Part 57 (1/2)

(_g_) Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, VI, 15. (MSG, 67:708.)

The fall of Chrysostom.

Epiphanius had gone to Constantinople on the suggestion of Theophilus, and there, in his zeal, had violated the canons of ordination as generally received. In this case he had ordained priests in the diocese of Chrysostom and without his permission.

Other troubles had arisen. On being called to account for his conduct by Chrysostom, Epiphanius hastily left the city, and died on the voyage back to his diocese, Salamis, in Cyprus.

When Epiphanius had gone John was informed by some person that the Empress Eudoxia had set Epiphanius against him. Being of a fiery temperament and of ready utterance, he soon after p.r.o.nounced to the public an invective against women in general. The people readily took this as uttered indirectly against the Empress, and so the speech, laid hold of by evil-disposed persons, was brought to the knowledge of those in authority.

At length the Empress, having been informed of it, immediately complained to her husband of the insult offered her, saying that the insult offered her was an insult to him. He therefore gave orders that Theophilus should speedily convoke a synod against John; Severia.n.u.s also co-operated in promoting this, for he still retained his grudge [_i.e._, against Chrysostom. See DCB, art. Severia.n.u.s, bishop of Gabala.]. No great length of time, accordingly, intervened before Theophilus arrived, having stirred up many bishops from different cities; but this, also, the summons of the Emperor had commanded. Especially did they a.s.semble who had one cause or another of complaint against John, and there were present besides those whom John had deposed, for John had deposed many bishops in Asia when he went to Ephesus for the ordination of Heraclides. Accordingly they all, by previous agreement, a.s.sembled at Chalcedon in Bithynia. Now none of the clergy [_i.e._, of Constantinople] would go forth to meet Theophilus or pay him the customary honors because he was openly known as Johns enemy. But the Alexandrian sailorsfor it happened that at that time the grain-transport s.h.i.+ps were thereon meeting him, greeted him with joyful acclamations. He excused himself from entering the church, and took up his abode at one of the imperial mansions called The Placidian. Then, in consequence of this, many accusations began to be poured forth against John, and no longer was there any mention of the books of Origen, but all were intent on pressing a variety of absurd accusations. When these preliminary matters were settled the bishops were convened in one of the suburbs of Chalcedon, which is called The Oak, and immediately cited John to answer charges which were brought against him. And since John, taking exception to those who cited him, on the ground that they were his enemies, demanded a general council, without delay they repeated their citation four times; and as he persisted in his refusal to answer, always giving the same reply, they condemned him, and deposed him without giving any other cause for his deposition than that he refused to obey when summoned. This, being announced toward evening, incited the people to a very great sedition, insomuch that they kept watch all night and would by no means suffer him to be removed from the church, but cried out that the charges against him ought to be determined by a larger a.s.sembly. A decree of the Emperor, however, commanded that he should be immediately expelled and sent into exile. When John knew this he voluntarily surrendered himself about noon, unknown to the populace, on the third day after his condemnation; for he dreaded any insurrectionary movement on his account, and he was accordingly led away.

(_h_) Theophilus of Alexandria, _Ep. ad Hieronymum_, in Jerome, _Ep._ 113.

(MSL, 22:932.)

Theophilus on the fall of Chrysostom.

To the well-beloved and most loving brother Jerome, Theophilus sends greeting in the Lord.

At the outset the verdict of truth satisfies but few; but the Lord, speaking by the prophet, says, My judgment goeth forth as the light, and they who are surrounded with a horror of darkness do not with clear mind perceive the nature of things, and they are covered with eternal shame and know by their outcome that their efforts have been in vain. Wherefore we also have always desired that John [Chrysostom], who for a time ruled the church of Constantinople, might please G.o.d, and we have been unwilling to accept as facts the cause of his ruin in which he behaved himself rashly.

But not to speak of his other misdeed, he has by taking the Origenists into his confidences,(184) by advancing many of them to the priesthood, and by this crime saddening with no slight grief that man of G.o.d, Epiphanius, of blessed memory, who has shone throughout all the world a bright star among bishops, deserved to hear the words, Babylon is fallen, is fallen.

88. The Christological Problem and the Theological Tendencies

The Arian controversy in bringing about the affirmation of the true deity of the Son, or Logos, left the Church with the problem of the unity of the divine and human natures in the personality of Jesus. It seemed to not a few that to combine perfect deity with perfect humanity would result in two personalities. Holding fast, therefore, to the reality of the human nature, a solution was attempted by Apollinarius, or Apollinaris, by making the divine Logos take the place of the human logos or reason.

Mankind consisted of three parts: a body, an animal soul, and a rational spirit. The Logos was thus united to humanity by subst.i.tuting the divine for the human logos. But this did violence to the integrity of the human nature of Christ. This attempt on the part of Apollinaris was rejected at Constantinople, but also by the Church generally. The human natures must be complete if human nature was deified by the a.s.sumption of man in the incarnation. On this basis two tendencies showed themselves quite early: the human nature might be lost in the divinity, or the human and the divine natures might be kept distinct and parallel or in such a way that certain acts might be a.s.signed to the divine and certain to the human nature. The former line of thought, adopted by the Cappadocians, tended toward the position a.s.sumed by Cyril of Alexandria and in a more extreme form by the Monophysites. The latter line of thought tended toward what was regarded as the position of Nestorius. In this position there was such a sharp cleavage between the divine and the human natures as apparently to create a double personality in the incarnate Son. This divergence of theological statement gave rise to the christological controversies which continued in various forms through several centuries in the East, and have reappeared in various disguises in the course of the Churchs theological development.

Additional source material: There are several exegetical works of Cyril of Alexandria available in English, see Bardenhewer, 77, also a German translation of three treatises bearing on christology in the Kempten _Bibliothek der Kirchenvter_, 1879.

For the general point of view of the Cappadocians and the relation of the incarnation to redemption, see Gregory of Nyssa, _The Great Catechism_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. V), _v. infra_, 89 and references in Seeberg, 23.

(_a_) Apollinaris, _Fragments_. Ed. H. Lietzmann.

His Christology.

The following fragments of the teaching of Apollinaris are from H.

Lietzmann, _Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule. Texte und Untersuchungen_, 1904. Many fragments are to be found in the _Dialogues_ which Theodoret wrote against Eutychianism, which he traced to the teaching of Apollinaris. The first condemnation of Apollinaris was at Rome, 377, see Hefele, 91; Theodoret, _Hist.

Ec._, V, 10, gives the letter of Damasus issued in the name of the synod.