine the Great, and her father, Seleucus, had
attained the rank of count. She was early left an orphan, endowed
with great personal beauty, and heiress to a vast fortune. Her uncle
and guardian, Procopius, was a man of probity and piety, a friend
and correspondent of Gregory Nazianzenus. Her instructress also,
Theodosia, sister of St. Amphilocius, was a woman of piety; one
whom Gregory recommended Olympias to imitate as a very model of
excellence in speech and conduct. Under this happy training, the girl
grew up to emulate and surpass her preceptress in goodness.
Gregory delighted to call her “his own Olympias,” and to be called
“father” by her.521 There could be no difficulty in finding a suitor for
a lady possessed of every attraction. The anxiety of Procopius was to
secure a worthy one. Nebridius was selected; a young man, but high
in official rank; Count or Intendant of the Domain in a.d. 382, Prefect
of Constantinople in a.d. 386. They were wedded in a.d. 384. Many
bishops assisted at the ceremony, but Gregory was prevented from
attending by the state of his health. He wrote a letter to Procopius,
saying that in spirit, nevertheless, he would join their hands to one
another and to God. Part of the letter is written in a vein of sprightly
humour. “It would have been very unbecoming for a gouty old fellow
like himself to be seen hobbling about among the dancers and
merry-makers at the nuptials.”522 He also addressed a poem to
Olympias, in which he gives her advice how she ought to conduct
herself as a married woman. She did not long need his counsel.
Nebridius died about two years after their marriage. Olympias
regarded this early dissolution of the marriage-bond as an intimation
of the Divine will that she should henceforth live free from the
worldly entanglements and cares incident to married life. The
Emperor Theodosius desired to unite her to a Spaniard named
Elpidius, a kinsman of his own, but she steadfastly refused. The
Emperor acted in that despotic manner which occasionally marred
his usually generous character. He ordered the property of Olympias
to be confiscated till she should be thirty years of age; she was even
denied freedom of intercourse with her episcopal friends, and of
access to the Church. But she only thanked the Emperor for those
deprivations, which were intended to make her hanker after worldly
life. “You have exercised towards your humble handmaiden a virtue
becoming a monarch and suitable even to a bishop; you have
directed what was to me a heavy burden, and the distribution of it
an anxiety, to be kept in safe custody. You could not have conferred
a greater blessing upon me, unless you had ordered it to be
bestowed upon the churches and the poor.” The Emperor was
softened; at any rate he perceived the uselessness, if not the
injustice, of his treatment. He cancelled the order for the
confiscation of her property, and left her in the undisturbed
enjoyment of single life and of her possessions. Henceforward her
time and wealth were devoted to the interests of the Church. She
was the friend, entertainer, adviser of many of the most eminent
ecclesiastics of the day; the liberal patroness of their works in
Greece, Asia, Syria, not only by donations of money but even of
landed property. We may not admire what was regarded in those
days as among the most admirable traits of saintliness, a total
disregard to personal neatness and cleanliness; but we can admire
her frugal living, and entire devotion of her time to ministering to
the wants of the sick, the needy, and the ignorant. Her too
indiscriminate liberality was restrained by Chrysostom, who
represented to her that, as her wealth was a trust committed to her
by God, she ought to be prudent in the distribution of it. This
salutary advice procured for him the ill-will of many avaricious
bishops and clergy, who had profited, or hoped to profit, by her
wealth.523 She, on her side, repaid the Archbishop for his spiritual
care by many little feminine attentions to his bodily wants, especially
by seeing that he was supplied with wholesome food, and did not
overstrain his feeble constitution by a too rigid abstinence.524
The leaders of the faction hostile to Chrysostom among the
clergy were the two bishops already mentioned—Severian of Gabala
and Antiochus of Ptolemais. To these was added a third in the
person of Acacius, Bishop of Berœa. He had, in a.d. 401 or a.d. 402,
paid a visit to Constantinople, and, in a fit of rage at what he
considered the mean lodging and inhospitable entertainment of the
Archbishop, had coarsely exclaimed, in the hearing of some of the
clergy, “I’ll season a dainty dish for him.”525 The ladies who acquired
a melancholy pre-eminence among the enemies of the Archbishop
were the intimate friends of the Empress, already mentioned—
Marsa, widow of Promotus, the consul whom Rufinus murdered;
Castricia, wife of the consul Saturninus; and Eugraphia, a wealthy
widow,—all rich women “who used for evil the wealth which their
husbands had through evil obtained.” Proud, intriguing, licentious,
they were all exasperated against the Archbishop for the censure
which he had unsparingly pronounced upon their moral conduct, as
well as their vain and extravagant display in dress. The house of
Eugraphia became the rendezvous of all clergy and monks, as well
as laity, who were disaffected to him. Among the clergy was Atticus,
who was obtruded on the see as Archbishop after the banishment of
Chrysostom. This worthy cabal collected, and disseminated with
praiseworthy industry, whatever tales could damage the character
and influence of the Archbishop. His real failings were exaggerated,
others were invented, and his language misrepresented. He was
irascible, inhospitable, uncourteous, parsimonious; he had
unmercifully assailed Eutropius with harsh language when he fled for
refuge to the Church; he had behaved disrespectfully to Gaïnas
when he was “magister militum;” but, worse than all, he had
audaciously attacked the Augusta herself, and had insulted her
sacred majesty by indicating her under the name of Jezebel. This is
scarcely credible in itself, and is distinctly contradicted by the most
trustworthy authorities; but it is stated that he had reproved the
Empress for appropriating with harshness, if not violence, a piece of
land; and of course the blows which he directed against inordinate
luxury, unseemly parade of dress and the like, fell heavily upon the
most prominent leader in these follies. She was probably mortified
also to find that her display of religious zeal, her pious attendance
on the services of the Church, her pilgrimages, her really liberal
donations to good works, did not protect her from censure in other
things. Chrysostom was not one of those who would connive at evil
for the benefit, as some might have represented it, of the Church.
He would not sacrifice what he believed to be the interests of
morality, for the supposed advantage either of himself or of the
Church over which he ruled. Wrong was wrong and must be
rebuked, though the actor was the Empress herself, though that
Empress was inclined to be the benefactress and patroness of the
Church, and though she might become, as she did become, his
implacable foe.
The clergy only needed an equally potent leader on their side,
and then the organisation of the hostile forces would be complete.
Such a chief was to be found in the Patriarch of Alexandria,
Theophilus, who had already displayed a malignant spirit at the
ordination of the Archbishop, though intimidated by Eutropius into
submission. He was only waiting his opportunity for revenge, which
a concurrence of circumstances now put into his hands.
After making the most of such charges as gossip, aided by
malice, could manufacture at Constantinople, the enemy employed
one of the party, a despicable Syrian monk named Isaac, to make a
scrutinising inquiry at Antioch into the previous life of Chrysostom. A
youth passed in such a licentious and voluptuous city could not fail,
they thought, to betray some stains if submitted to a rigorous
inspection. But their malevolent expectations were disappointed, for
their miserable spy could bring back nothing but unmixed praise of
an immaculate youth and a pious manhood.526
At this juncture the intriguers applied to Theophilus, and they
could not have secured a more willing and able director of their
plans. The character of this prelate, and his prominent position in
the final events of Chrysostom’s career, demand some notice. Of his
family and early life little is known. He had a sister who sympathised
with him in his ambitious schemes; and Cyril, who succeeded him in
the patriarchate, and too largely inherited his spirit, was his nephew.
He spent a portion of his younger manhood as a recluse in the
Nitrian desert, where he became familiar with the most eminent
anchorites of that period, Elurion, Ammon, Isidore, and Macarius. He
was secretary to Athanasius, and a presbyter of Alexandria under
Peter, his successor; and, on the death of Timothy in a.d. 385, who
succeeded Peter, he was elevated to the see. All historians concur in
admitting that he possessed great ability; that he was capable of
conceiving great projects, and executing them with courage and
address. Jerome has described him as deeply skilled in science,
especially mathematics and astrology, and highly praises his
eloquence.527 He had a passion for building, and his episcopate was
distinguished equally by the destruction of Pagan temples and the
erection of Christian churches. The most splendid of these were the
church of St. John the Baptist at Alexandria, and another at
Canopus. But to gratify this expensive taste he was grasping of
money, too often to the neglect of those indigent people who were
dependent on the alms of the Church. He combined his efforts with
Chrysostom’s, as has been already related, in healing the schism of
Antioch in a.d. 399, after which little is known of his history, till he
becomes Chrysostom’s implacable and too successful foe.528
 CHAPTER XVII.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE INTERFERENCE OF THEOPHILUS WITH
THE AFFAIRS OF CHRYSOSTOM—CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE WRITINGS OF
ORIGEN—PERSECUTION BY THEOPHILUS OF THE MONKS CALLED “THE TALL
BRETHREN”—THEIR FLIGHT TO PALESTINE—TO CONSTANTINOPLE—THEIR
RECEPTION BY CHRYSOSTOM—THEOPHILUS SUMMONED TO
CONSTANTINOPLE. A.D. 395-403.
In tracing to its starting-point the interference of Theophilus with the
affairs of Chrysostom, we have to unravel a curious and tangled
skein of controversy. The doctrines of Origen were as much an
occasion of strife a hundred and fifty years after his death, as he
himself had been during his life. With one hand holding on to the
philosophy of the past, and with the other firmly grasping the
Christianity of the present, he was persecuted by Pagans, yet never
universally accepted and cordially trusted by the Church.529 So with
his system of doctrine; it became a sort of debatable ground for the
possession of which contending parties strove. The prize was worth
the struggle; for the genius of Origen could not be questioned, but
the quantity of his writings being enormous,530 and the range of his
doctrine wide and many-sided, narrow-minded partisans, grasping
only a part of it, condemned or extolled him unfairly on a single
issue. The mystical element in his teaching was carried by some of
his admirers to extremes of fanciful, allegorical, interpretation of
Scripture, such as he himself would never have devised or approved.
To others of a more prosaic, material cast of thought this same
mystical vein was repugnant, and was denounced by them with
characteristic coarseness. Men of larger minds, who had patience to
peruse his voluminous works, and ability to criticise them, admired
his genius, recognised his great services to Christianity, heartily
embraced much of his teaching, questioned some portions, and
rejected others. Such were Gregory Nazianzenus, Basil, Chrysostom,
and Jerome, who would never have been so great as writers, or
commentators, had they not been students of Origen. As a general
statement, it may be true to say that he was less acceptable to the
colder, more practical, more realistic mind of the Western Church,
than to the lively imagination and speculative spirit of Oriental
churchmen. The most controverted points, indeed, in his system
were of a kind with which the Western mind did not naturally
concern itself. The pre-existence of souls; their entrance into human
bodies after the fall as the punishment of sin; their emancipation
from the flesh in the resurrection; the ultimate salvation of all spirits,
including Satan himself,—these are questions singularly congenial to
Oriental, singularly alien from Western, thought. The Origenistic
controversy fell into abeyance before the engrossing interest and
importance of the Arian contest; but when that wave had spent
itself, it revived, and just at this period all the greatest names of the
day became engaged on one side or the other. As usual, the real
questions at issue were too often forgotten amidst the personal
jealousies, intrigues, angry recriminations to which the discussion of
them gave birth.
In spite of his doubtful orthodoxy, the Egyptian Church could not
fail to be proud of so distinguished a son as Origen, and Theophilus
was at first his earnest defender. Some of the more illiterate
Egyptian monks had recoiled from Origen’s highly spiritual
conception of the Deity into an opposite extreme. Interpreting
literally those passages of Scripture where God is spoken of as if
possessing human emotions and corporeal parts, they altogether
humanised His nature; they conceived of Him as a Being not
“without body, parts, or passions;” they obtained, in consequence,
the designation of “Anthropomorphites.” Against this humanising,
material conception Theophilus, in a paschal letter, directed
argument and proof.531 It was received by many of the monks with
dismay, sorrow, and resistance. Serapion, one of the most aged,
burst into tears when informed that the mind of the Eastern Church
concurred, on the whole, with the doctrine of Theophilus, and
exclaimed, “My God is taken away, and I know not what to
worship.”532
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com