Library › Palladius › Dialogue on the Life of St John Chrysostom

Dialogue on the Life of St John Chrysostom

Palladius, tr. Moore, 1921

1. Introductory

The Sin of Self-seeking in Spiritual Things

The gifts of God,¹ my excellent brother Theodorus, seem to me to fall into three classes. Some are common to all, and not apportioned to individuals, while others are common to all, yet apportioned. The third class consists of those which are not common to all, nor apportioned to individuals, nor unapportioned, but given as a special privilege to those to whom they have been given.

Deacon. Your opening observation sounds reasonable; please tell us the kind of gifts you assign to each class.

Bishop. The gifts which are essentially noble, without which life would be wretched, are common to all, and not apportioned.

Deac. For example, father?

Bish. First, the God of all, together with His Only-begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, is common to all, and not apportioned; every one who wishes can by contemplation possess Him in His entirety, without material aids.² Next to God, there are the divine scriptures, and the supra-mundane powers. Besides these, the sky, the sun, the moon, and all the host of stars, and the air itself, are common, and not apportioned; they are shared in their entirety by all. We need not give further illustrations of the class of unapportioned gifts. The land was at one time common to all, and unapportioned, and so were the streams of water; but since the mad craving for possessions became intensified in the souls of lovers of pleasure, the weightier elements of earth and water came to be apportioned.³

Deac. What you say is very clear; complete your account of the second class, that of apportioned gifts.

Bish. I will; we cannot leave the web of our subject incomplete. Well, gold, and silver, and every sort of metal, and timber, and in short every kind of raw material, are common to all, yet apportioned; for they are not at the unreserved disposal of every one who likes.

Deac. Again a very satisfactory account. I am wondering if you will not be hard put to it to demonstrate your third class, of special gifts. You laid it down, that there are some gifts which are neither common to all, nor apportioned, but are the special privilege of those who are worthy of their bestowal. So make your final flourish,⁴ and then tell us where you have come from, and the facts in regard to which we desire to learn the truth.

Bish. If it lies in my power, and if I have the requisite knowledge of these matters about which you wish to inquire, I will not hesitate, and will add nothing; but first, I suppose, I will pay off the debt ⁵ owing from my argument as best I can. Well, you will find that there is no apportionment in virginity, and in the unmarried state generally; these do not belong to the class of gifts common to all, or to that of those which are apportioned. Not every one who desires it is unwedded, but he who is able; for many married people long that they might be in the virgin state, but cannot attain to it, as they are already in wedlock. At the Olympic games, the herald calls him who wishes to run, but crowns only the victor; so it is with chastity, as the gospel says. Peter, you remember, raised the objection to the Saviour’s teaching, that “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry”; and the Saviour answered, “But it is not for all men to receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.” ⁶ Do you see, that it is not for all, but for those to whom it is given?

Deac. I expected that you would have some difficulty in your demonstration of the special gifts, but it appears that you have won us to your view by your forcible and scriptural language.

Illustrations from the Old Testament

Bish. As you have grasped this, I will enrich ⁷ my argument with other scripture proofs, so that evil-minded people may be persuaded to give up grasping at what they cannot get. We find that in the divine scriptures the priesthood is not common to all, nor apportioned, but is the special privilege of those who are worthy of it. Thus the great-souled Paul declares in his instructions to the Hebrews: “For no man taketh to himself the honour, but he who is called by God; so also Aaron,” he says, “did not glorify himself, to be made a high priest.” ⁸ For there were six hundred thousand men, many of them full of zeal; but one, Aaron, was proclaimed high priest, and the miracle of the rod which put forth nuts convinced the mass of the people that the priest was chosen of God. Some, however, in their ignorance of what is good, were bitten with the lust of vain reputation, and supposing that this was one of the common or apportioned gifts, leaped upon the office as self-ordained priests. They received the reward which their madness deserved; they made the very ground upon which their gathering was held bear witness to their wilfulness. It was Dathan and Abiram who were enamoured of the dignity, like men looking upon an harlot; they and their dupes were plunged into destruction beneath the earth, and found their places of assemblage to be their unexpected tomb.

Next, Uzzah, unmindful of the events I have mentioned, was led by the lust of power to fall in love with the office; and one day, as the ark was being carried along the road upon a wagon, it happened that the ox which drew it jolted and shook the ark. Uzzah, who was in attendance, took hold of it with his hand, to prevent the coffer from being overturned. God saw it, and it pleased Him not, as it afforded a precedent to headstrong persons; He prevented this, by smiting Uzzah even unto death, as a warning to posterity to refrain from such folly.

An Illustration from the New Testament

Long afterwards, after the advent of Christ, Simon Magus, of the village of Gethae,⁹ a cunning professor of the teaching opposed to the truth, really a bad man of wicked life, hit upon a subtle plan ¹⁰ to satisfy his lust of power; afraid, apparently, of the punishment which befel these men of old time, he did not wish to reap as they reaped, through sowing as they sowed. So he hid the wolf in the sheepskin, and approached the apostles with flattery, offering them money, so as not to seem to grasp what he was wrongfully anxious to buy, and saying what we should expect of him and his like. “Take this money,” he said, “and give me the power of your high office, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive (the gifts of the) ¹¹ Holy Ghost.” ¹² And he had been baptized into the name of Jesus! The answer of the apostolic band was this: “Begone, man; the grace of God does not allow itself to be sold.” And as he continued knocking at the door with his appeals, they said again: “Why buy that which you can get for nothing, if you live worthily of it?” But as he considered the burdens of the life, and his own unwillingness to bear them, and the uncertainty of the matter,¹³ he again produced the money from his purse, thinking to ensnare the disciples of the Saviour by deceit. He Who takes the wise in their own craftiness ¹⁴ expressed His indignation at this by the mouth of Peter. “Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought to purchase the gift of God with money.” Yet He offered him the medicine of repentance, applying oil to his ailment, in His long-suffering. “Repent,” He said; “it may be that the thought of thine heart shall be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” For God, in His love of souls, wills not the destruction of offenders.

The Characters in the Dialogue Introduced

Now, then, that I have explained my first remarks to the best of my powers, Theodorus of noble name, and deacon of the mysteries of the truth, ask us what you wanted to find out.

Deac. “Where have you come from to give us ¹⁵ your company?

Bish. From the east. You may be sure of that, for I have never seen Rome before. ¹⁶

Deac. What particular object brought you here?

Bish. My desire for your peace.

Deac. Is our peace different from yours?

Bish. No, it is not different, but. one and the same; the peace which the Saviour has given from heaven, saying to His disciples, “My peace I give unto you.” And to confirm His gift of grace He repeated, “My peace I leave to you.” ¹⁷ The word “give” He applies to His own work, “leave” to the Holy Spirit’s; in the Spirit, through Christ, they are to reveal to the Gentiles the knowledge of the Father. But the sad condition of the poor East is like that of a man with his limbs paralyzed, who finds that the vital forces make their way to the healthier parts of his body. Her limbs are paralyzed and unable to perform their proper functions, because concord has fled from her; most of us, her champions and lovers, have become exiles from our country, as we cannot live in our native land safely and quietly, on account of our attachment to the truth. We venture to hope that we may spend among you the few days of life that still remain to us in accordance with the gospel.

Deac. It seems to me that you have been sent, to us, excellent father, by divine providence; for I find that your sorrow is in tune with our troubles. I think that you must be a member of the synod of John the bishop of Constantinople.

Episc. That is so.

Deac. I urge you then, as in the presence of God, to give us a really true account of events there, the details of which we are anxious to hear; remembering, that if you tell us anything contrary to the truth, you will have God as your inquisitor and judge, and will be convicted by us as well, when we learn the discrepancy. For it is not one, or two, or three, or ten persons, but more, who have given us accounts of what has happened at Constantinople; nor were they casual travellers, but some of them bishops, and presbyters, and members of the monastic order. As you may wish to have a short statement of the part the Roman Church has played, I will give you some information on the point.

How the News reached Rome

The first to arrive here was a reader ¹⁸ from Alexandria, with letters from Pope ¹⁹ Theophilus, notifying us that he had deposed John. Upon reading this letter, the blessed Pope Innocent was somewhat ²⁰ troubled; he condemned the impetuosity and pride of Theophilus, as he had not only written on his own single authority,²¹ but also had neglected to make it clear why he had deposed him, or who had joined him in the sentence of deposition. He thus found himself in difficulty; he was disinclined to answer the letter, as the case was so obscure. Meanwhile, one Eusebius, a deacon of the Church of Constantinople, who was staying in Rome upon ecclesiastical business, came to Pope Innocent, and presented written memorials,²² adjuring him to wait for a short time, to see the unmasking of the plot. Three days ²³ afterwards arrived four bishops of John’s party, all devout ²⁴ persons—Pansophius of Pisidia, Pappus of Syria, Demetrius of the Second Galatia, and Eugenius of Phrygia; they delivered two letters, followed by a third, one from Bishop John, one from forty other bishops in communion with John, the last from John’s clergy. All three letters agreed in their representation of the disturbance caused by ignorant persons. The substance of John’s letter ²⁵ was as follows:—

Notes

The exordium is framed on the lines of Plato’s Republic, in which some apparently irrelevant remarks lead up to the real subject. Palladius makes clear from the beginning his object in writing (p. 173), not only to tell the story of Chrysostom’s life, but to encourage and warn against clerical ambition and greed (pp. 40, 87, 121, etc.), which led his enemies to bring about Chrysostom’s downfall.
As our text stands, it is God Who is “without experience of things.” The meaning is, no doubt, that of Chrysostom, de Bapt., xi., “There is no need to cross the sea, or traverse mountain ranges; sitting at home, with reverence and compunction, you may find Him.” Cf. Wisd. vi. 14.
“He made some things to be common, as the air, the sun, the sky . . . distributing all things equally, as to brothers. He made other things to be common, as baths, markets, cities . . . but strife comes in when men use that cold word, ‘Thine, mine.’ . . . Necessary things are common, but we do not observe their community even in the least things. How then can the possessor of wealth be a good man?” (Hom. in i Tim. xii.). In his sermon on the very day of his ordination as priest, Chrysostom spoke strongly against riches: “ Every rich man is an unjust man, or the heir of an unjust man.” Palladius follows his example at the beginning of his treatise.
As a writer, making an ornamental flourish at the close of his work. The deacon is impatient of the sententious exordium, as he does not know the circumstances which make it appropriate.
“ Since I promised above to tell of . . ., I am constrained to pay the debt.” Pall., L. H., lxi. 1.
Matt. xix. 10, 11 (freely quoted).
Lit. “anoint.” Cf. “Almsgiving anoints the soul (Hom. in John lxxxi.).
Heb. v. 4 (freely quoted).
So Just. M. Fragm. Gethae was a Samaritan village.
“Acted as a Sophist”; the word in 2 Pet. i. 16. Cf. Acts vii. 19. So p. 38.
As Dr. Westcott shows (on John vii. 39), “Holy Spirit” without the article refers to His gifts, not His Person.
Acts viii. 19.
As there is no tangible proof of the bestowal of a spiritual gift, he wished to ensure it by a tangible gift on his part.
1 Cor. iii. 19, quoting Job v. 13.
Others are present, besides Theodore (pp. 60, 165).
Palladius of Helenopolis obviously had visited Rome before (p. 25). He is not represented as the “bishop” of the Dialogue, who is a purely imaginary person.
John xiv. 27.
The order of “readers” is first mentioned in the third century; the custom of allowing laymen to read the Scriptures was probably taken over from the Jewish Church. In the East they read only the Old Testament lections and the Epistles, announcing, “Thus saith the Lord,” while the deacon responded, “Let us attend,” which Chrysostom (Hom. in Act. xix. 5) complains that many did not do. They read from the pulpit in the nave, not from that in the chancel; Sozomen says that Chrysostom, in order to be the better heard, preached “sitting in the reader’s pulpit.”
“Papa.” Until a.d. 230 the Bishop of Alexandria was the only one in Egypt; he was called “Abba,” “Father,” the title common to all bishops. “But in the time of Heraclius,” when other Egyptian bishops were appointed, “the Patriarch of Alexandria was called Baba” (i. e.“ Ab-abba,” “grandfather”). Thus Eutychius (Ann., cxi.). Athanasius (Apol. c. Ar. 69, de Syn. 16) regards the title as belonging to the Bishop of Alexandria only; but Tertullian speaks of any bishop who pronounces absolution as “benedictus Papa,” and Jerome gives the title to Athanasius, Epiphanius, Augustine, etc. Later, the linguistic origin of the title was forgotten, and it was supposed that “Papa” was a special title of dignity given to the Bishops of Alexandria because they ruled such an important see; hence it was also given to the Bishops of Rome, and in time claimed by them as their peculiar privilege. Cf. p. 52.

Theophilus, after spending his youth among the recluses of the desert of Nitria, became secretary to Athanasius, was priest at Alexandria, and bishop in 385. Jerome, among others, greatly admired him as a learned and vigorous man; the more so, probably, as sharing his views upon Origenism. He died in 412, and was succeeded by his nephew, the famous Cyril.
“Not” seems to have dropped out of the text. “Not a little troubled.”
Without the support of his synod.
“Libelli”; frequently in this treatise for “memorials of complaint,” “accusatory documents”; here, “of petition,” as in Conc. Eph., Can. VIII.
These “three days” present a difficulty. Theophilus arrived at Constantinople in June; the last events recorded in the letter occurred at Easter. How, when nine months had elapsed, did the two communications arrive so nearly together? We must not suppose that either party would be in haste to communicate with the Bishop of Rome, There was no love lost between the three sees; the record of Rome was not without taint of heretical leanings, and neither the Bishop of “New Rome,” nor the successor of St. Mark, on the throne of the largest province in the world, would welcome interference from “beyond the boundaries,” even if the canons did not discountenance it. Moreover, Chrysostom would know that his ejection might be regarded by Innocent as a personal matter, which did not concern the Church as a whole, while Theophilus would have to acknowledge defeat. But when Theophilus saw some prospect of ultimate success, he would be anxious to secure as much support as possible, and would hope by a formal notification to prejudice Innocent’s mind (always prepared to be jealous of the rising power of Constantinople) against Chrysostom; while in the sacrilegious occurrences at Constantinople, Chrysostom had a ground for appeal, for the benefit of the whole Church, in offences committed against her Lord, not against himself. Had he wished to bring the matter to Innocent’s attention earlier, it would have been easy for him to instruct Eusebius to make the statement officially, which he made on his own account, on hearing of Theophilus’ communication.
The word means “cautious,” “circumspect ”; so “careful in religious matters,” rendered “devout” in Luke ii. 25; Acts viii. 2, etc. It is approximating to its later use as a title of a clergyman, equivalent to our “Reverend.”
This letter is given among the “Epistles of Chrysostom,” but can hardly be what he actually wrote. The author professes to give only the substance of it; the style is his own, though some of Chrysostom’s phrases occur. Possibly Chrysostom wrote in Latin, which Palladius has freely translated, just as Sozomen translates Innocent’s answer. The letter ends, in harmony with the chronology, with the Easter services held in the open air; a forgery would have probably betrayed some knowledge of later events. Photius, with some hesitation, thinks it is Chrysostom’s own work, especially on account of its rhetorical style.