Synopsis of Observations on the Works of Chrysostom

the human race, and for choosing the opposite, he hated the wicked Uzziah: the synagogue rejected him, but the Church embraced him: Moses afflicted him with insults, but Christ healed him. Why? That the love of the Lord Christ toward men might be known, and that the greed of the money-loving Jews might appear. What, therefore, did that leper say, who confounds the heterodox? Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. I do not say, Entreat, but, Command with authority: I do not say, Pray, but, Heal. For it is proper to God to heal by His own will, not by the nod of another. For I have heard the Prophet saying: Our God is in heaven and on earth; He hath done all whatsoever He would (Ps. CXIII, 3). Since, therefore, Thou hast brought all things into being by Thy will, and hast stretched out the heavens like a curtain, and hast spread the earth beneath like a sheet, and adorned all things between them in varied forms; restore to me also the garment of nature, that I may decline the Law as burdensome, but glorify grace as loving mankind, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.

SYNOPSIS OF THINGS OBSERVED IN THE WORKS OF CHRYSOSTOM

Prologue

We embark upon an arduous and hitherto untried task, when, for the benefit of the reader, we intend to arrange in order the things dispersed in such a vast mass of volumes, so that they may be presented at a single glance. For truly, not only for those who have not the leisure to read those immense works in continuous reading, or for those who, in the course of twelve long volumes, would find it very difficult to extract everything according to the nature of the argument and divide it into certain chapters; but it is even wonderful to see the doctrine and theology, which pertain to the various disciplines and rites, both Antiochene and Constantinopolitan; and the innumerable things which occur concerning heretics; the many miscellaneous matters which are not ready to be reduced to any argument. Finally, the very frequent digressions which Chrysostom employs in similar matters, which are almost infinitely pertinent to the rituals and customs of his own time, and which do not look toward religion, but are related in comparisons. All these things we have already distributed into five discourses. We also intended to learn something of his style: but since this has been clearly done in the preface to the first volume, we shall consider it superfluous to repeat it.

DIATRIBE I.

Of those things which pertain to doctrine and the theological opinions of that age.

Concerning the substance of God and the Trinity of Persons, rarely does Chrysostom bring forth that which all Christians profess. But concerning the incarnation of Christ and His equality with the Father, he deals so with innumerable things that they were used against the Anomoeans, who at that time were refuted by the Catholics in Antioch and Constantinople: nor is there need to dwell longer on this matter. Against the Anomoeans, however, he fights with the argument that there were two wills in Christ, and against the Monothelites, who later arose, as if from works already given, he refutes the heresy (T. I, col. 765-766).

He describes the rite of Baptism thus: Those who were to be baptized, for thirty days before the sacred laver were prepared: before they were immersed, these words were spoken: I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomp and thy service, and I join myself to thee, Christ (T. II, col. 259) : to which they added, I believe in the resurrection of the dead (T. X, col. 348). And afterwards they were submerged in the water. But in the sixth homily on the Epistle to the Colossians, he thus reports the words spoken to him who was about to receive baptism (T. XI, col. 312): I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomp and thy service and thy angels. That word, and thy angels, is not had in the former: but the former was described in Antioch, the latter in Constantinople, where perhaps there was a slight difference in usage. Baptism, however, was not given at Pentecost, which he calls the metropolis of feasts (T. IX, col. 22): because, indeed, the faithful were addicted solely to the descent of the Holy Spirit, and were sent at another time (T. II, col. 463).

^A He often reproaches those who delayed their baptism until death, and enumerates the evils and dangers that follow from this (Vol. II and Vol. VIII). The names for baptism were many, he says (Vol. II), namely, the laver of regeneration, illumination; it was also called burial, circumcision, cross; and other names were also in use for baptism.

Regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is no ancient father who has spoken more clearly. For in the third book *On the Priesthood*, after he had extolled the dignity of priests, who, he says, stand near that immortal nature, he says a little later: "For if one cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, unless he has been regenerated by water and the Spirit, even he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord, nor drink His blood, is deprived of eternal life" (Vol. I). In the Homily ^B *On the Betrayal of Judas* he also says these words, "This is my body" (Vol. II), transforming the things proposed, and that the devil had leaped upon Judas after he had been a partaker of the divine table, not despising the body of the Lord, which he had received, but despising the impudence of Judas himself. That the body and blood of Christ are truly in the Eucharist, he states twice also in his *Homilies on Matthew*. Moreover, in the commentary on the *Second Epistle to the Corinthians*, he speaks very clearly on these words (Vol. VII): "The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?", stating: "That which is in the cup is that very thing which flowed from the side" (Vol. X). He speaks with even greater clarity on this matter regarding the body of Christ in the Eucharist in the second Homily on the *Second Epistle to Timothy* (Vol. XI): "And therefore this is the body of Christ, and indeed that [one]. He who thinks this is less than that, does not know that Christ is even now present and working." In this place he speaks of the priest offering the sacrifice.

Regarding the sacrament of penance, while speaking of confession, Chrysostom provided matter for error to those who shy away from it, and sowed anxiety in those who think rightly, when in his fifth Oration *On the Incomprehensible* he says: "I do not lead you into a theater of your fellow servants, nor do I compel you to reveal your sins to men; weigh your conscience before God, show Him your wounds, and ask for remedies from Him" (Vol. I). I have seen not a few wavering and some doubting on this matter whether, in that age, the confession of sins to a priest was in use at Antioch, where Chrysostom ^C spoke these words. They have not noticed that in the third book *On the Priesthood* he says that priests have received the power of cleansing thoroughly, and can forgive admitted sins after regeneration (Vol. I): and thus, when he speaks of the confession of sins, it is often to be understood as regarding this ministry of priests; as when he says that after sin one must proceed to confession, and that confession must precede communion (Vol. I). He states the matter more clearly when he pronounces that ulcers must be manifested to a priest (Vol. II): for by confession, he says, the burden of sins is laid down. ^D Although he says here and there that confession must be offered to God in prayers, in the mentioned places he declares that confession is also to be made to a priest.

Now let us come to a question that was agitated not long after the death of Chrysostom, and indeed arose in the final years of his life, which in our own age has exercised the talents of many for nearly an entire century: namely, concerning grace and free will. For Julian and Anianus, who were Pelagians, kept claiming that Chrysostom favored them: and Cassianus, who had adhered to Chrysostom, is considered the author of the Semipelagian heresy. Those who gave their names to such heresies thought that the Doctor favored them in his homilies, and they used his testimonies in such a way as to lend authority to their own claims, and they brought forward places that without doubt seemed opportune for defending their own opinion. For since nothing had yet arisen concerning grace and free will that caused concern or dispute, nor was the matter so difficult as to be circumscribed by certain limits of terminology, what wonder that Chrysostom, in his sermons, which he generally delivered extemporaneously, brought forward some things concerning the grace of God which, if he had treated them in calmer times and more accurately, he would undoubtedly have emended? Just as Augustine also discarded certain things he had formerly thought about the grace of God when he devoted himself to writing so many books on that subject. ^A

We cite the passages of Chrysostom here: The Homily on that saying of Paul, *But having the same Spirit of faith, etc.* (Vol. III), has this: "Wishing to show precisely that to believe and to obey the caller at the beginning is of our own good mind; but after the foundations of faith have been laid, now there is need for the help of the Spirit, that it may remain in us perpetually unshakeable and impregnable. For neither does God, nor does the grace of the Spirit anticipate our purpose; but although He calls, He waits until we accede spontaneously and by our own will, and then at last, when we have acceded, He exhibits to us His whole help." He says something similar in his Homily on John, explaining these words of the Gospel (Vol. VIII): "But Jesus turned, and seeing them following, says to them: What seek you?" He continues: "From this we are taught that God does not anticipate our wills with gifts; but where we have begun, when we have put forward the will, then He gives us many occasions of salvation."

Moreover, Homily 59 on Genesis explains the matter in such a way that he seems to be in conflict with himself (Vol. IV). For speaking of Jacob, the son of Isaac, he has this: "Although he relied upon supernal aid, nevertheless he exhibited what was his own first. So indeed let us persuade ourselves that, although we may strive a thousand times, we can do absolutely nothing rightly unless aided by supernal help. For just as unless we enjoy that subsidy, we can never do anything rightly; so, unless we have brought what is ours, we shall not be able to obtain supernal help." For if we can lay the beginning and foundations of faith without the help of God, as he said above, how can that be true that he adds here, namely that we can never do anything rightly unless aided by supernal help?

foundations of faith without the help of God, as he said above, how can that be true that he adds here, namely that we can never do anything rightly unless aided by supernal help ^A For because nothing had yet been defined in the Church concerning grace and free will, our orator did not speak of these matters with such scrupulousness as he might have done had he weighed them in the balance; for such things would doubtless have yielded more refined conclusions. But it was not permitted for an orator, who was declaiming almost daily and often extemporaneously, to be serious and circumspect with every word and statement, especially in matters that had not yet been asserted by the public laws of the Church (Volume III). However, that he was averse to the Pelagian heresy, he himself testifies at the end of the fourth epistle to Olympias, saying: "I am moved to great sorrow concerning the monk Pelagius; consider, therefore, how many and how great the crowns are which those deserve who have stood bravely in the battle, when we see men who lived in such exercise and endurance of piety being led astray."

I believe that here we are dealing with Pelagius the heresiarch and many learned men. For he was that monk, and he began to spread his errors when Chrysostom was in exile, spending the final period of his life around the year 407. All these things seem to refer to Pelagius, the author of the heresy, and they harmonize with him in such a way that no other Pelagius need be sought.

DIATRIBA II. Concerning the discipline of the age of Chrysostom, and concerning the various rites, both Antiochene and Constantinopolitan: and of the Liturgy.

Concerning the cult of the venerable cross of the Lord, the holy relics and images, and also the intercession and invocation of the saints, Chrysostom makes statements here and there which entirely express the present-day custom of the Church. It is truly remarkable what he says concerning the cult of the holy cross (namely, in Volume I): "Nothing so adorns the imperial crown as the cross, which is more precious than the whole world; and its figure, which once all used to shudder at, is now so eagerly sought after by everyone that it is found everywhere, among princes and subjects, among women and men, among virgins and the married, among servants and free men; for all frequently imprint that sign upon the better part of their limbs, and they bear it about daily upon their forehead as if it were a column. This shines forth upon the holy table, this in the ordinations of priests, this again with the body of Christ and the mystical supper. One may see it celebrated everywhere: in homes, in the marketplace, in deserts, in the roads, in the mountains, in forests, in hills, in the sea, in ships, in islands, on beds, in clothes, in armor, in chambers, at banquets, in silver and gold vessels, in pearls, in the paintings of walls, on the bodies of animals that are ill-affected, on bodies possessed by a demon, in wars, in peace, by day and by night, in the dances of those reveling, and in the associations of those mortifying themselves: so eagerly do all pursue this wonderful gift and its ineffable grace... It gleams everywhere, on the walls of houses, on roofs, in books, in cities, in villages, in uncultivated and cultivated places... Yet that very wood, upon which the holy body suffered and was crucified, why do all eagerly approach it? Why do many take a particle of it, enclosed in gold, and both men and women suspend it from their necks as an ornament, even though this wood was once a symbol of condemnation? Indeed, even Emperors, having set aside the diadem, would take up the cross (Volume I)."

He says these things frequently in his orations against the Jews, and adds that all opposing power is put to flight by the sign of the cross (Ibidem). It is also altogether unique what Chrysostom presents twice, the words of which I shall transcribe here (Volume V): "But behold, the cross itself has now become more honorable and splendid than life, and we all bear it about on our forehead; not only are we not blushing, but we are even glorying in it." Elsewhere he says it was depicted upon the forehead (Volume VII). "For this reason," he says, "both at home, and on the walls, and in windows, and on the forehead and in the mind, we depict it with great zeal (Volume V). We all bear it about on the forehead, he says, not only not blushing, but even glorying. For not only the common people, but even those who are crowned with the diadem, wear it on their forehead rather than the diadem."

Chrysostom frequently deals with the honor and cult shown to the saints, and especially to the relics of the martyrs. A significant passage is that where, discoursing on Saint Babylas, he speaks thus (Volume II): "But that merciful God, who has bestowed upon us infinite occasions for salvation, has also opened to us, among others, this way, which can call us to virtue: leaving the relics of the saints among us for a time. For after the power of the sermon, the tombs of the saints hold the second place, which encourage the minds of those who gaze upon them toward imitation. And if anyone stands by a casket of this kind, he at once perceives its efficacy... But he will truly observe that the phantasy of the deceased is stirred up in the minds of the living from these very places, if one considers how those who come for the sake of mourning, as soon as they have approached the tombs, as if they saw those who lie in the urn standing in place of the urn, from the threshold they are at once compelled. Many, indeed, afflicted with intolerable grief, established for themselves a perpetual dwelling near the tombs of the dead; which they would by no means have done, had they not perceived some consolation from the sight of the place. Why do I speak of the place and the tomb? When often the mere garment of the dead, or one word repeated in the mind, has stirred the spirit and brought back fading memory. Therefore, God has left the relics of the saints to us. And that these are not cast away by us in vain, but have been provided for our utility, the miracles which are daily brought forth by the holy martyrs can bear witness."

But the homily on Saint Eustathius of Antioch has this: "For this reason I call the bodies of the saints both fountains and roots and spiritual ointments (Volume II)." The Antiochene people, moreover, would gladly flock to the fields near the city where the tombs of the martyrs were. But because the memorials of the martyrs were intermingled with the tombs of heretics (Ibidem), therefore Flavianus, in order to consult for the devout people, collected those bones of the martyrs and placed them separately in a pure and clean spot. Chrysostom himself, in his exile, also sent relics of the martyrs to the priest Rufinus, which were in no way doubtful, he says, as he had received them from Otreius, the bishop of Arabissus (Volume III). We could add more, but these are sufficient. The cult

^A of relics he celebrates so frequently that no doubt remains on that score. He speaks no less clearly of the invocation and intercession of the saints and martyrs. When the Antiochenes, suffering from ill health, would take refuge with the Jews—who used charms to ward off diseases—Chrysostom, in order to turn them away from such things, calls them back with these words (Volume I): “Therefore, you too, if you see yourself being punished by God, do not flee to His enemies, the Jews, lest you provoke Him against yourself even more; but rather to His friends, the martyrs and the saints, who have pleased Him and who possess much authority with Him.” In his Homily on Saint Meletius (Volume II), he says: “Let us all pray together, therefore, both magistrates and private citizens, both servants and free men, receiving the blessed Meletius himself as an associate in these prayers.” And elsewhere very clearly (Volume IV): “Knowing this, beloved, let us take refuge in the prayers of the saints and beg them to intercede for us. But let us not rely only on their prayers; let us also, as we ought, rightly dispense our own, and strive to be converted to better things, so that we may give place to the prayer that is poured out for us.” Many other points could be brought forward, but one must not linger longer on so certain a matter.

Many churches in that age were called *martyria*. The term *martyrium* seems to have signified the church of the martyrs at first; and although it is ever more frequently accepted as referring to a church of the martyrs, it was sometimes used for other churches as well (Volume II. See the note and the Greco-Latin Glossary of Du Cange). In that age, great honor and reverence were shown both to churches and to *martyria*. When they entered a church, they washed their hands, and likewise before they prayed (Volume VIII): “For just as it is customary,” he says, “for fountains to be present before oratories, so that those about to worship God may raise up hands washed beforehand while praying, so did our ancestors place poor men before the doors in the place of fountains; so that just as we wash our hands with water, we might first wash our souls through charity, and only then offer our prayers.” It was also the custom for those who entered the church to kiss its vestibules. Inside the church, ^B women were separated from men by wooden boards: a custom established by our ancestors which Chrysostom relates thus (Volume VII): “There ought to be an inner wall to separate you from the women; but because you do not wish for this, our fathers thought it necessary that we should at least separate you with wooden boards. As I have heard from the elders, these partitions did not exist in the beginning.”

Chrysostom teaches a singular thing, namely, that the Christians of Antioch would embrace one another during the mysteries (Volume VIII), so that the many might be made one, and might pour out common prayers for the uninitiated, for the infirm, for the fruits of the earth, for the land, and for the sea. He recalls an ancient custom, which he calls wonderful (Volume III): “But being gathered,” he says, “then all the faithful, after hearing the doctrine, after the prayers, after the participation in the mysteries, the assembly being dismissed, did not immediately depart home; but the wealthy and more affluent, bringing food and dishes from their own houses, would call upon the poor and enjoy a common table together, with common banquets and feasts in the church itself.” He adds that these celebrations were usually held at midday.

Our doctor treats not once of the principal feast days throughout the year. Regarding the birthday of Christ, he narrates in a sermon he delivered in the year 386 that this solemnity had been brought to Antioch, not yet ten years having elapsed, from the West, where it had been celebrated from the beginning (Volume II). Because many rejected this feast day as something new and recently introduced, he proves with many arguments that Christ’s birthday falls on the twenty-fifth of December. The ancient Egyptians, however, and all the Orientals—as is the consensus of all—celebrated the feast of both the Epiphany and the Nativity of the Lord on the sixth of January: but around the middle of the fourth century, the custom of celebrating the birthday on the twenty-fifth of December was introduced into these regions. That this ancient custom held its ground until his own time in the Church of Jerusalem is testified by Cosmas the Egyptian, whom we published in the year 1706; and John of Nicaea confirms the same, when he says that the Jerusalemites assert that James, the brother of the Lord, the first bishop of Jerusalem, assigned the sixth day of January for the celebration of the birthday of Christ.

Yet, long before this, the rite of celebrating Christ’s birthday on the 25th of December had been introduced into the Antiochene Church. For he says ^C in his Homily on Saint Philogonius (Volume I): “For the feast is at hand, the most venerable and awesome of all feasts: which, if anyone were to call the metropolis of all feasts, he would not be wrong. And what is this? The Birth of Christ in the flesh. From this, the feast of the Epiphanies or Theophanies, the holy Pascha, the Ascension, and Pentecost take their origin and foundation. For if Christ had not been born in the flesh, He would not have been baptized; for that is the feast of Theophanies: He would by no means have been crucified, which is the feast of Pascha: He would not have sent the Holy Spirit, which is the feast of Pentecost.”

After the birthday of Christ, therefore, the day of the Epiphanias, or Theophanies (for it is called by both names), used to be celebrated with great devotion. On that day, the feast of the baptism of Christ was also held, and all the faithful were called to the participation of the mysteries (Volume XI). Regarding the feast of Pascha, Chrysostom says certain things above that stand in need of explanation: “If Christ,” he says, “had not been born according to the flesh, He would not have been crucified, which is Pascha.” By which he seems to signify that Christ was crucified on the day of Pascha. Where it must be observed that, as we said in the second part of the eighth volume in the Admonition to the sermon on Pascha, which we have placed among the spurious works (Volume VIII, in the Spuria), that author indeed seems to distinguish entirely the Pascha from the Sunday of the Resurrection. Nor do we find such a distinction only in the East, but also in the West. For Gregory of Tours, relating the order established by his predecessor Perpetuus, places the Resurrection of the Lord earlier than Pascha ^D

^A of the saints, as Gregory of Tours records (p. 531), was observed in this way: "On the sixth day before the Calends of April, at the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, at the Basilica of the Lord Martin. Easter, in the Church. On the day of the Ascension, in the Basilica of the Lord Martin." Regarding this, our Ruinart notes: "The feast of Easter is distinguished from the feast of the Resurrection in the older calendars, where the feast of the Resurrection is celebrated on March 27; but Easter, as everyone knows, was always celebrated in the Church according to the variation of the moon." Let the learned see whether something similar was observed at Antioch in the time of Chrysostom. Indeed, Chrysostom calls Christ's birthday the "metropolis of feasts" above; in the passage mentioned previously, he also calls Pentecost the "metropolis of feasts." But such an appellation can apply to both, because the birthday is the foundation, while Pentecost is the completion of the feasts.

He seems to speak about deacons when he says it is their duty to restrain the wicked and the openly profane from participation in the body and blood of Christ (Volume VII). He adds that they circulate in the church arrayed in a white and shining tunic. The other matters pertaining to deacons we shall bring forward soon, where we discuss the Liturgy.

Catechumens who were being initiated into the Mysteries (Volume IX), in the mystical prayer, ^B at first spoke these words: "In which we cry out, Abba, Father" (Volume VIII). But when they were being initiated, they entered into these pacts with the priests: they renounced Satan and his angels, and promised that they would never turn back to them. Therefore, women and children, so that they might be safe against the snares of the devil, hung Gospels about their necks and carried them everywhere for greater protection (Volume II).

Newly born infants were given names according to the wishes of the parents: some were names of saints, others were names of grandfathers and great-grandfathers, or of those who had been famous in their lineage (Volume IV). But Chrysostom exhorts the Antiochenes to give their children the names of the saints who had shone with virtues. This was indeed done, as is discovered in the Encomium on St. Meletius, even before this advice was given (Volume II). For he says, "When you had received him (Meletius) upon his first entry into the city, everyone was naming his son after him, thinking that by the appellation he was introducing a saint into his house; and having sent fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers, the mothers assigned the name of the blessed Meletius to the children whom they had borne."

It was the custom at Antioch for adolescents to be sent to monasteries to live there for a certain time to have their morals informed (Volume I). On which matter Chrysostom says: "Therefore let us not take our sons away from their stay in the desert before the time; but let us allow the disciplines to be impressed more deeply, and the plants to be strengthened by their roots. Even if it is necessary for them to be nourished in a monastery for ten, or even twenty years, let us not be troubled, nor filled with grief; for by how much longer a one is exercised in the gymnasium, by that much greater strength he will acquire."

There were many Christian virgins in that age who abstained from marriage for their whole lives and professed perpetual virginity. At Constantinople, ^C some men were bringing certain virgins into their homes, under the guise, indeed, that they might live chastely as brothers with sisters; but it is not difficult to guess what great evils were produced from such association. They called these virgins "subintroduced," or brought in together (Volume I). There were also other virgins, wealthy in resources, whom they called "regulars." These were very studious about the cultivation of the body and induced men to stay with them at home. Against such a deadly pestilence, Chrysostom declaims after his custom.

Regarding funeral mourning, as it was in use in his time, he reports these things (Volume VI): "We who are already under grace, under the certain hope of the resurrection, to whom all sadness is forbidden, with what face do we lament our dead in the manner of the Gentiles, raise up insane wails, as if bacchanals of another kind, bare our breasts with rent tunics, and sing vain words and dirges around the body and tomb of the deceased? Finally, for what reason do we dye our garments black, if not to show that we are truly faithless and miserable, not only by our weeping, but also by our clothing?" Nobody at that time built tombs within the cities. Which custom had flowed from the ancients, as much from the Greeks as the Romans (Volume VII), as we have seen in the "Antiquity Explained" in Volume V. At Constantinople, indeed, the emperors, who were buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles, desired their bodies to be buried not near the Apostles, but outside at the very thresholds; and thus, continues Chrysostom, the Emperors became the doorkeepers of the fishermen (Volume I).

Litanies are mentioned by Chrysostom in the sermon which he delivered at Constantinople on the day of Easter in the year 399, the place of which we think should be entirely cited here (Volume VI): "Three days ago, when rain broke through and carried everything with it, and snatched the table from the mouths, if I may say so, of the farmers, while laying low the bearded grain, and devastating all other things by the abundance of moist matter, there were litanies and supplications, and our whole city ran like a torrent to the places of the Apostles, and we implored as advocates the holy Peter and the blessed Andrew, as well as that pair of apostles, Paul and Timothy." Here they signify the procession of the litany with singing, by which the people, with Chrysostom as shepherd and leader, hastened to the churches: which litanies are also called "lites" elsewhere.

Indeed, he describes the office of the reader in the eighth Homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, delivered at Constantinople (Volume XII): "And yet, these things are read to you every week: and when the reader has ascended, he says first to whom the book belongs, namely, to this or that prophet, or apostle, or evangelist: then he says that, so that these things may be clearer to you, and not only so that you may know what is contained there, but also the reason for the things that are written, and who said them."

Liturgy.

We have provided the Liturgy in the name of Chrysostom at the end of the twelfth volume, as it was in use long after the age of Chrysostom; in which, as Savile noted, many things are held that bear upon themselves the mark of a base age: which almost nothing...

^A refers to of those things which Chrysostom commemorates in various places concerning the Liturgy of his own time. Wherefore, it seemed to the purpose if we should here recount those things which occur passim in his works concerning the Liturgy. And indeed I would have greatly desired to preserve the very order of the Liturgy in this review; but that is quite difficult, or rather entirely impossible to be done: for those passages of the Liturgy are often cited as excerpts in such a way that you do not know to which part of the Liturgy they belong.

The Liturgy, however, which Chrysostom calls Pascha, was celebrated three and sometimes four times in the week. Let it not be a burden to cite his words (Volume I). For it is not, he says, the same thing, Pascha and Quadragesima; but Pascha is one thing, Quadragesima another; since Quadragesima happens once a year, but Pascha three times in the week, sometimes even four, or rather as often as we wish. For Pascha is not a fast, but an oblation and sacrifice, which takes place in individual gatherings.

The Mysteries were celebrated with closed doors, and the uninitiated were turned away (Volume VII); for they did not know the power of the chalice (Volume II). The priest, however, lifting his hand on high, standing himself even higher, crying out in that tremendous silence, was calling some, while others he was forbidding: not doing this with his hand, but more clearly and openly with his tongue than with his hand. For that voice, rushing into our ears, like a hand drives out and casts away some, while it introduces and makes others stand (Volume XII).

As to what Chrysostom reports here and there about the Liturgy in so great a forest of works, we can scarcely, and indeed not even scarcely, as I have already said, recount them in their own order. Somethings regarding this kind of order seems to be mentioned by the eighteenth homily on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (Volume X): We propose, he says, one body, one cup: you see that the people also contribute much in the prayers. For on behalf of the possessed, and for those who are in penance, prayers are made in common ^B both by the priest and by them: and all emit one and the same prayer, a prayer, I say, full of mercy. Again, when we arc those who cannot be participants of the sacrosanct table from the sacred enclosures, another prayer must be entered upon, in which we all lie upon the ground, all equally arise. To these is added, when peace is to be given and in turn received, we all mutually kiss one another. Now too in the tremendous mysteries, as the priest makes vows for the people, so the people make vows for the priest. For these words: And with your spirit, signify nothing other than this. Again, the prayer by which thanks are given to God is common. For neither does he alone give thanks, but the whole people also. For when he has first taken their voice, and they have assented that this is done worthily and justly, then at length he begins the action of thanks.

Regarding the priest celebrating the mysteries, the third homily on the Epistle to the Colossians says this (Volume XI): When he who presides over the Church has entered, he immediately says, Peace to all; when he preaches, Peace to all; when he gives a blessing, Peace to all; when he bids them to greet [one another], Peace to all; when the sacrifice has been finished, Peace to all. And again in the midst, Grace to you and peace.

But these few things indicate to us a little about the words and gestures of the priest in the Liturgy, and about the order of them among themselves. Concerning the beginning of the Liturgy, and about the prayers and other things ^C which the priest preceded the Preface, as we call it, with, Chrysostom has nothing. But he reports these words of the Preface: The priest was saying: Let us lift up our mind and hearts (Volume II). The people were responding, We have them unto the Lord. Yet as it seems clear from the preceding, the priest was continuing, Let us give thanks to the Lord our God: but the people, It is worthy and just. And that he signifies, when he says above: And they assented that this is done worthily and justly. He continues: Then at length he begins the action of thanks. The priest was indeed bringing forth a Preface not unlike our own.

In the oblation, however, the priest was saying: Whether willingly or unwillingly we have sinned, forgive (Volume XII): to which similar things are held in that Liturgy published by us under the name of Chrysostom in Vol. XII. But when he might say these words, Let us pray all together, is not indicated by Chrysostom who brings them forth (Volume XI).

Martyrs also were commemorated in the Liturgy. The names of patrons and benefactors were also always brought forth in the sacred oblations, with prayers added for their estates and properties (Volume IX). A memory of the dead was also wont to be celebrated in the venerable and horrific mysteries (Volume XI).

These things concerning the priest performing the sacred rites: nor does he report fewer things concerning the deacon, who was present at the divine mysteries, and often gave admonitions to the people with a loud voice, which things it is not easy to recite in the order in which they were said. He was crying out, however, Let us stand upright ^D properly (Volume I): by which words, he was signifying to the people standing by, not that he might raise up the body merely, but the soul also. Subsequently he was also accustomed to admonish the people thus with a loud voice (Ibid.): Know one another; so that they might in fact distinguish whether the impious, the wicked, or those judaizing were intermingled with them.

Moreover, while the sacred rites were being performed, he was suggesting a prayer to the people, which Chrysostom has reported in these very words: Let us pray for the bishop and for his old age and patronage, that he may rightly handle the word of truth, and for those who are here and everywhere in the world (Volume VI). He was also adding: For those who have died in Christ, and for those who make their memory (Volume IX).

The word, moreover, which the deacon was repeating often by crying out was this, Let us attend (Ibid.): which I have often heard said at Rome by a deacon, when I was present for the sake of the Liturgy of the Greeks. It must be noted, however, that which Chrysostom adds here, namely, that after that word, the reader begins the prophecy of Isaiah; which word had been premised, so that the people might hear the prophecy with a more attentive mind. This, moreover, the holy doctor also adds in the sermon on the Ascension: Hear in the prayer the deacons always saying, Pray for the angel of peace (Volume II).

The duty of the deacon was to quiet the tumult, if anywhere it might arise in the church (Volume IX): for which reason he admonishes that if anyone attacks another with taunts, or leans toward laughter, guffaws, and gossip, the deacon should call...

that sits on those trifles, and compels him to act modestly.

Regarding priests and deacons, Chrysostom relates the following consistently (Volume I): Priests, even when they are about to offer a blessing, once they have first prayed for peace for you, thereafter begin to bless. And indeed the deacon, while he bids the others to pray, commands this also in his prayer: that we beseech the angel of peace, and all things that have been proposed, to be peaceful; and when he dismisses you from this assembly, he prays this for you, saying: Depart in peace.

Nor must that which Chrysostom says about the possessed and the mentally afflicted, or energumens, be omitted, who, before the mysteries were celebrated, were brought in by the deacon and commanded to bow their heads; at that time a prayer was accustomed to be made for them, which preceded all others (Volume I). But he gravely rebukes those who did not recite this prayer with the others, or who were gossiping with one another at that time. The first prayer, he says, which we use for the energumens, is full of the commemoration of mercy: the second also, for those who are in penance, asks for much mercy. The third, finally, is for ourselves: and it brings in the innocent infants of the people, provoking God to mercy. For since we condemn our own sins, we pray for those who have sinned much and ought to be accused: but for ourselves, we bring in children, whose simplicity the kingdom of heaven expects imitators of (Volume VII).

DIATRIBE III.

Concerning the heretics and heresiarchs whom Chrysostom frequently mentions, and concerning their heresies.

It will be a work of no less labor to extract from such a great forest of works all the things Chrysostom mentions here and there concerning heresiarchs, concerning heresies and errors, which were rampant in the Eastern Church in his age, and to recount them in order. For besides those who had arisen in his own age, such as the Anomoeans, Macedonians, and Photinians; he also notes many of the older ones, whose sect was still numerous or not yet extinct. In addition, in his sermons he exacts and refutes many errors concerning the faith which were being spread among the common people at that time. It must be noted, however, that in those heresies which had arisen before the end of the third century, many errors are detected here which are nowhere recorded by the writers of that age. For it is no wonder that those who had once defected from the authority of the Catholic Church, which is the one rule of the true faith, fell into new errors daily.

He does not once attack the Docetae, whether those who said that Christ came into the world *doxê*, that is, in appearance only, or seemingly, as others say, or putatively, as Irenaeus says. For they thought that the coming, life, and death of Christ was *phantasia* (phantasm) only, not a thing truly accomplished. But Chrysostom, when he says that Christ remained in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights, adds: and let no one suspect that this happened in appearance only (Volume VII). Indeed, this heresy, which had already arisen in the apostolic times, was still thriving in the age of Chrysostom, as can be seen in homily four on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Volume XII): Let them hide from shame, those who say that He arrived through appearance, and not in the very truth of the matter. The one who first makes mention of this heresy is Ignatius the Martyr in his Epistle to the Trallians and in his Epistle to the Smyrnaeans. It is also mentioned by Irenaeus, by Clement of Alexandria, who calls such heretics Docetae, and likewise by Origen and Eusebius.

Others, however, said that Christ passed through Mary only as water through a canal; that is, His body did not grow in the womb of the Virgin, as is wont to happen, but having already been formed, it passed through just as water through a canal—which error Chrysostom refutes (Volume VII). But Irenaeus ascribes this heretical opinion to the Valentinians (Irenaeus, p. 33), and from Irenaeus, Epiphanius brings forward the same thing (Epiphanius, p. 172). Indeed, there were certain heretics who broke into such impiety that they dared to say that the incarnation of Christ was a fable (Volume VII).

Chrysostom mentions the Gnostics only once, whom he says called themselves by this name because they thought they knew more than others knew (Volume XI). But concerning the Valentinians, who were also counted in the number of the Gnostics, he produces much in various places, which for the most part agrees with the heresy of the Marcionites and Manichaeans. Valentinus, moreover, said that matter had pre-existed before the creation of the world, whom he refutes with most valid arguments, as he does others who suggest similar things (Volume IV). He denied, however, that God was the Creator: for he was from the number of those who ascribed all things to the Aeons (Ibid). But with the Marcionites and Manichaeans, the Valentinians said that the god of the Old Testament was the author of evil, and thus they admitted two gods: namely, the god of the New Testament, whom they considered good, and the god of the Old Testament, whom they considered evil; nay, the Manichaeans called him the devil, and thus they expunged from the catalog of the Scriptures the law brought forth by Moses as having been given by an evil god (Volume I and Volume VII).

Valentinus, along with Marcion, Mani, and others, denied the incarnation of Christ (Volume III), saying through the mouth of the devil that He was neither incarnate nor had He put on flesh, but that it was a certain appearance, a phantasm, a simulation: even though the passions, and death, and the sepulcher, and hunger protested: if none of these things had happened, would the devil not have disseminated these very foul dogmas of impiety much more widely? Chrysostom repeats this same point elsewhere (Volume I).

Almost countless things are found in the works of Chrysostom concerning Marcion and the Manichaean; likewise concerning the Marcionites and the Manichaeans. Those heretics agreed in many things; but because each had many things peculiar to themselves, they must be treated separately. [Chrysostom] says that the cause of error for Marcion, Mani, and Valentinus was that they inquired as to what is the cause of evil, and through this

^A question they stirred up countless heresies (Volume I). Marcion also said that matter had pre-existed before the creation of the world (Volume IV). But the Marcionites thought the Creator was just, indeed, but not good (Volume X).

They also expunged the law of Moses from the catalogue of the divine Scriptures (Volume I). For Marcion said that the God of the Old Testament and the New Testament was not the same (Volume III). For although this is not expressly stated, it is entirely likely that he, just like Mani, admitted a bad god and a good god, and held that the bad god was the creator of the world, and he was to be understood in this way when he said that God is not the creator of the world (Volume IV).

Marcion of Pontus said that Christ had come only by appearance (Volume III), in which matter he agreed not only with the Manichaeans and Valentinians, but even with more ancient heretics who thought that Christ had come only by appearance and through phantasy. He denied the incarnation of Christ, in which matter he is most powerfully refuted by Chrysostom (Volume VI and Volume VII).

He also denied that Christ had truly suffered (Volume VII). Wherefore the holy doctor says that those who labor under the disease of Marcion are sons of the devil (Ibidem). He also said that the Father was unknown to the Son of God. The Marcionites affirmed that Christ was not the Creator: which Chrysostom refutes excellently (Ibidem). They also denied that he was born of the Virgin Mary, and that he truly rose from the dead (Volume VIII).

The Marcionites maintained that there would be no hell after death, whose impudence our doctor suppresses (Volume IX). Marcion employed the words of Paul, but in a truncated and concise manner (Volume X). But the Marcionites received only one evangelist, whom, however, they had mutilated and mixed up at their own whim.

The Marcionites were in Salamis in Cyprus, and were oppressing that whole city, he says: to which evil Chrysostom was preparing to bring a remedy, and would have successfully accomplished the whole matter, had he not been cast out and sent into exile (Volume III).

The holy doctor thus describes a certain ridiculous custom of the Marcionites (Volume X). After, he says, any catechumen among them has died, with some living person hidden under the bed of the dead man, they approach the dead man, and speak to him, and ask whether he wishes to receive baptism. Then, as he does not respond at all, the one who is hidden says for him that he wishes to be baptized: and thus they baptize him on behalf of him who has departed; as if they were acting on a stage: so much did the devil prevail in the minds of the slothful. Then, when they are accused, they put forward this word, The Apostle, they say, said, Who is baptized for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29).

Chrysostom also brings forward other sentences and sayings of Marcion and the Marcionites. God, Marcion used to say, could not, having assumed flesh, remain pure. From these things, indeed, which he speaks of here and there concerning the Marcionites, it is clear that the heresy of the Marcionites flourished in his own time: ^B indeed, he reports a disputation which he had with a certain Marcionite in the third homily on the Epistle to Philemon (Volume XI). For when he wanted to prove that God is good and clement even when He exacts punishment, and brought forward this passage: He makes the sun rise over the bad and the good, and rains upon the just and the unjust: the Marcionite who was present responded: If He did not exact an account for sins, that would be goodness; if He does exact it, it is no longer goodness. But against this, Chrysostom proved that God, if He does not exact an account, is not good, and because He does exact it, he is therefore good. But since it would be a longer task to report all his arguments, we refer to the place itself (Volume IV).

Mani and the Manichaeans, whom Chrysostom attacks here and there, said, like Marcion and Valentinus, that matter existed before the creation of the world (Volume III). For God, they said, could not create the world without matter. They admitted a good and a bad god: they affirmed that the bad god was the author of the Old Testament, but the good god of the New Testament (Volume VII) indeed, they said that the old law was from the devil (Volume I). But they despised the patriarchs and prophets because they had been in the old law (Volume IV). They denied that God was the creator (Ibidem); indeed, they honored nature as if it were not made (Volume VIII). Yet they were not consistent with themselves, if that which Chrysostom says is to be understood of them, as is entirely likely: Some, he says (Ibidem), say that there is another creator of the world, and that the visible works are not his, but of another God, contrary to himself. And they said the old law was rejected because it was made by a bad god, and was itself bad, and they used this word of the Apostle: There is indeed a rejection of the preceding commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (Heb. 7:18). Behold, Paul, they said, calls the commandment bad (Volume XII). But attend carefully, replies Chrysostom: he does not say that it is vicious and depraved, but because of its weakness and uselessness.

They affirmed that our nature is bad (Volume II): yet because impiety cannot always agree with itself, they introduced the divine essence into dogs and monkeys and wild beasts of every kind, saying that the souls of all wild beasts are from the divine essence; so that the souls of wild beasts were far nobler than the souls of humans. The Manichaeans, indeed (Volume III), and certain other heretics, said that the creature was the work of a god who is not good: some attributed one part of it, torn away from the rest, to spontaneous matter, and judged it to be unworthy of the workmanship of God. But although he does not name the Manichaeans in the book on the obscurity of the Prophecies, he nevertheless has them in view when he attacks those who said that the body is bad; and he repels their error, by which they affirmed that nature is bad (Volume VII).

The Persian Manichaeus denied the incarnation of the Word of God, as did Marcion and Valentinus, and said that Christ had come only by appearance, and thus renewed the heresy of the Docetae (Volume III). And the same Manichaeus, just like Marcion, asserted that Christ was not the creator (Volume VII).

^A The Manichaeans, says Chrysostom, are like muted and rabid dogs; they put on a pretense of modesty, but inwardly they cherish the grave madness of dogs, and hide a wolf within a sheep's skin (Volume IV). From this passage, "Amen I say to you, this day you shall be with Me in paradise" (Luke 23:43), they inferred that there was a complete retribution for the soul of the thief, and that there would never be a resurrection of bodies; the same holy doctor excellently refutes them, as anyone may see. They also said that by "resurrection" is meant death and liberation from sins (Volume X).

The Manichaeans asserted, says Chrysostom (Volume VII), that evil is immutable or unchangeable, and that it cannot be overcome or uprooted; they act, he says, as agents of the devil, undoing the hands of those who wish to work at virtue and overturning all of life. For those who endeavor to persuade others of these things do not merely ruin the future, but they also turn the present upside down. Indeed, they even said that evil is unbegotten. He proves how many errors follow from this, and he drives away those who shun the light (Volume IX). Elsewhere he also produces these words: "Through the rotten mouth of the Manichaeans, the devil says that he himself is unbegotten: for," he says, "the Manichaeans said that in Paul, the 'god of this world' refers to the devil" (Volume X).

Chrysostom mentions the Encratites together with the Marcionites and Manichaeans (Volume XI). However, he speaks very rarely of this heresy; yet in his time the Encratites were still in Antioch, as Epiphanius testifies. Clement of Alexandria mentions the Encratites more than once, who in Book 7 of the *Stromata* says that they are so called "from their activity" (ἀπὸ ἐνεργείας), "from their continence" (ἀπὸ ἐγκρατείας). Origen, in *Against Celsus*, says that they did not admit the Epistles of Paul. Eusebius, however, narrates in *Hist. Eccl.*, p. 149, that the author of this heresy was Tatian. And Epiphanius also confirms this, adding that they added certain things to Tatian’s doctrine, and had used apocryphal scriptures—namely, the Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas; that they taught that marriage was from the devil, rejected all animate things, used only water in the mysteries, thought wine to be diabolical, yet believed that there would be a resurrection, and feigned temperance.

There were many in the time of Chrysostom who gave themselves to genesis or genethlialogy, and who predicted the future from the course and conjunction of the stars; and, as is to be believed, they attracted many, who, so that they might foreknow whether good or evil things were to come to them, hurried to those astrologers so that, by paying a fee, they might learn what was about to happen to them (Volume VII). Chrysostom vehemently attacks these men (Volume XII): "How long," he says, "will you play, introducing revolution and genesis?" And he proves how vain such an art is from the false predictions which they had often put forth, and he exerts himself in every way to avert his listeners from such a curious and empty investigation. Some, indeed, from the Magi and the star which appeared at the birth of Christ, endeavored to prove that astrology is a true discipline; Chrysostom vigorously refutes and confutes them.

^B The insane heresy of the Anthropomorphites also thrived at that time. From this statement in Genesis, "Let us make man to our image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26), they inferred that God was endowed with a human form and body (Volume IV). Here other heretics rise up, he says, attacking the dogmas of the Church, and they say, "Behold, it says, 'According to our image'"; and from this they wish to attribute a human form to God; a thing which would be the height of madness, that He who lacks form and appearance, and is not subject to any change, should be reduced to human form, and that members and lineaments should be attributed to an incorporeal being: what could be equal to this madness? But because the Anthropomorphites thought they could confirm their opinion from this, because it is said in the Holy Scripture that God has hands, feet, and eyes—things which seemed to them to express human form (Volume V)—Chrysostom routs them, objecting these things in turn: "Therefore, because God is said in Scripture to bend a bow and cast arrows, shall we consider Him an archer? And because He is said to wield a sword, shall we consider Him a soldier? Would it not be the height of dementia to interpret all those things, which were only spoken metaphorically, in such a literal fashion?"

Sabellius, says our doctor (Volume I), an African by birth, when he had heard, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30), and "He who sees me, sees the Father" (John 14:9), seized upon this proximity of words, by which He appeared to approach the Father, as an occasion for impiety, so that he believed there was one person and one hypostasis. He also affirmed that the Holy Spirit does not constitute a single person of the Trinity (Volume VIII), and said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were naked names imposed upon one person (Volume XI), namely, according to the difference of operations: this heresy, as one thriving in his own time, he drives away and agitates against in many places (Volume XII).

He attacks Paul of Samosata and his followers, who then seemed to be a great number, with more frequent darts. Now Paul of Samosata said that Christ—or rather, the Word of God—only began to exist when Mary gave birth to Him (Volume III). "For since," says Chrysostom, "the things which were done in the desert were done before Mary, and Christ (namely, the Word of God), according to Paul's view, made all those things, it is necessary that He existed both before the birth and before the parturition." For Paul of Samosata and his followers, whom the holy doctor calls Paulians, said that the Word of God did not exist before the ages, indeed not even before the birth of Mary. "For if," he says, "He did not exist before the birth of Mary, and before He offered Himself to be seen in the flesh (Ibid.), how was He giving the law, when He did not exist? And how," he says (Volume V), "was He saying, 'I will make a new covenant with you, NOT like the covenant which I made with your fathers' (Jer. 31:31-32)? How then was He giving a covenant to their fathers when He did not yet exist, as they affirm?"

For the sake of a certain woman, he says, Paul of Samosata betrayed his own salvation; and that woman was Zenobia, the queen of Palmyra, who favored Paul of Samosata. But truly, regarding his errors, not the same things are reported by...

^A ecclesiastical writers, Athanasius, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Philastrius. Some think that he, like Sabellius, rejected the identity of the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and did not admit of three persons. Theodoret, however, in book 1 *On Heretical Fables*, says that Paul of Samosata denied that Jesus Christ was God, and Philastrius states this clearly. Chrysostom attacks and refutes this opinion with these words (Volume eleven): *He himself is the one who descended, and who ascended above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.* He also includes with them Paul of Samosata, who did not believe in the resurrection (Volume five).

The heresy of the Melchisedecians also flourished in Chrysostom's time, whom Epiphanius calls Melchisedecians (Volume six). They said that Melchisedec was greater than Christ. Others, again, said that Melchisedec was the Holy Spirit, the author of which error Epiphanius reports to be Hieracas. But the Melchisedecians put forward this argument: it is said in the Psalms concerning Christ: *You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec* (Ps. 109:4): from which they inferred that he who was in the order of Melchisedec was inferior to the head and prince of the order. Chrysostom replies that Melchisedec was only a figure of Christ, and that when he offered bread and wine, he foretold the sacrifice to be offered by Christ; and since the Apostle says, *In the name of Jesus every knee should bow* (Phil. 2:10), it follows from this that Melchisedec also bowed his knees before Christ. Theodoret also treats of the Melchisedecians in *Heretical Fables* 1.14, and John Damascene in *Heresy* 55 (Ibid. d. e.). The Jews, however, said that Melchisedec was born of fornication, and therefore was without genealogy, ^B which Epiphanius also reports. To them we say that they speak erroneously: for the genealogy of Solomon, who was born of the adulterous wife of Uriah, is nevertheless traced. But since Melchisedec was a type of the Lord, and bore the image of Christ, just as Jonah also did, for this reason Scripture kept silent about his father, so that in him, as in an image, we might contemplate Christ, who is truly without father and without genealogy.

He also attacks the Cathari, or "Pure Ones," more than once, because they called themselves Cathari or pure, though they were full of all filth, and he refers to them by no other name (Volume eleven and Volume twelve). They were in fact Novatians, regarding whose origin St. Cyprian offers much in his letters, and after him Eusebius Pamphili in his *History*, and finally Epiphanius and after him Philastrius, to recount all of which is not our intention. From the things, however, which he preached in the year 399 in Constantinople, it seems to be argued that there were many Novatians or Cathari in that city at that time who called themselves by this name (Volume twelve). For he asks and implores his listeners to rid themselves of such vanity, and to avoid their arrogance, and rather to wash away their own offenses and confess their sins.

Chrysostom mentions Arius and the Arians infrequently, because the Anomoeans, born from the stock of the Arians, were then spreading through the East and vexing the Catholic teachers: and thence it happens that he is perpetually sailing against the Anomoeans. ^C But concerning Arius, he says (T. 1, p. 410, a): *Arius insists on the diversity of the substance, drawing a distinction between the persons.* For he said the Word of God had not always been, but was made and created from nothing, not eternal, not similar in substance to the Father, nor the true Word or wisdom of God, but called so catachrestically: that it was changeable by nature, and did not know the Father, indeed not even its own nature: that it was made for our sake, so that through it as an instrument God might create us; and that it would not have been created, unless God had wished to create us.

This opinion, as if put forward by Arius, Chrysostom relates (Volume eleven): *God, who generates, could not generate without passion. And therefore, lest he should admit a certain passion in God, he said the Word was not begotten by God, but made and created.* "Arius indeed confesses the Son, but only in name: for he says that he is a creature and far lesser than the Father" (Ibidem). Arius and his followers indeed professed that the Son was a created thing and unlike the Father: yet because after their emergence they were attacked more sharply by the Catholics, thence it happened that they concealed some things in the formulas of faith and controversies, and mitigated others, and did so craftily and fraudulently for fear of impending evils, so that they might yield a little to the times. But afterwards, when under the Emperor Constantius, who was addicted to their sect, they enjoyed greater freedom, they said that the Son was unlike the Father, an *anomoios* (unlike), publicly and in the formulas of faith, and thence it came about that they were called Anomoeans. There were a great number of them both in Antioch and in Constantinople, and they contended daily with the Catholics. Our John certainly had many sermons against them (T. 1), namely, ten preached in succession at Antioch, which, having interspersed others of a different argument, he delivered partly in the year 386, partly at the beginning of 387. He also seems to have had other sermons in the following years, one of which, and an excellent one at that, I have discovered, and recently edited by Bentzelius, I have corrected in many places (T. 6).

Because there was also a frequency of Anomoeans in Constantinople, the second sermon which the bishop held in that city was against the Anomoeans. We have placed the other one, which he also gave in Constantinople against the Anomoeans, in sequence, and perhaps he said other homilies against those heretics which either lie hidden in the East or are utterly lost. The Anomoeans had reached such a point of arrogance, nay, impudence, that they said they had received all knowledge, and that they knew God as he knew himself (Volume one). They affirmed that the Son was not similar in substance to the Father (Ibidem). And they said he was not equal to the Father for this reason, because he prayed to the Father (Ibidem). They asserted everywhere that he was unequal to the Father (Ibidem). They also added that Christ did not have the supreme power of judging. Wherefore Chrysostom aptly criticized the sect of the Anomoeans when he said (Ibidem): "The untimely curiosity of reasonings planted the heresy of the Anomoeans." But their arguments are so rightly and clearly refuted: in

his sermons, that you could scarcely see anything more perfect in this genre anywhere; but we abstain from recounting them, lest we be too long.

He also attacks Macedonius and the Pneumatomachi, who were waging war against the Paraclete (Tome Two). For he argues against the Pneumatomachist when, explaining that place of Paul, *But all these things worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will* (1 Cor. 12:11), he says such things as these: "Furthermore, one and the selfsame Spirit works all these things. But you will say, He is moved by God. Truly he has never said this, but you invent it. For when he says, *Who worketh all in all* (Ibid. v. 6), he says this of human beings: he nowhere enumerates the Spirit with men, even if you speak foolishly and rave a thousand times. For he who said elsewhere, *Through the Spirit*, lest you think that 'through' is a word of diminution, nor that he is moved to operation, he subjoins that the Spirit works, not that he is moved to operation; and he works as he wills, not as he is commanded. For just as the Son says concerning the Father, *He raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them* (John 5:21): so likewise concerning himself, *He quickeneth whom he will*; so also concerning the Spirit, elsewhere [he speaks of him] as one who does all things with power, and there is nothing that hinders him," etc.

Concerning Marcellus of Ancyra and Photinus his disciple, Chrysostom relates these things: namely, that they asserted and preached the same things as Sabellius, who said that the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one person (Tome Twelve). Now, we published a long diatribe on the doctrine of Marcellus in the year 1707, where we expressed his opinion as taken from Eusebius Pamphili (Collectio Nova Patrum, Vol. 2, in the beginning): "One God exists from eternity: whose Reason, or Word—for it is expressed in either way—is equally eternal, one with God himself in substance and hypostasis, so that there is no distinction between the two; and the Word is silent, internal. The Holy Spirit likewise existed in God from eternity, with no distinction similarly except of name and reason. But when God acts and speaks, then the Word goes forth as a certain emission, extension, and dilation of the deity; and after the work is performed, it returns to God and remains in its pristine condition. The Word was likewise sent forth, so that it might assume flesh; and then it became the Son of God, and also King, Christ, the image of the invisible God, and the Firstborn of all creation, whereas before it had been none of these things: and after the judgment it will lose all these, and will be one with the Father as before. But just as the Word is an extension and dilation of God, so the Holy Spirit is a further extension and dilation, which is likewise sent forth from God and returns to God as the Word, and is one with God and the Word without any distinction."

This is the opinion of Marcellus according to the explanation of Eusebius, to which Basil and Theodoret subscribe, though not so clearly, and Chrysostom echoes them in the aforementioned place. If, moreover, such was his doctrine, it differed in nothing truly from Sabellius and the Patripassians; and according to the testimony of Epiphanius, he was also suspected by Athanasius, who had formerly been his friend. Truthfully, it would be difficult to detect such great errors in his writings. However the matter may be, Marcellus, when he saw himself condemned by Basil and others, and held in suspicion by the great Athanasius, ^A sent Deacon Eugenius to them with a confession of faith (Collectio nova Patrum, Vol. 2, p. 1), in which he declared that he held the right views and in no way deflected from the faith of the Catholic Church, to which Athanasius and other Egyptian bishops subscribed. But after the death of Marcellus, his disciples, putting forward a similar confession of faith at the Synod of Diospolis, were admitted to communion both by the Synod and by Basil. You have this previously intricate matter clearly explained by us in the aforementioned book.

Photinus, however, the disciple of Marcellus, said that Christ did not exist in any way before he took his origin in the Virgin Mary. Many thought him to agree with Paul of Samosata: Chrysostom says above that he had been addicted to the error of Sabellius just like his teacher Marcellus, who followed Sabellius in many things if he truly held those views which Eusebius ascribes to him above. But Marcellus in the final course of his life issued a Catholic profession of faith. Photinus, however, seems to have written all those things which Eusebius ascribes to his teacher Marcellus.

Besides these, Chrysostom reports other things concerning many errors which flourished in his age among the Antiochenes, some of which, as is perceived from his words, were on the lips of the common people. ^B "There were many then who stubbornly refused to admit the doctrine of the future age and the resurrection" (Tome One). These without doubt thought that souls die with the body. Now, Gulielmus Pastrengius of Verona (Tome Ten), in his work *On the Origins of Things and on the Writings of Illustrious Men*, printed at Venice in the year 1547, where he refers to the works of St. John Chrysostom, mentions a book of his with this title: *Two books against the Arabs concerning the resurrection of the dead, who said that souls die with the body*. Which books of Chrysostom, if they were truly of this holy doctor, are either hidden somewhere or have completely perished. But Eusebius in *Hist. Eccl.* p. 133 says that the Arabs in the time of Origen openly said that souls die with the body and were to resurrect with it: and that a Synod, at which Origen was present, was convened against them. But those Antiochenes who, according to Chrysostom, denied the future age, did not think that either souls or bodies would resurrect. He commemorates yet another notable error of many Antiochenes in Homily 28 on Matthew. "But why," he says, "do demons willingly linger in tombs (Tome Seven)? To insert a pernicious doctrine into the minds of many, namely, that the souls of the dead become demons, which may God forbid that anyone should think. But what would you say, they ask, about many sorcerers, who kill captured boys so that they may have a soul serving them afterward? For that they kill them, many say; but that the souls of the slain are with them, whence, I ask, do you know? They themselves, they say, the demoniacs, say this: 'I am the soul of such and such a person.' But this is a fraud and diabolical fallacy: for it is not the soul of the dead person that cries out, but the demon, who simulates this to deceive the hearers. For if a soul could enter into the substance of a demon, much more easily would it enter into its own body. Moreover, who endowed with reason ...

^A can believe that a soul has been harmed, and that it joins itself to the one harming it? Or that a man can change an incorporeal force into another substance? For if this cannot be done in bodies, nor can anyone change the body of a man into the body of an ass, much less can it be done in the invisible soul, nor can anyone turn it into the substance of a demon.

Chrysostom mentions that among the Antiochenes there were also some heretics who claimed that one body falls and another rises. "How then," he says ^B (Tenth Volume), "does the resurrection take place, if indeed one falls and another rises? Whence this inquiry? Did one sin and another get punished? Did one do right and another get crowned?" Among the Constantinopolitans also, there were many who said that some would rise again and others would not, whom Chrysostom refutes with most powerful arguments (Twelfth Volume).

There were also some who said that our soul is from the substance of God; and they were rashly carried away into other errors: concerning which Chrysostom must be heard. On these words of Genesis (Fourth Volume): *And he breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul*, he says: "Here, certain ill-disposed men, moved by their own reasonings and thinking nothing worthy of God, nor considering the tempering of words, dare to say that the soul is from the substance of God. O insanity! O madness! How many ways of destruction has the devil prepared for his worshippers? That you may learn this, consider how they walk in diverse ways. For some, seizing an opportunity from this word, 'he breathed,' say that souls are from the substance of God; others, on the other hand, say that they pass into the substance of the vilest beasts: what could be worse than this madness? For because their reason is darkened and they are ignorant of the true sense of Scripture, as if blinded in the eyes of their mind they are carried into various precipices, while some exalt it above its dignity, while others depress it below its dignity: namely those who introduced metempsychosis, or the passing of a human soul into wild beasts and brute animals."

There were many in Chrysostom’s age who, denying divine providence, said that all things happen by fate, and thought that we perform either good or evil out of the necessity of fate; so that they seemed to take away all freedom of the will, and to turn man away from the pursuit of cultivating virtue and fleeing wickedness: what pestilence could be greater than this? Therefore, Chrysostom vehemently attacks the upholders of this opinion. For there were some who said that the philosophers had discovered certain excellent things, and things more outstanding than those ^C that were said about the resurrection (Sixth Volume); namely those philosophers who introduced fate, teaching that all things of this world happen without any providence, and that there should be no concern for us in things (Eleventh Volume). They added, moreover, that all things consist of atoms. Others, however, said that God exists and admitted metempsychosis, and persuaded men that at one time or another someone had been a dog, or a fish, or a lion. Indeed, in that age there were many Gentile philosophers who, dressed in the *tribonion* and equipped with a long beard, won for themselves the veneration of the people, and imbued the common people with such a doctrine, which often passed to the Christian people. The opinion of fate stood out among the others, which Chrysostom not rarely attacks.

Great was the diversity of opinions and errors among those Orientals: for moved by the lightest conjectures, which came into their mind, they rashly and incautiously brought them into the public, and immediately had followers. Hence it happened that Westerners, seeing such light and mutable divisions of opinions among them, would use this saying: "Oriental levity." But they conversely retorted "Western superciliousness," accusing those of pride who objected levity to them. Which, indeed, the levity was so great that it daily brought forth monsters in religion. But there were among them those who said that all things exist by chance (Twelfth Volume). They brought forward the same sentiment, but in different words, when they said that created things are automata. "Others," proceeds Chrysostom, "attribute the creation and providence of the world to demons, which is a sin that can hardly admit of forgiveness" (Eleventh Volume).

He also says that at that time some practiced necromancy, who attempted many most absurd things: using dust and ashes for these, so that they might divine secrets and future things by this art (Seventh Volume).

Chrysostom remembers others who said that the world is a god (Tenth Volume); but here I think it is a matter of those ancient philosophers, both Greeks and Latins, not a few of whom thought the world was a god. But the holy doctor proceeds in the same place: "Others have so ignored the beauty of the world that they considered it unworthy of God’s creation, and assigned a great part of it to a certain pernicious matter." Now this opinion was held by Valentinus and other heretics, as we saw above.

He calls that a bad heresy in which only water was used for the mystery of the chalice, which heresy Epiphanius ascribes to Tatian and the Encratites, as we saw above (Seventh Volume).

But concerning the angels he says some things which we think should be related here, in his Commentary on Genesis on this place (Fourth Volume): *As the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, they took to themselves wives from all whom they had chosen* (Gen. 6. 2). "Let us," he says ^D, "carefully consider the individual words, lest anything latent in the bottom escape us. For it will be worth the effort to examine this passage well, so that we may overturn the fables of those who speak all things inconsiderately. And first, those things which they dare to say must be brought forth, and with the absurdity of those things which are said by them pointed out, the true sense of Scripture must also be revealed to your charity, so that you do not simply and easily accommodate your ears to those who say such blasphemous things, and dare to chatter against their own heads. For they assert that this was not said of men, but of angels: for these, they say, it called sons of God. First, let them show where angels were called sons of God: but they will nowhere be able to point it out. Men indeed have been called sons of God, but angels never. And yet of angels it says, 'Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire' (Ps. 104. 4). But of men, 'I said, You are gods' (Ps. 82. 6): and again, 'I have begotten and raised up children' (Is. 1. 2): and again,

73 THINGS TO BE OBSERVED IN THE WORKS OF CHRYSOSTOM "My firstborn son is Israel" (Exod. 4:22). But an angel is nowhere called son, nor son of God. Certainly, some were angels; but because they descended to this unrighteous work, they fell from their dignity, etc. Here Chrysostom speaks harshly against those who have understood the passage mentioned above concerning angels, and that those angels themselves took the daughters of men as wives, and that those angels were endowed with bodies. But this was the opinion of many of the ancients, namely that they were corporeal and had intercourse with the daughters of men: and some called those angels watchers. Josephus, *Antiq.* book 1, ch. 4: "Many angels of God consorted with women." Justin, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Theognostus in Photius, and others say almost the same thing. Joseph Scaliger documented this matter in his notes to Eusebius’ *Chronicle*, and countless others after him, whom it would be long to recount. However, Chrysostom says: "Let them show where angels were called sons of God. Certainly not among the LXX interpreters, whom alone Chrysostom read." In the Hebrew text of the book of Job ch. 1, v. 6, angels are called sons of God, בני האלהים, and in the Vulgate also "sons of God." Nevertheless, Chrysostom here correctly refutes those who would say that these sons of God were angels.

DISSERTATION IV. Miscellaneous matters.

—the miserable trumpets, the feast of tabernacles, the fasts—^A and many of our rank, who claim to think as we do, partly go out to behold those festivals, and partly even celebrate them and fast along with them, a depraved custom which at this time even the Church struggles to forbid.

Some had even proceeded to such a point of madness that when they wished to compel someone to swear, they would attempt to lead him to the place of the Jews, because they thought that an oath given there was more to be feared, a matter which we have narrated at greater length above in the *Life* of the holy doctor. There were also those who observed the Sabbaths with the Jews, and even celebrated the holy Pascha with those selfsame Jews (Tomo X). On which account we have treated above in the *Life of Chrysostom* for the year 387.

Not a few also there were who observed many things of the Gentiles (Ibid.): to wit, lots, auguries, omens, and the observation of days; the superstitious writing upon their offspring, even from the moment they are born, of scrolls filled with every impiety, which they place upon the heads of their children, teaching them from the very outset to throw away the effort of attaining virtue, and leading them into the deceitful tyranny of fate.

From those things, moreover, which Chrysostom relates at the end of the fourth *Homily on the Epistle to the Ephesians*, it is plain that among the Antiochene Christians there were very many who applied themselves to genethlialogy (astrology).

There were also not a few Antiochene Christians who would make their way to Daphne along with the Gentiles. Daphne was a suburb of Antioch, so named from the maiden Daphne, whom the mythologists call the daughter of the river Ladon. When she could not escape Apollo, who was pursuing her for the sake of lust, she was turned into a laurel tree after imploring the aid of her father's divinity. Furthermore, Daphne was a suburb, a pleasant place, adorned with fountains, trees, and cypresses. There was the temple of Apollo, whose elegant statue was seen in the company of the chorus of the nine Muses. Thither the Antiochene Gentiles would repair for the sake of worshipping such a deity, and among them were intermingled not a few Christians, whom Chrysostom bitterly attacks and rebukes, judging those who would not abhor such company to be unworthy of the name of Christians. When this temple, with the statue of Apollo, was struck by lightning, the idolater Libanius published a monody or lamentation, a part of which Chrysostom cites for the purpose of ridicule.

Antioch was the capital and metropolis of the East, and it contained (Tomo II) two hundred thousand inhabitants, of whose number (Tomo VII) about one hundred thousand were Christians; and the assembly of Christians at Antioch was greater (Tomo I) than at Constantinople (Tomo VII).

The Antiochene Church possessed fields, houses, the letting of buildings, vehicles, muleteers, mules, and many other things of this kind (Ibid.). Instructed with these resources, that Church possessed a treasury assigned to the feeding of those in need; "And I would have you consider," says Chrysostom, "how many widows, how many virgins it feeds daily: their catalogue certainly reaches three thousand." ^B In addition to these things, it also daily afforded sustenance to those who were in prison, the sick in the infirmary, others who were healthy, pilgrims, and those maimed in their limbs, who sat by the altar for the sake of food and clothing, as well as others who came by chance: yet its resources were not diminished. Therefore, if only ten men were willing to provide equal help, there would be no poor person.

He commemorates elsewhere (Tomo III) an ancient custom of Christians, which in his own age had already fallen into disuse: "A certain wonderful custom," he says, "was once introduced: for after the faithful had all heard the doctrine, and after the prayers and the participation of the mysteries, once the mass was dissolved, they did not immediately go home; but the rich and more opulent, bringing food and dishes from their own houses, would call the poor, and would enjoy a meal in common, and feast at common banquets in the church itself; so that both by the fellowship of the table and by the reverence for the place, charity was strengthened, with much pleasure as well as utility."

Concerning those who fled to the church either when they were to be thrown into prison or were sought for death, we promised that we would say something when we treated of the eunuch Eutropius who was being sought for death (Ibid.). It is read thus: "And he fled to the sacred vessels." But because these things do not seem to be taken literally, and because Chrysostom says a little later, "we received him in the sanctuary," that is, in the place destined only for the priests, the matter seems to be one that must be explained in another way. It might be asked, however, whether he approached the altar after the manner of the ancients and touched the altar, which was in use not only among the pagans, but even among Christians, when anyone was to be punished by death or was being sought to be cast into prison. But this question does not seem to be of such importance, and regarding Eutropius, beyond what Chrysostom has set forth, we can add nothing except by way of conjecture.

Chrysostom says in his *Homily 30 on Genesis* (Tomo IV): "We call the week 'great,' not because the hours in it are longer; for there are other times that have much greater hours." The ancients necessarily admitted greater and lesser hours, for they divided the day and the night into twelve parts or hours each; whence it followed that the diurnal hours were shorter in the winter time, but longer in the summer. Whence Martial (Book 12, epigram 1) commemorates the summer hour thus:

The hour is neither summer, nor does it perish for you entirely.

Virgil, however:

Now night had covered twice five winter hours.

Chrysostom calls a man "three-cubits tall," just as the Nubian Geographer does in the third climate ^C (Tomo V and Tomo VII): and elsewhere our doctor says, "A man is buried within three cubits, and nothing more" (Tomo V).

Chrysostom often calls the Babylonians and other Orientals (Tomo VI).

He suspected that the end of the world was at hand and imminent (Tomo VII). "The end of the world," he says, "is heralded by wars, distress, earthquakes, and love grown cold" (Tomo VIII). That which Paul [calls] the fullness...

79 ^A calls the "fullness of time," he thought it had already arrived: thus, if we say that the four-hundredth year of so many years is the end, we shall not be mistaken. But just as Chrysostom was not so accurate in the calculation of times, so in this prediction he was far off: which happened to many other holy men.

He says that the kinsmen of Christ, called Desposyni, were held in admiration for a long time, yet their proper names are unknown. Eusebius also, in Book I of his *Church History*, says that the kinsmen of Christ were called Desposyni.

Homily 41 on the Acts of the Apostles narrates a singular matter (Volume Nine). There was a certain property in which a hidden treasure lay: the buyer, however, when digging the earth, found that treasure. Upon the thing being discovered, the one who had sold it compelled the buyer to return the treasure, saying that he had sold the property, not the treasure; the other contended that he had bought the property with the treasure. The matter turned into a lawsuit, with the one wishing it returned to himself, and the other refusing. Encountering a certain man, they argued; and then they asked him to whom the treasure should be adjudged. He, however, did not pass judgment, but said that he would settle the dispute if the treasure remained with him. But upon their agreeing, once he had received the treasure he thereafter suffered countless evils: and by the event he learned that they had rightly abstained from it.

Nor is it less worthy of note that which he relates in Homily 13 on the Epistle to the Romans (Volume Nine). For things that before seemed possible to no one—virginity, contempt of death, and many other labors—these are now practiced everywhere in the world, not only among us, but even among the Scythians, Thracians, Indians, Persians, and many other barbarians; and the choirs of virgins, the multitudes of martyrs, and the brotherhoods of monks are now more numerous than those who are joined by marriage. ^B

Chrysostom sharpened his pen against certain Christians who, seduced as it seems by the Manichaeans, were castrating themselves: which custom, however, does not seem to have flourished for long (Volume Ten).

Newly born infants received the seal on their forehead from the priest (Same volume).

Chrysostom denied that the heaven is spherical and that the earth is spherical (Volume Twelve): on which matter one must see what we have said in the Preface to Cosmas the Egyptian, who, in order to maintain that opinion, brings forward a passage of Chrysostom from his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which you may see in the published Cosmas, p. 328. For this was the opinion of the majority of the Fathers and writers.

Preaching at Antioch, he says that it was the custom for women and children to hang Gospels around their necks (Volume Two).

DIATRIBE V

Digressions, or all those things which Chrysostom very frequently commemorates in similitudes, which do not pertain to ecclesiastical matters, and which often encompass unique things.

By birth our John was a Syrian and an Antiochene: and it is familiar to the Syrians, says Jerome, 80 ^C to use symbols and similitudes. In this matter Chrysostom is perpetually occupied in his sermons. He brings forward examples of emperors, courtiers, consuls, rich men, and men of every condition: he depicts garments, household goods, the shape and ornaments of buildings: he frequently mentions the circus games and the hippodrome. In order to distract the people from theatrical spectacles, he describes minutely the shameful things that were acted there. Here you may see the rites of weddings, the custom of hired mourners: now the singular deeds of mountebanks, now the art of tightrope walkers; the rite of exercising justice, the many kinds of illusions, and very many other things. All of which, distributed in a certain order, I have judged to be worth the trouble of reviewing here.

The dress, garments, ornaments, courtiers, and bodyguards of the Emperors

The Emperor wore a golden crown interwoven with large and most precious gems: he shone in purple clothing over his entire body (Volume One and Volume Three). Moreover, it was permitted only to the Emperor to wear purple and the diadem on his head. On his silken garments, one could see dragons depicted (Volume Six). His courtiers and bodyguards also shone with gold, their garments were interwoven with golden threads: their lances were gilded: their horses had golden bridles, and their saddles gleamed with gold.

As he went out through the city and the fields, cohorts of shield-bearers and pikemen surrounded him, who were themselves laden with gold and carried shields decorated with golden bosses; and around the bosses, golden eyes were visible; the straps extended to the top edges were ornamented with many small stones. The chariot of Augustus was entirely golden, joined to a yoke of white mules gleaming with gold (Volume One); so that everyone wondered, says Chrysostom (Volume Six), at the flower of the purple, the size of the gems, the whiteness of the mules, the golden yoke, and the glitter of the bedding, which was snow-white and shining (Volume Eight and Volume Nine). In the chariot, moreover, there were golden, swivel plates, which glittered when agitated by movement. The Emperor's horses were also laden with gold, and their bridles were golden as well.

Concerning the depicted images of the Augusti, he reports this (Volume Three): You have often seen the imperial image tinted with a blue color: then, however, [you see] the painter leading white lines, and the imperial throne, and the horses standing by, and the guards, and the conquered and captive enemies.

The consuls walked with equal splendor, as he himself says (Volume Twelve): Do you not see the Emperors and consuls carried in a chariot and adorned with gold, and the guards having everything golden, golden lances, golden shields, golden garments, and horses adorned with golden saddles?

The Emperors would hand golden tablets to their prefects as a sign of their magistracy (Volume Six). When the Emperors sent letters to be read, whether in the theater or elsewhere, they were received with great reverence and read while everyone was silent (Volume Four).

The luxury, wealth, houses, table, etc., of the nobles and the rich

The pride and luxury of the nobles and the rich ^D

of which Chrysostom writes, describing the magnificence of their houses, the elegance of their clothing, the arrangement of their tables, the throngs of parasites, and the enormous number of servants.

The nobles and all wealthy men were clothed in silk garments interwoven with gold and magnificent to behold; they were always redolent of ointments and aromatic perfumes; they were girded with golden belts, and their shoes also shone with gold. They took the greatest pains to maintain and display a huge crowd of servants and eunuchs, many of whom were barbarians. Regarding the great abundance of their wealth and the number of their servants, Chrysostom says in summary (Volume Seven): “You indeed recount so many acres of land, ten or twenty houses, as many baths, a thousand or two thousand slaves, chariots overlaid with silver plates or gold.” The eunuchs and servants were also resplendent with gold, and most of them were adorned with golden collars and armlets.

He also frequently describes the splendor and magnificence of their houses: "They build splendid houses," he says, "with wide porticoes and long galleries. The ceiling of the house was fashioned from wooden panels, and was entirely gilded; the doors, even the double ones, were of ivory. In the dining rooms and bedchambers, the walls were encrusted with marble; indeed, if any stone appeared, it was covered over with golden plates and clasps."

All the ceilings were golden, or rather, as he explains elsewhere, they were overlaid with gold; the floor was decorated and adorned with small tiles and gems, which they often covered with elegant carpets. There one could see marble columns, sometimes of wondrous size, whose capitals were golden; indeed, sometimes the entire column was covered with golden plates; you would also have seen statues adorned by the hands of the most distinguished artists of that age, which some called idols, others demons. In addition to these, the chambers were decorated with paintings and musical works.

The couches also were for the most part of ivory, sometimes wooden and gilded, or covered with silver plates; indeed, they often consisted entirely of pure silver, and gold glittered in many places. The whole of their furniture likewise displayed great opulence; the chairs and footstools also were of ivory: the basins, vessels, and indeed the chamber pots themselves were cast from gold or silver. Among these vessels and other ornaments, Laconian coverings were highly prized, which Chrysostom says were kept in wardrobes, and perhaps brought out at banquets and other celebrations.

Inveighing against such luxury and arrogance, Chrysostom somewhere relates the story of Aristippus, as it is found in Diogenes Laertius, but without mentioning his name. A certain man, he says, came into a splendid house, gleaming with marbles and the beauty of its columns; but when he had also seen that the floor was covered with carpets, he spat in the face of the master of the house. When the master rebuked him, he replied that in no other part of the house was it permitted to do so, and he felt compelled to inflict this insult upon his face.

Joined to these magnificent houses of wealthy men were wide porticoes, aqueducts and fountains, suburban baths, and walks.

He reports much more about the expenses of banquets and dinners. ^A He describes the shape and arrangement of the table: it was either gleaming with gold or covered with silver, semicircular, like what Martial calls a *sigma*, fashioned into the shape of the letter C, which at that time represented a *sigma* (Volume Eleven). It was of such bulk that two young men could scarcely move it: it was covered on all sides with a soft spread, so that the guests could recline there comfortably. All the vessels were of gold or silver: one bowl was of gold weighing half a talent, which two young men could scarcely move; moreover, amphorae resplendent with gold stood by in order.

There were also present ministers, no less ornamentally clothed and splendidly dressed, wearing loose breeches, which they call *anaxyridides*, handsome to look upon, in the very flower of their age, with well-groomed skin and a good constitution. Here you would also have seen a crowd of musicians—flutes, citharas, and pipes—and there was no lack of Indian, Arabian, and Persian ointments and aromatics.

Varieties of delicacies and choice foods were served; concerning the arrangement of the courses, he said some things that should not be overlooked. Having spoken of the side dishes, cooks, table-setters, pastry chefs, and pheasants, he adds these things: "As if governing a republic and drawing up a battle line, so these men arrange this and that first, this and that second: and some indeed first offer birds roasted over coals and stuffed with fish; others establish different beginnings to their immoderate dinners: and there is much debate concerning these things, both about their quality, and their order, and their abundance." Choice wine was also served, especially Thasian, that is, from the island of Thasos: which is highly celebrated by both Greek and Latin writers of that time.

When those men, who were preeminent in both dignity and wealth, proceeded through the city or into the forum, whether carried in a chariot shining with gold or on a horse whose bridle was golden, a herald, dressed in magnificent attire, went before them to announce the master's arrival. He himself, girded with a sash and surrounded by many lictors who kept back the plebeians, walked proudly, surrounded by a crowd of clients and parasites.

Chrysostom speaks most frequently of the adornment, arrogance, and luxury of women. "The adornment of women," he says, "consists of braided hair, earrings, and other ornaments upon the cheeks and neck: face paint and eye shadow, indeed face paint and rouge for the cheeks, garments interwoven with gold, a cloak placed upon the head; hands gilded on the outside, a shoe of black color, very shiny, ending in a point and imitating the beauty of paintings." Elsewhere he says: "Women sought after white mules, and golden bridles, the subservience of eunuchs, a great crowd of maidservants, and ridiculous pomp."

He also inveighs against youths acting arrogantly in the forum with men who were covered in sumptuous and magnificent clothing. The same youths likewise adorned their shoes with silk threads and gold.

Circensian games, the hippodrome.

The Emperors were accustomed to betake themselves to the circus and hippodrome, as spectators of the games and combats.

^A They were wont to have crowns, prizes, and garments displayed before those who were about to contend. In gymnastic contests, the victors were crowned with branches of olive or laurel. Those who raced in the Circensian spectacles knew the name, lineage, country, and training of the horses, and what victory they had won (Volume III). But those Circensian runners looked only to the Emperor; they did not care as much for the applause of others. And so great was the density of the people that not only the circus, but even the neighboring garrets, houses, and roofs were full of spectators. Among the spectators, however, were harlots and effeminate boys.

The spectators of the athletic contests, if they happened to see a vigorous athlete already crowned approaching, would all rush forward so that they might see his combats, his skill, and his strength. In the hippodrome, those running contended strenuously among themselves, and one took pains to overturn another’s chariot. Chrysostom records a singular incident regarding this (Volume XII): A slaughter, he says, committed yesterday in the hippodrome has filled the entire city with tragedy; it has drawn choruses of women around, and filled the forum with many laments, while the man who had been so miserably mangled and torn by the chariots was being carried through the middle of the forum. This man, as it happens, who was to light the nuptial torches the next day, while the bridal chamber was prepared and everything readied for the wedding, having taken his place in the stadium under the decree of the herald, while he was running below, as the charioteers were pressing on and contending with one another, was caught in the middle and underwent that violent and miserable death, with his head and extremities severed. But he who had received many wounds in the stadium, if he obtained the victory, was led home with applause (Volume I).

Olympic games.

The athletes of the Olympic games stood naked in the theater, exposed to the rays of the sun (Volume I and Volume III). But the spectators sat from midnight until noon, so that they might see to whom the crown would fall. "Do you not see," he says (Volume I), "in the Olympic contests, while the judge of the games walks through the middle, wearing a crown on his head, draped in a stole, holding a rod in his hand, how much tranquility and modesty there is while the herald declares in a voice that all should be silent and rest decently?" Among the spectators, some favored one athlete and some another, as is wont to happen in such a case (Volume I). And all night long the herald was very anxious lest any of those who had departed from the contest should behave indecorously. The master of the games, he says (Volume II), sitting outside, offers help by his words, and aids the contestant only so far as he is able by acclamations and discourses: for it is permitted to him by no law to stand closer and assist with his hands. In the Olympic contests, he says, the wrestler, the pugilist, and the pancratiast undergo the contest at different times, but at one moment all who have overcome are pronounced victors by the herald (Volume III).

Spectacles of the theaters.

Chrysostom declaims perpetually against theatrical spectacles; and rightly so, not only because theatrical scenes are of their own nature wont to draw youth toward a soft life and dissolute morals, but also because, at that time, there was no care for modesty in the theaters, as will be seen presently.

Though another is a youth, he says (Volume VII), he has his hair pulled back and makes nature itself effeminate in appearance, habit, and clothing—in everything, in short—and affects the form of a tender girl. Another, an old man, on the contrary, with hair shaved off by a razor and loins girded, after he has cast off modesty before his hair, stands ready to receive slaps and is prepared to say and do anything. Women, moreover, with bare head and all shame cast aside, stand addressing the people, having, as is evident, such a zeal for impudence, pouring every petulance and wantonness into the minds of the auditors. They have this one purpose: to tear up chastity by the root, to defile nature, and to satisfy the desire of the evil demon. For here obscene words, ridiculous attire, a similar hairstyle, gait, clothing, voice, the softness of limbs, the rolling of eyes, flutes, pipes, dramas, arguments, and finally everything is full of extreme lasciviousness.

In the theater you see a woman entering with bare head and great impudence, clothed in golden garments, using a delicate and soft gait, singing harlot’s songs, uttering slippery chants and filthy words (Volume VI). Naked women also appeared in the theaters, and sometimes swimming (Volume VII): and dancing girls were seen therein (Ibid.).

Rope-dancers.

Tumblers.

II). Some would place a pole against their face, and a boy positioned on the pole would perform countless movements (Volume II and Volume XII). Others, bearing a pole on their forehead like a tree rooted in the earth, would keep it immobile. Nor is this the only miracle, but that they would also ensure that small boys wrestled with each other at the very top of the wood: and neither hands, nor any other part of the body, but the forehead alone held that pole unshaken. There were those who swallowed very sharp nails, who chewed and devoured shoes (Volume II). There were those who carried about swallows, and, covered in soot, would utter curses against everyone (Volume VII). There were certain buffoons, who were called Cordaces, and who did everything possible to move people to laughter (Volume XI).

Of tribunals and of judgments and punishments. When a judge was about to come out to sit in the high tribunal, the jailers would bring out all the prisoners from their confinement and place them before the railings and the curtains of the tribunal, squalid, filthy, with disheveled hair, clothed in torn rags, etc. (Volume I). Those guilty of crimes and condemned to death were led off with a rope tied to their mouths (Ibid.). (It is thought that this concerns Theodore, who had aspired to tyranny.)

Wills and documents concerning marriages, debts, and inherited contracts have no force of themselves unless they have the years of the Consuls inscribed on their frontispiece (Volume VI).

A hundredth-rate interest is mentioned by Chrysostom, by which they took loans, on the condition that they would pay the hundredth part every month, so that after one hundred months the principal would be equaled (Volume VII).

Of marriages, or of rites either profane or illicit brought into marriage. The people of our age at weddings sing hymns to Venus while dancing, and many adulteries, and violations of marriages, and illegitimate loves, and illicit coitus, and many other songs of impiety and ignominy (Volume III).

In those who contracted marriages, face paint and other superfluous pigments were applied (Volume X). The bride, moreover, was led by drunken men through the city and the forum even by night with impure songs and music (Volume XI). Harlots were even summoned to the weddings; and likewise flutes, cymbals, and dances (Volume I).

Prestigiation, incantations, amulets, superstitions. From the very frequent sayings and warnings of Chrysostom, it is plain that all kinds of prestigiation were in common use in his age, both in Antioch and in Constantinople, which he lists in these words in Homily X on the First Epistle to Timothy: "For I omit other things worthy of tears, such as auguries, prophecies, observations, nativities, symbols, amulets, divinations, incantations, and magic arts" (Volume XI).

Many at that time used incantations and amulets to cure diseases (Volume I). Chrysostom also deals with certain people (Volume XI) who used charms and ligatures for protection, and who would tie golden coins of Alexander around their heads or feet (Volume II). There were also those who, for the protection of children, would hang amulets, rattles, and crimson threads on their hands (Volume X). He reports another kind of superstition in the same place: Women, he says, taking mud in the bath, and nurses too, and maids, would dip a finger and imprint it on the boy's forehead. And if anyone asks, "What does the mud mean, what does the mire mean?" "It averts the evil eye," they say, "and malice and envy." Others would place the names of rivers written on the hands of infants; others made use of ash, soot, and salt to avert the evil eye.

All kinds of prestigiation were flourishing then: observations of days, auguries, sorcery, lots, auspices, omens; as well as belief in fate (Volume XI). Regarding those, however, who were given over to omens and fate, Chrysostom reports these things (Ibid.): "Their soul is full of many terrors; for instance: 'If this one or that one is the first to meet me when I leave the house, then countless evils must necessarily befall me.' 'Now a cursed slave, when giving me my shoes, first extended the left part: grave calamities and insults are signified.' 'I myself, too, when going out, proceeded with my left foot first: this also is a sign of calamities.' And these indeed are evils at home: but when I go outside, my right eye jumps for me: this is an indication of tears." Women, when reeds clatter against the straight wood of the loom, or when they comb their hair with a comb, take this for a sign. Again, when they strike the warp with the comb, and do it more violently; then the reeds above, because of the intense blow, give out a noise when bumped against the straight wood of the loom, they take this for a sign. And other innumerable things worthy of being seen. And if an ass has brayed, and if a rooster, and if anyone has sneezed, and anything else whatsoever, as if bound by ten thousand shackles, as if they were held in darkness, they suspect everything, and are more servile than countless slaves. Chrysostom says, however, that there were certain prestige-mongers in his time who used to perform signs (Volume XII).

Funerals. Parents, brothers, and kinsmen would close the eyes of the deceased and arrange the mouth (Volume II). No one built a tomb in the city, and therefore the bodies of the dead were carried outside the city to be buried, which was an ancient custom, but one which had often been violated (Volume VII).

Black or mourning garments were used at funerals (Volume VI); which thing Chrysostom seems to disapprove of (Volume XI). When the body is carried out, he says, there are used wailings, insane lamentations, foolish things admitted at burials, untimely zeal around monuments, and a ridiculous line of professional mourners, the observation of days, as well as entrances and exits (Volume X). Chrysostom very often deals with the choirs of professional mourners, some of whom were pagans, and he wishes them...

to be kept entirely away from funerals, and for funeral rites to be performed with more moderation (Volume XII). Let us mourn, he says, but not by tearing our hair, not by baring our arms, not by lacerating our faces, not by putting on black garments. There were also some who, at funerals, would sprinkle their heads with ashes.

Guard of the public roads. The distance between the locations is now as it was formerly; yet the condition of the road is not the same as it is believed to have been of old. For now, the road is marked by constant resting-places and adorned with frequent cities and villages, and they offer no offense to the many travelers who go there, which serves the cause of security no less than the resting-places, cities, and villages themselves. Furthermore, they choose from each province men who are leaders of the cities, preeminent in bodily size and strength, and as powerful with the javelin and sling as the archers are with their arrows, or those armed with pikes. With leaders appointed whom they are to obey, they impose upon them this single duty, allowing them only the care and guardianship of protecting the road. In addition to this, they devised another care, far more diligent than all these. For by building dwellings at intervals of a thousand paces along the entire route, and placing guards there at night, they constitute by their labors and vigils a maximum defense for travelers against the assaults of robbers (Volume I).

Miscellaneous. The Kalends, or the beginning of the year, were wont to be celebrated in this way (Ibid.): all-night vigils, mockery, abuse, and nocturnal dances, the forum was garlanded, etc. After the people of Antioch had placated the Emperor Theodosius, they garlanded the forum as a sign of joy, lit lamps, and placed couches—or *lectisternia*—before their workshops (Volume II).

Some of the foreign orators, out of a certain foolish habit, would persistently move their right shoulder while walking (Ibid.); but he overcame the habit, and placed sharp swords on either side of his shoulders, so that by fear of a wound he might correct the limb that moved inappropriately. Lions, tamer than sheep, were led through the forum, and many in the shops counted their money to the keeper, who earned a great deal from this (Volume IV and Volume IX).

In the fields, boundary stones and columns do not allow the ploughed lands to be confused (Volume VI). Wild he-bears and she-bears were kept at home by the people of Antioch (Volume VII). If a bear escapes secretly, we shut the houses and run through the lanes, lest we stumble upon it. Fifteen stadia are two miles (Volume VIII). Some poor people would torture their own children, so that they might collect more generous alms. Others, when they obtained nothing by asking, would send notifications and chew on the leather of worn-out shoes; others drove sharp nails into their heads; others would linger on their bare stomachs in frozen water, and by those spectacles they would extort greater alms (Volume X). What is more burdensome and difficult than juggling with swords (Volume XII)? A harlot, *peras, phara*, that is, one who pursues the salvation of men with plates and amulets (Volume III). Books are mentioned by Chrysostom as having golden letters, such as were many in his age, as Jerome says (Volume VIII). On a deleted tablet, on a palimpsest (Volume VII). We have spoken about the palimpsest after Cicero in the *Palæographia Græca*. The hair, staff, and cloak of philosophers (Volume I). Philosophers instructed in a deep beard, wearing mantles and staves, Cynic penances (Volume II). The writings of two philosophers against the Christians in the time of Chrysostom (Volume VIII). The Persians have intercourse with their own mothers, and not just one or two, but the universal race (Volume X). We admire those Persians who do not take their own mothers as wives (Volume I). Among the Persians, fire is thought to be God (Volume II) against those who adore fire. The King of the Persians has a golden beard; for those who are skilled in these matters, it is as if beneath a covering of his hair, which curls within golden plates (Volume XI). The Hamaxobii, Scythians, and Nomads would build no building (Volume VII).