The Project Gutenberg eBook of Saint John Chrysostom his Life and Times by W. R W. Stephens

369 Of course I do not forget that the idea and name of Roman Emperor and Roman Empire lived on for centuries more, but the elevation of Charles the Great was a revolt against the old order of things. He can hardly be regarded as a successor of Theodosius so truly as Theodosius was a successor of Augustus.

370 Claud. de Bello Gild. 293.

371 Claud. in Ruf. i. v. 137.

372 Philostorg. xi. 3. For much assistance in his notices of Rufinus and Eutropius, the writer must pay his acknowledgments to the admirable work by Amédée Thierry: “Les trois ministres des fils de Théodose”—Rufin, Eutrope, Stilicon.

373 Gibbon, iii. 67. Zosim. iv. 51.

374 Claud. in Ruf. i. v. 220.

375 See references in Thierry, p. 19.

376 De Laud. Stil. ii. v. 379.

377 “Noster Scipiades Stilicho.” De Consulat. Stilic. præf. v. 21.

378 Claud. de Nupt. Honor. et Mariæ.

380 Symmach. Ep. iv. 15 and 16.

381 Possibly alluded to by Chrysostom in Hom. iv. de Penitentia, c. 2, where he mentions “incursions of enemies” among other recent calamities. These homilies were probably delivered in A.D. 395.

382 Thierry, pp. 35-78. Claud. in Ruf. lib. ii.

383 In Eutrop. i. v. 104, 105.

384 “Contemptu jam liber erat.”—Claud. in Eutrop. i. v. 132.

385 Claud. in Eutrop. i. v. 148, 149.

387 Philostorg. xi. 5.

388 Claud. in Eutrop. i. 427, etc.; ii. 97, etc.

389 Thierry, pp. 97-126. Zosim. v. 5. Claud. in Eutrop. ii.

390 Zosim. v. 8, 9, 12.

392 Claud. in Eutrop. i. 235, etc.

393 Synes. de Regno, p. 16.

394 Claud. in Eutrop. ii. 95. Thierry, p. 162, etc.

396 See Chrysostom’s own remarks in De Sacerdotio, lib. iii., cited above in Ch. iv., and in Act. Apost. Hom. iii. 5.

397 Epist. xxi. ad Valerium.

398 Socrat. vi. 2. Sozom. viii. 2.

399 Lib. iii. c. 15, 17.

400 Pallad. Dial. c. 5.

401 Socr. vi. 2. Sozom. viii. 2. Pallad. Dial.

402 Socr. vi. 2. Sozom. viii. 2.

403 Pallad. Dial. c. 5.

404 Sozom. viii. 2. Pallad. Dial. 5.

406 Bingham, b. ii. c. 11, sec. 8.

407 The title Patriarch is occasionally used in the following pages, although it does not appear to have been a formally recognised title till fifty years later. Socrates (A.D. 440 about) uses it (vide c. 8), but the first occurrence of it in any public document is in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, where it is applied especially to Leo i. of Rome.—Can. 28. Labbé, vol. iv.

408 Hom. xi. in Anom. vol. i. p. 795.

409 De Sacerd. lib. vi. c. 6-8, quoted above, p. 53.

410 Soc. vi. 3. Sozom. viii. 9.

411 Pallad. Dial. c. v. p. 20.

412 Lib. xxvii. c. 3.

413 Epist. ii. ad Nepotianum.

414 Pallad. Dial. c. v. and xii.

415 See Hefele, p. 131, and on the date of this synod.

416 Stanley, Eastern Church, lecture v. Socr. i. 11. Sozom. i. 23. The truth of the story has been disputed, but apparently on insufficient grounds. Vide Hefele, p. 436.

417 Can. 3. Hefele, p. 379.

418 Jerome, Ep. xxii. ad Eustoch. Epiphan. Hær. 63.

419 See references in Bingham, b. vi. c. ii. 13.

420 Contra eos, etc., vol. i. p. 495.

423 Contra eos, etc., c. 9.

427 Vol. xii. p. 468.

428 Vol. xii. p. 485.

429 Contra Lud. et Theat. vol. vi. p. 269, in fine.

431 Contra Lud. et Theat. c. 2.

432 From this and what follows it would appear that communicants went within the rails to receive, and close to the altar. This was the most primitive custom. Sometimes the recipients stood; vide passages cited in Bingham, b. viii. ch. 6, sec. 7.

433 Vol. xii. Hom. ix.

434 In Coloss. Hom. vii., vol. xi. p. 350.

435 Hom. xviii. in Genes., vol. iv. p. 150.

436 The use of silk seems from its first introduction into the Empire to have been regarded as the ne plus ultra of luxury. It was condemned by Pliny, vi. 20, xi. 21. Elagabalus was the first man as well as the first Emperor who ventured to wear a material hitherto confined to female dress. See Gibbon, vol. vii. c. 40, and his interesting account of the introduction of silk-worms from China to Constantinople by some Persian monks in the reign of Justinian.

437 In Matt. Hom. xlix., vol. vii. p. 501

438 In Psalm. xlviii., vol. v. p. 514.

439 Hom. i. de Lazaro, c. 8.

440 In Gen. Hom. xli., p. 382.

441 In Joan. Hom. lxii., p. 340, and Hom. lxix., p. 380.

442 In Act. Apost. p. 147 et seq.

443 Hom. xx. in Act. Apost. p. 162. This set of fifty-five Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, of which much use is made in this chapter, was delivered in A.D. 400, between Easter and Whitsuntide, in which interval it was customary to read through the Acts in the Lessons for the day: vide Bingham, vol. iv. These homilies are among the least polished of Chrysostom’s productions. Erasmus, who translated them into Latin, was thoroughly disappointed and out of humour with them, and even doubts their authenticity. In a letter to Tonstal, Bp. of Durham, he declares that he could have written better matter himself even when “ebrius ac stertens.” But most persons familiar with Chrysostom’s productions will agree with Montfaucon and Savile that these homilies could have flowed only from that golden vein, though the ore is not so much refined as usual, and that some passages are in his very best style. None of his homilies, except those on the Statues and St. Matthew, contain more curious revelations of the manners and customs of the age.

444 In Act. Apost. pp. 74 and 98.

445 In Act. Apost. p. 256.

446 See Villari’s Life of Savonarola, b. i. c. 3.

447 In Act. Apost. p. 191.

448 Hom. in Inscrip. Altaris, i. in initio.

449 In Act. Apost. pp. 189, 190.

450 Vol. xii. Hom. vi. adv. Cath. pp. 143 and 491.

451 Vol. xii. Hom. i., “Quod frequenter,” etc. Socrates, vi. 22. If we may estimate the man from the account by Socrates, his admirer, who relates a number of his so-called witticisms, the book is no great loss.

452 Greg. de Vita sua, pp. 585-1097. Orat. xxii., xxvii., xxxii.

453 Vide Gibbon, v. p. 30.

454 Socrates, vi. 8. Vide Dean Stanley, Eastern Church, pp. 131, 132, for specimens of these Thalia; e.g. one commences, “Where are those who say that the Three are but one power?”

455 Sozom. viii. 3. Socrat. v. 15.

456 Epist. xiv. vol. iii.

457 Vol. xii. Hom. viii.

459 Epist. xiv. and ccvii.

460 Theod. v. 29. Tillemont, xi. p. 155.

461 Marc. Diac. ap. Baron, an. 401, 49.

462 Vol. xii. 471. The titles “mother of churches,” “nurse of monks,” “staff of the poor,” etc., were not bestowed till after his return from his first exile, vol. iii. p. 446. M. Thierry has erroneously introduced them into this earlier stage of his life.

463 Claud. in Eutrop. lib. i. The pathetic appeal is by Claudian put into the mouth of an allegorical impersonation of the city. Claudian was the intimate friend and companion of Stilicho, and may not improbably have assisted at this audience. He is a valuable guide to the history of this period, and especially as an indicator of public opinion on the great events of his day.

464 Gibbon, vol. v. p. 361. Claudian, De Consul. Mall. Theod.

465 In Eutrop. ii. 39, 136.

466 Claud. in Eutrop. ii. 187 et seq.

467 In Eutrop. ii. 377.

468 The above account is taken from Zosimus, lib. v.; Claudian in Eutrop. ii. Thierry, “Trois Ministres; Eutrope.”

470 Claud. in Eutr. ii. 474 and 534, etc.

471 Philostorg. xi. 6. Zosim. v. 18.

472 Stanley, (Appendix,) “Memorials of Westminster.”

473 Cod. Theod. lib. ix. tit. 45.

475 The altar was sometimes called ἄσυλος τράπεζα (Synesius, Ep. lviii.)

476 Claud. Prolog. in Eutrop. ii. 25. Chrysost. in Eutrop., c. 3. vol. iii.

477 Chrysost. in Eutrop. c. 2.

478 De Capto Eutrop. vol. iii.

480 De Capto Eutrop. c. 4.

481 In Eutrop. c. 3.

483 In Eutrop. c. 1.

484 In Eutrop. c. 2-4.

485 Zosimus, v. 18, ἐξαρπάσαντες.

486 De Capto Eutrop. c. 1.

488 Zosim. v. 18. Cod. Theod. ix. 40, 17. Philostorg. xi. 6.

490 Zosim. v. 18. Socrat. vi. 6. Sozom. viii. 4.

491 Hom. cum Saturn. et Aurel. vol. iii.

492 Socr. vi. 6. Sozom. viii. 4. Theod. v. 31.

493 Sozom. viii. 4. Theod. v. 32.

494 Nili Mon. Epist. i. 70, 79, 114, 116, 205, 206, 286.

495 Sozom. viii. 4. Socr. vi. 6. Theod. v. 32.

496 Sozom. viii. 4. Socr. vi. 6. Zosim. v. 19.

497 Eunap. Sard. Fragm. 60. Sozom. viii. 4.

499 Sozom. viii. 4. Socr. vi. 6.

500 The Alexandrian Chronicle is precise in fixing Dec. 23, A.D. 400, as the date of his defeat on the Hellespont, and Jan. 3, A.D. 401, as the day on which his head was brought into Constantinople. This certainly leaves a very insufficient interval for the events recorded in Zosimus.

502 Palladius, author of the Dialogue prefixed to Migne’s edition of Chrysostom’s works. On the debated question whether this Palladius was the same Bishop of Hellenopolis who wrote the Lausiaca, vide Tillemont, xi. “Vie de Pallade.”

503 There was in fact what might be called a floating synod of this kind always in existence in Constantinople; the Patriarch being ex officio President.—Tillemont, xv. 703, 704.

504 We are in the summer of A.D. 400, and the capture and death of Gaïnas occurred in Jan. A.D. 401.

505 σοῦ τὴν τιμιότητα; sometimes we have ὁσιότητα, “your Holiness.”

506 Pallad. Dial. c. 14 and 15.

507 See, on this whole subject, Bingham, viii. 13. 6; and Robertson, i. pp. 187 and 318, and the authorities there cited.

508 Pallad. Dial. c. 14, 15. Sozomen (viii. 6) says that Chrysostom deposed thirteen bishops of Asia, Lycia, and Phrygia. This is possible, as the synod may have inquired into other simoniacal cases beyond the original six.

510 Tillemont, xi. p. 170.

511 Labbé, ii. p. 947. It must always be borne in mind that Diocese was the name of the largest civil division of the Roman Empire. Each diocese contained several provinces, e.g. Thrace, six; Asia, ten; Pontus, eleven. The whole Empire was divided into thirteen dioceses, and about one hundred and twenty provinces. The Ecclesiastical divisions followed more or less the plan of the civil. An archbishop was bishop of the metropolis of a Province, a Patriarch of one or more Dioceses.