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

Dialogue on the Life of St John Chrysostom

Palladius, tr. Moore, 1921

3. The Emperor of Rome Takes Action

Innocent calls for a Synod of Inquiry

In answer to this letter, the blessed Pope Innocent sent to each party a formal letter,¹ declaring himself to be in communion with them both, at the same time nullifying the judgment supposed to have been given by Theophilus, and stating that another synod, in which full confidence could be placed, of western and eastern bishops, must be summoned,² first the friends, and then the enemies, of the respective parties to retire from the assemblage, since as a general rule neither of these gives an unprejudiced verdict.

After a few days, Peter, one of Theophilus’ priests, arrived, and with him Martyrius,³ a deacon of the Church of Constantinople, who presented letters from Theophilus, and what professed to be certain minutes; in which it appeared that John had been condemned by thirty-six bishops, of whom twenty-nine were from Egypt, seven from other parts. Pope Innocent read these minutes, and finding that the charges were not serious, and also that John had not been present in person at his conviction, renewed his denunciation of the mad fury of Theophilus, in issuing, like an evil discharge, a hasty sentence against an absent man. He dismissed them, therefore, with letters expressing his censure, and besought God with prayer and fasting, that the breach of unity in the Church might be closed, and brotherly love be cemented. The tenor of his letter was as follows:—

“Brother Theophilus, we recognize both you and your brother John to be in communion with us; we expressed our views to this effect in our previous letter. And now, without departing from this our determined policy, we can only write to you again the same message, however many letters you may send us. This is, that unless a proper judgment confirms these childish proceedings, it is impossible for us, without reason given, to separate ourselves from communion with John. If then you are sure of your verdict, meet a synod assembled as Christ ordained,⁴ and there openly state your accusation under appeal to the canons of Nicaea ⁵ (for the Church of Rome accepts no other canon); so you will stand on firm ground against all cavil.”

Further News Arrives

A little time slipped by,⁶ and then a priest of Constantinople, Theotecnus by name, arrived, presenting letters from John’s synod, of twenty-five bishops or rather more; in which they advised us, that John had been expelled from the city ⁷ with the help of the military, and sent into exile at Cucusus, and that the church had been burnt. Innocent gave him letters of communion,⁸ addressed to Bishop John and to those in communion with him, begging them with tears to be patient, as he could not help them owing to the hostile action of certain persons with power to do wrong.

A Foul Charge

A short time afterwards a second messenger arrived, a mannikin, ugly in appearance, difficult to understand; Paternus was his name. He said that he was a priest of the Church of Constantinople; he was in a state of furious excitement, and showed his hostility by his behaviour.⁹ After loading Bishop John with abuse, he presented letters from a few bishops, Acacius, Paulus, Antiochus, Cyrinus,¹⁰ and Severianus, and some others, in which they laid against John the false charge of having set the church on fire. The story seemed to us so palpably false, that John did not even offer any defence in an important synod; ¹¹ Pope Innocent treated it with contempt, and did not think it worthy of an answer.

Chrysostom’s Friends denounced by Imperial Edicts

Bish. Be so good as to give me your attention, that I may tell you the exact facts; for most truly, as Elihu says to Job, “The spirit of my belly constrains me” ¹² —meaning by “belly,” his mind, filled with words.

Deac. I must first insist upon making complete, as well as accurate, my account of all that has happened among us, most excellent father. Only then can I begin to put my questions to you. Well, after a few days the bishop of the Synadi ¹³ arrived; he carried no letter, but was qualified to give a harmonious narrative. He said that he had left Constantinople in consequence of the threat conveyed in the royal edict, containing the order that “if any one is not in communion with Theophilus and Arsacius and Porphyrius,¹⁴ he is to be restrained from exercise of the episcopal office; and further, if he appears to hold property in money or goods he shall be deprived of it.” ¹⁵

Later News

Cyriacus was followed by Eulysius, Bishop of Apameia, in Bithynia, who presented letters from fifteen bishops of John’s synod and from the venerable Anysius, Bishop of Thessalonica; in which the fifteen bishops described the pillage which had occurred, and was occurring, all over Constantinople, and Anysius declared that he abided by the judgment of the Church of Rome. Eulysius’ account agreed with that of Cyriacus.

A month later, Palladius, Bishop of Helenopolis, arrived, without letters, saying that he too had fled from the fury of the civil authorities; he was able to add point to his account by producing a copy of the edict, containing the order, that “the house of any one who conceals, or receives into his house, under any pretext, a bishop or priest in communion with John, is to be confiscated.”

After Palladius arrived Germanus, a priest,¹⁶ and with him Cassianus,¹⁷ a deacon, of John’s party, both discreet men, presenting letters from the whole of John’s clergy. They wrote that their Church had been subjected to violence and tyranny; their bishop had been expelled with the help of the military, and sent into exile through a plot formed by Acacius of Berea, Theophilus of Alexandria, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and Severianus of Gabala. They also presented a receipt, showing that they had deposited with the magistrates, as witnesses to the deed, namely, Studius the city prefect, Eutychianus, chief of the guard, John the city treasurer, and Eustathius, chief of police, and keeper of the records, valuables in gold, silver, and clothing, by way of clearing Bishop John of the charges laid against him.¹⁸

After these came Demetrius, Bishop of Pisinum, for the second time, from a long journey through the east. He announced that the Roman Church was in communion with Bishop John, as shown by letters from Pope Innocent, and brought letters from the bishops of Caria, in which they declared their adherence to the communion of John, and from the bishops of Antioch, appealing to the love of order of the Roman Church, and lamenting the ordination of Porphyrius, as illegally and impiously performed.

Last of all came the priest Domitian, steward ¹⁹ of the Church of Constantinople, and one Vallagas, a Nisibian priest, who related the troubles of the monasteries of Mesopotamia, and presented memoranda from one Optatus,²⁰ the prefect, showing that respectable women of the upper classes, deaconesses of the Church of Constantinople, were publicly brought before him, and compelled either to communicate with Arsacius, or to pay two hundred pounds in gold to the treasury. As for the treatment of anchorites and virgins, I dare not speak of that. They could point to ribs scraped upon the rack, and mutilated ears.

Honorius Intervenes

Pope Innocent could restrain himself no longer; he sent a letter to the pious King Honorius,²¹ submitting in detail the main points of the letters. His reverence was deeply moved by this statement, and ordered a synod of the western bishops to be summoned, which should pass an unanimous resolution, to be transmitted to him. The bishops of Italy accordingly met, and petitioned the king to write to his brother and fellow-king Arcadius, that he should command a synod to be held in Thessalonica. This would enable those from both hemispheres, east and west alike, to attend without difficulty, and so secure that a full synod, characterized by good judgment rather than by numbers, should issue an indisputable resolution. His reverence was so much inflamed by this letter, that he wrote to the Bishop of Rome, that he had sent five bishops, two priests, and one deacon, of Rome, to convey his letter to his brother. The import of this letter was as follows:—

Honorius’ Letter to Arcadius

“This is the third time that I write to your gentleness, begging you to take measures for redress in regard to the plot against John, Bishop of Constantinople, and so far as it appears, nothing has been done. Once more, then, I address you, by the hands of the bishops and priests, in my anxiety for the peace of the Church, upon which the peace of your kingdom depends, urging you to be so good as to command that the bishops of the cast shall meet at Thessalonica. I may add that our bishops of the west have made careful choice of messengers, beyond the influence of malice or deceit—five bishops, two priests, and a deacon, of the greatest Church, that of Rome. Be so good as to hold them worthy of all honour, so that either they may be convinced that Bishop John was justly expelled, and instruct me to separate from communion with him; or else, if they prove that the bishops of the east were deliberately influenced by malice, they may induce you to break off communion with them. To show you the mind of the westerns in regard to Bishop John, I append two of the various letters they have addressed to me, which are of the same import as the rest; those of the bishops of Rome and of Aquileia. But what I specially press upon your gentleness is, that you require the presence, however unwilling, of Theophilus of Alexandria, who is alleged to be the chief cause of all the trouble; that so the bishops assembled in synod may meet with no hindrance in deciding upon the peaceful settlement which our times require.”

Notes

Lit. “The equal things of the communion.” It was usual for bishops to send to one another portions of the consecrated elements as a sign of unity and good-will. Irenaeus refers to this custom (Euseb. v. 24); Can. XIV. of Laodicea forbids such sendings, on the feast of Easter, to other dioceses. But “equal things” is commonly used in later Greek for “copies,” “documents in prescribed form ”—in Latin, “formatae epistolae.” The eleventh canon of Chalcedon deals with such “letters of commendation” (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 1, Rom. xvi. 1) carried by travellers; described as “letters of peace,” or “letters of communion,” guaranteeing that the bearers were members of the Church. This will be the sense here. The letter would be akin to the “letters of peace” sent from the west to Flavian (Soz. viii. 25); see p. 50, and the first words of the letter below.
Innocent’s letter in Sozomen to the clergy of Constantinople urges the need of a synod, though not with these stipulations.
A panegyric of Chrysostom by “Martyrius, Bishop of Antioch” (Migne, xlvii.), seems to be his work.
Matt. xviii. 17; cf. 1 Cor. v. 9.
“ We write, that we must be led by the canons laid down at Nicaea, which alone the Catholic Church ought to follow” (Innocent’s letter in Soz. viii. 26). The fifth canon prescribes that persons excommunicated by the bishops of a province (“eparchia,” as above, p. 12) may not be admitted to communion by other bishops; but that to prevent undeserved excommunications, two synods shall be held in each province each year, at which inquiry shall be made into doubtful cases. Hence Chrysostom refused communion to the Tall Brothers (p. 60). Innocent’s proposed synod would go further, being of the whole Church, not of a single province; here Theophilus, having excommunicated Chrysostom, would have to justify his action.
Lit. “rode past” on horseback. So in Pall., L. H., vi. 7.
Chrysostom’s second expulsion (p. 89).
Declaring himself to be still in communion with them (p. 21).
Or, “his appearance.”
See p. 126.
This could only be by proxy or by letter, as he went straight into exile (p. 90). A synod was held after the first expulsion (p. 73, n.), which the deacon may have in mind, but the author is not concerned with his accuracy. The lack of logical sequence in the sentence may point to corruption in the text.
Job xxxii. 18.
Cyriacus; p. 89.
Bishop of Antioch (p. 13 ff.). For Arsacius, cf. p. 30.
i. e. Chrysostom is a heretic. Theodosius, father of Arcadius, had issued such edicts in regard to the Arians. George tells us that Chrysostom obtained the same from Arcadius. The leaning of the Church upon the civil power has always proved disastrous. Cf. p. 196.
Innocent states in his letter (in Sozomen) that he writes in answer to letters brought by these two.
Cassian had lived long among the monks of Egypt, and was ordained deacon by Chrysostom, for whom he had a great admiration. His writings are our best authority for the monastic life of the time, and were ordered to be studied in the Benedictine monasteries. He afterwards settled at Marseilles, where he founded a monastery for each sex, and took a leading part in the discussions upon grace and freewill, originated by the Pelagian heresy, evoking two treatises from St. Augustine.
The third charge at The Oak: “that he had sold a great quantity of the treasures of the Church.”
The revenues of the Church were originally entrusted to the bishop, to be by him distributed among the clergy and poor; this he did through the deacons, and especially the archdeacon. But as the Church grew in wealth and extent, “stewards” were appointed, always from among the clergy. Conc. Chalc. Can. XXV., XXVI., prescribe that during a vacancy in a see the revenues of a Church shall be managed by the steward, “that the administration of the Church may not be without witnesses, and the property of the Church be wasted, and the clergy exposed to cavils.” Theophilus advanced two monks to be stewards (p. 54); in his canonical epistle he orders that stewards are to be chosen by the clergy.
A pagan, and bitter opponent of the Faith, who succeeded Studius as prefect of Constantinople. He tried by torture those accused of the burning of the church; Eutropius, a reader, died under it. Tigrius (p. 176) and Serapion (p. 175) were similarly treated; Olympias was brought before him, and after a lively passage of arms heavily fined, for refusing to communicate with Arsacius.
Theodosius, dying in 395, bequeathed the empire of the west to Honorius, his younger, that of the east to Arcadius, his elder, but feebler son.