his chief musician. To appreciate our author
rightly it is important to have a clear conception of
this extensive Book of Kings. It is certain that it
was finished only in the days of the Restoration,
that it treated in the same manner as the canon
ical Books of Kings the history of both kingdoms.
From this one may infer that Chronicles was in
tended to be a revised, enlarged edition of Kings, for
the use and benefit of the new congregation, to
pave the way to a theodicy. As the new Israel
renewed its life around the new temple and wished
to know of the past and of its organization, there
were written books about the first years and the
last years of David, one about Solomon, one about
the Judaic kings, and one about the Iaraelitic kings.
The last three still existed in 560 s.c. Besides
these there was a collection of Judaic prophetic
narratives. Then grew up the traditional inter
pretations of the schools, vitalizing dead names,
and finally the traditions of priests and Levites and
important families. While it is true that imagina
tion has here a wide field, and that not all epochs
received equally careful attention, nevertheless
both author and editor acted in good faith, for the
latter only arranged the matter which he extracted
from the former, where he employed new material,
cited his sources, and his statements could be veri
fied. The picture of the beginning of the cult
which the chronicler and his forerunner carried in
their soul may be totally different from that of
modern critics, but the material which underlies
that picture they neither invented nor did they
purposely change its meaning. The historical
books of the Bible, including Chronicles, were writ
ten for the practical need of the community, and
the test by which they are to be judged is whether
they satisfied it or not. Just here lie the limits of
their value to the modern historian who would like
to reproduce out of authentic documents a picture
of persons and events as the immediate eye wit
nesses had it. Like all historical books, even more
so, because of its origin, Chronicles demands an able
and cautious examination, if one would not sin against
the Biblical book, nor against the science of impartial
historical investigation. (A. KLO$TERhIANN.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The beat editions of the Hebrew text are
by S. Beer and F. Delitzech, Liber Chronicorum, Leip
eic, 1888, and by R. Kittel, in SBOT, New York, 1895.
Critical discussions are by: A. Kuenen, Historisch lcri.
tiec)t Onderzock . . . des ouden Verbonda, i. 433 b20,
Leyden, 1887 (very thorough); K. H. Graf, Die geachichh
lichen Bficher des Allen Testaments, pp. 114 247, Leipsic,
1886 (important); J. Wellhaueen, De gentibua et familiia
Judaia gate in 1 Chron, ti. iv. enumeranlur, G&ttingen,
1870; idem, Prolegomena, pp. 178 237, Berlin, 1883,
Eng. trans]., pp. 171 227, London, 1885; G. T. Ladd,
Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, Vol. i. passim, New York,
1883; W. E. Barnes, Religious Standpoint of the Chroni
cler, in American Journal of Semitic Languages, Oct., 1896;
G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, chap. iii.,
London, 1898; W. Sunday, Biblical Inspiration, ib. 1896;
books on introduction, notably Driver, Introduction,
chap. 33,., and C. H. Cornill, Einledtung, pp. 268 276,
Freiburg, 1891. Among the beat of the commentaries
are. C. F. Keil, Leipaic, 1870; $. Oettli, in Rurzgelaeater
Rommentar, Munich 1889; and W. H. Bennett, in the
EzPoaitor's Bible, London, 1894. Very thorough dis
cussions are to EB, f. 783 772, and DB, i. 389 397. The
Germ. tranaL in Kautzaeh'a Die heilxge Schrdtt dee Allen
Testaments, pp 937 1012, Leipaic, 1898, is very useful
for its paragraphing and indication of sources of the text.
CHRONICON PASCHALE, cren'i con pas cd'le (" Easter Chronicle," also called Chronicon Alezandrinum, or ConstantinoPolitanum): A chronological work, probably composed by a cleric who belonged to the entourage of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, 610 638. It extended from the creation of Adam to the year 629, but the beginning and end are lost, and, as preserved, it stops in 627. The name "Easter Chronicle" is derived from the computation of the Easter canon, which forma the basis of Christian chronology. The author, except for his own time, confined himself to copying the sources (Euaebius, John Malalas, and others). The so called Byzantine or Roman era is used for the first time as basis of the chronology. The Chronicofl paschale was edited by L. Dindorf in the Corpus ScriPtorum historicorum Byzantinorum (2 vole., Bonn, 1832), reprinted in MPG, xcii. 69 1028.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Gelzer, Sextus Juliua Africanus and die byzantinische Chronopraphie, ii. 1, Leipeie, 1885; K. Krumbacher, Geachichte der byzanti,niachen Idteratur, Munich, 1897 (where the literature is given).
CHRONOLOGY. See TIME, RECKONING OF.
CHRYSANTHOS, cri san'thes, NOTARAS, na
td'ras: Patriarch of Jerusalem; b. in the second
half of the seventeenth century; d. at Jerusalem
1731. He was the nephew of the celebrated Do
sitheos (q.v.), patriarch of Jerusalem; having
completed his studies at Padua and Paris, in the
year 1700 he was created bishop of Caesarea in
Palestine by his uncle, whom he succeeded in the
patriarchate in the year 1707. He was a man of
scientific culture and also a strong, energetic church
man. With force and success he applied himself
to church reform in Palestine, by which he made
bitter enemies of the Roman Catholics while doing
much for his own monasteries. He encouraged
theological science, to which he contributed by his
own writings, such as the " History and Descrip
tibn of the Holy Land" (Venice, 1728) and "On
the Mysteries of the Great Church " (last ed. Venice,
1778). For the Greek Church he did great service
through his edition of the " History of the Patriarchs
of Jerusalem" by Dositheos. Le Quien in his Oriena
Christianus has borrowed liberally from Chrysan
th03. (PHILIPP MEYER.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Grdca, xi. 792, xiii. 479 aqq., 14 vole., Hamburg, 171864.
CHRYSOLOGUS, Iris"o l v'gva, PETRUS, pfftrps (" Peter the Golden worded ") : Archbishop of Ravenna; b. at Imola (22 m. e.s.e. from Bologna) 406 (7); d. at Ravenna 449 or 450. He was a contemporary of Leo the Great, and stood at the head of the Church at Ravenna at the time when that City
was the capital of the Western Empire. As a patron of art he is still remembered (cf. V. Schultze, Archaeologic der altchristlichen Kunst, p. 85, Munich, 1895). He is still more famous as an orator: his sermons betray everywhere that they dealt with a select and pampered public, which listened leisurely and " delighted in being startled," and they show a continuous striving for the sensational and the unusual. They are better written than most sermons of those times, bear witness to religious experience and moral earnestness, and at times carry
Chhrryy~et m°' p°tru`
THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 72
one away with their pathos and the energy of their condensed diction. But finally the sententious unrest, the compression, the avoidance of the simple, and the presence of much that is obscure or grotesque induce tedium in the reader. Yet throughout a great talent is recognizable, and much which would otherwise be repulsive is useful to the historian. In his sermons, gathered by Felix, archbishop of Ravenna (d. Nov. 25, 724), his by name does not appear; it is found first in Agnellus (chap. 47), and seems to have been given him in order that the Western Church also might have its Chrysostom. What Agnellua knows of his life is taken partly from local tradition; how uncertain this had become in 400 years is proven by the mass of chronological errors and the confusion among the Peters, the bishops of Ravenna. That modern biographers know as much of Chrysologus is due to the fact that they take the Roman Breviary (Dec. 4) as a reliable source. The year of his birth and that of his death are equally uncertain (by Oct. 24, 458, Neo, bishop of Ravenna, appears). He was named Peter by his parents in anticipation of future greatness (cf. MPL, Iii. 497), but that he was educated in a monastery can not be inferred from sermon 107. Agnellus says that Sixtus III. (432440) made him bishop contrary to the wishes of Ravenna. It is doubtful whether all the sermons in the edition by Felix are genuine. The title " s. Joannia episcopi " which some of them bear in various manuscripts is strange, and may have been due to the copyist's confounding Chrysologus with Chrysostom, and a help to the confusion is the fact that the former used the letter's sermons liberally. Sermon 149 is undoubtedly a translation of the speech of Severianus of Gabala delivered in the year 401 (cf. MPL, Iii. 599a, with Neander, Chrysostomus, ii., 3d edition, Berlin, 1848, p.114). How much of this absorption of foreign matter into his sermons is due to Chrysologus himself is impossible to determine; but the principal matter is undoubtedly authentic. As a dogmatician, Chrysologus wrestled with the problem of a theodicy (sermon 101); in spite of his letter to Eutyches, he leaned strongly toward Monophyaitiem, attacked Pelagianism, was dependent upon Augustine (sermons 11 sad 30), sympathized with Paulinism (sermons 108 116), " and at the feasts of the Saints preached more of faithful endurance than of works " (sermon 128). In his polemics he never named his adversary, but combated Ariana, Pelagians, Nestoriana, Novatiana, and llsanicheana. Sermon 6 was highly prized by the ancients, sermon 35 seems to have been used by Fulgentiua, sermons 50, 142, 143 found a place in the Roman Breviary, while sermons 67 72 are valuable for the history of catechetice. In sermon 34 (MPL, Iii. 299a) Chrysologus combated the conditional immortality of the Stoics from the teat I Cor. xv. 52; in sermon 61 he touched upon the same subject, and the conclusion of sermon 62 asserted that the resurrection has the character of eternity because it is accomplished through the eternal Christ, which is better rhetoric than logic.
(F. AxxoLn. j
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The Sermons, together with the authorita
tive life by Agnellue, were published Venice, 1750, re
printed in MPL, Iii.; German select tranal, by M. Held,
Kempten 1$74. The life is also in MOB, Script. ra.
Lanpob., 1878, pp. 307 37b. New material is gathered by
F. Liverani, in 3picidepium Liberianum, pp 12b 203,
Florence, ' 1883. Consult: H. Dapper, Der heilige Petrue
Chrysolopua, Cologne, 1887; the biographical sketch by
Held is in his tranal., ut sup.; L. S. Tillemont, MEmoires
. eccdEsiastiqwa, xv. 184 196, 884 887: Ceillier, Auteura saer", a. 8 18; J. Feaeler, Inetitutiones yatrolopios,
ed. B. Jungmann, ii. 2, pp. 240 258. Innsbruck, 1898;
DCB, i. 517 518; KL, ix. 1898 1900.
CHRYSOSTOM, cris'ea tam.
Life to 398 (¢ 1).
Patriarch of Constantinople, 398 (§ 2).
His Opponents and Controversies (¢ 3).
The Synod ad Quercum (§ 4).
Chrysoatom Banished (¢ 5).
Writings (§ 8).
His Significance and Doctrine (¢ 7).
John Chrysoatom (Jodrdnea Chrysostomos, " John the Golden mouthed"), patriarch of Constantinople was born at Antioch, probably c. 345 or 347; d. near Comana, in Pontus, Sept. 14, 407. The name " Chrysostom," borrowed from Dion of Prusa, was given to him soon after his death. He came of a rich patrician family, and his father, Secundus, died anon after his eon's birth; the boy was brought up by his mother Anthusa. At twenty he was among the pupils of the rhetorician Libaniua at Antioch, and attended the lectures of the philosopher Andragathius. He intended at first to follow the law, but the details of the life displeased him, and he decided to leave the world entirely, finding a companion in his fellow student Basil, of whom nothing more is known. He busied
><. Life to himself now with the Scriptures, and
398. prepared for baptism, which he received
three years later from Meletius, bishop
of Antioch (c. 368, certainly before 370, in which
year Meletius left Antioch). Almost immediately
after, he seems to have been ordained as a reader.
His teachers in this period were Diodorus of Tarsus
and a certain Karterius, of whom nothing more is
known; his friends were Maximus, later bishop of
Seleucia, and Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia.
He himself tells of the strictness of the ascetic life
which he now led in his mother's house. Declining
a bishopric about 373, on his mother's death a year
or two later he betook himself to a mountain soli
tude near Antioch, where he spent four years in
ascetic exercises with an old Syrian monk, and two
more alone in a cave, until need of medical treat
ment brought him back to Antioch about 380.
Probably in the early part of the neat year, he
was ordained deacon by Meletius, and priest by his
successor Flavian at the beginning of 386. In
this capacity he labored in Antioch for twelve years,
laying the foundations of his fame as a preacher
and teacher and distinguishing himself by the
holiness of his life.
When Nectarine, the successor of Gregory Nasianzen in the episcopal see of Constantinople, died on Sept. 27, 397, intrigue was busy with the new choice. The weak emperor Arcadiua was entirely in the hands of his chamberlain Eutropius, for whom the choice was interesting only as subaerving his political plans. Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, more diplomat than bishop, endeavored to
yg RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Chryeoloa'as, Petrao
fill the place with one of his creatures, Isidore by name; but Eutropius, pursuing the policy inaugurated by Theodosius the Great in 381, was not disposed to support the Alexandrian influence in this manner, and gave Theophilue his 3. Patriarch choice between consenting to the of Conatan elevation of John or facing serious tinople, 398, charges. He chose the former course, and John was consecrated on Feb. 26, 398. He threw himself with energy into the task of reforming manifold abuses, especially among the clergy. He drove out the "spiritual sisters," with whom many of them were living in a nominally spiritual marriage, and checked the parasitic habits of others who were mere hangerson to the rich; he cut down the ecclesiastical expenses, and applied the saving to hospitals. Naturally his reforms made enemies for him, but they were powerless as long as the court was on his side. Before long, however, he came into conflict with the all powerful favorite, whose shameful conduct he fearlessly rebuked; but before Eutropius could avenge himself, he fell from power (399), and was obliged to take refuge in the very church where he had himself violated the right of asylum to others a few years earlier. Chrysostom protested him from the soldiers who rushed in to seize him.
Meantime the number of the devoted prelate's enemies was growing. Among them are named various ecclesiastics who were dissatisfied with his strict rule, and a number of rich and worldly women whose lives he had rebuked. He made fresh enemies at a council held at Ephesus in 400, where he deposed six bishops who had obtained their office by simony. The empress, however, who now held the reins of government, still upheld
3. His Op him, and when a male heir to the ponents and throne was born (401), he seems to
Controver have officiated at the child's baptism.
des. His position was none the less insecure,
as was shown in the purse of his con
flict with Severianua (q.v.) of Gabala who had
gained a footing in Constantinople and was push
ing his ambitious plans there. Chryeqstom for
bade him to preach; Severianus yielded and retired
to Chalcedon, but Eudoaa forced Chrysostom to
recall him. A more dangerous foe was Theophilus
of Alexandria, who had by no means given up his
designs for the aggrandizement of his see. He
found a new occasion to press his claim that the
bishopric of Constantinople belonged to his pa
triarchal jurisdiction. In the Origenistic contro
versy which then agitated the Egyptian Church,
Theophilus found many of the monks of the desert
recalcitrant and unwilling to give up their beloved
teacher Origen. Four among them of special
influence, the " long brothers " Dioscorus, Ammo
nius, Euaebius, and Euthymius, were banished by
Theophilus, and went first to Palestine; pursued
thither by the enmity of Theophilus, they went on
to Constantinople. Chrysostom behaved guard
wily and sought to effect a reconciliation. The
ophilus at first did not answer, and then adopted a
haughty tone. When it appeared that Eudocia
took the side of the monks, he bent all his energies
to their destruction and that of Chrysostom, who, he thought, stood behind them. He did not go himself to Constantinople, but sent Epiphanius of Salamis, whose narrow zeal was easily enlisted, to carry on the campaign against the alleged Origenism of C6rysoetom. Epiphanius departed in ill humor without accomplishing anything, and died on the way home.
Chryeoetom now ruined himself with the empress
by preaching vehemently against the luxury of
women's dress, in a way which she and others
thought was aimed directly at her. Theophilus
carne to.Conatantinople at her summons, and found
the train laid. He had assembled the bishops on
whom he could count in a church in a suburb
of Chalcedon, on the imperial estate called
" The Oak" (whence the gathering is known by
the Latin name, Synodus ad Quercum), in the
autumn of 403, and began his synod when all
was ready. There were thirty six present, of
whom twenty nine were from Egypt (Photius,
who has preserved a part of their proceedings,
says forty five, but perhaps some signed after
ward). The charges brought against
4. The Chrysoatom, by some of his own Synod ad clergy, were for the moat part of no
Quercum. importance, and showed nothing but
the enmity of the accusers. Yet he felt,
as he sat with forty friendly bishops in his palace in
Constantinople, that the situation was a very dan
gerous one. Summoned to appear before the hostile
synod„ be made the condition that those who had
expressed their intention to destroy him The
ophilus, Acacius, Severianus, and Antiochus
ahould be excluded. Meantime application had
been made to the emperor to compel his attendance
in case of hesitation; when he still delayed, he was
condemned in his absence and deprived of his
bishopric. The emperor was notified and requested
to enforce the sentence. Although it was obviously
illegal, Chrysostom yielded to force and, when the
emperor had confirmed the deposition, went into
exile at Preenetua (or Pronectus), in Bithynia
(28 m. n.w. of Nicaea), after he had sought to
calm the excited people in a wonderful sermon.
The next night something alarming happened in
the imperial palace Theodoret speaks of an earth
quake, but neither Socrates nor Sozomon give this
and it was put down to his banishment. The
temper of the people, too, was threatening. The
ophilus thought it beat to depart in haste, and a
few days later an imperial messenger was sent to
The peace, however, was not of long duration. Two months later the strife broke out afresh, on a fresh affront to the empress's vanity. The prefect Simplicius had erected a silver statue of her on the south aide of the great church, which was dedicated with loud rejoicinga; and Chrysostom complained, in a sermon, of noisy popular festivities which disturbed the devotions of the faithful. Again he was accused of intending to insult the emprees• and once more she set herself to effect his downfall. A synod assembled in Constantinople, instructed by the absent Theophilus, and the pliant bishops, with but few exceptions, followed
Ohu ,, B
shoprio of THE NEW SCHAFF HERZOG 74
the imperial will. The method to be employed gave rise to lengthy discussions, until shortly
before Easter, 404, the emperor or$. Chrys dered Chrysostorn to leave his church.
ostom since he had been condemned by two
Banished. synods. The bishop said he would
yield only to force; and force was employed on Thursday in Holy Week, the adherents of Chryaoatom being driven out of the church by a violent onslaught. He himself remained in the suburbs, strengthening his party, until on June 10 his enemies moved the emperor to further measures, and on the 20th, after an affecting farewell, he took ship for Asia Minor, the country indicated for his banishment. The same night a fire broke out in the cathedral church, for which his adherents were blamed, and they were severely repressed. A feeble old man named Araacius, the brother of his predecessor, was put in his place on June 26.
But while Chrysostom was on his way to Cucuaus in Armenia, his friends were not idle. Four bishops went to Rome with a letter from him, to move Innocent I. in his favor. The acts of the synod which had first condemned Chrysostom were sent to Innocent shortly after by thq opposite party, and he saw that the sentence had been illegal. He wrote to Theophilus that the affair should be brought up before a general council, and exhorted Chrysostorn and his adherents to steadfastness. Honorius, the Western emperor and brother of Arcadius, also wrote to the latter in favor of the banished bishop, but without suttees. The outcome was a breach of communion between Old and New Rome. After the death of Arsacius (Nov. 11, 405), Atticus became bishop in the following spring, and persecuted the " Johannites " with renewed severity. Chrysostorn himself was ordered transferred from Cueusus to Pityus, a still more desolate place; but the hardships of the journey were too much for him, and he died near Comana, the modern Tokat, in Sivas, Asia Minor. Thirty years later his remains were solemnly translated to Constantinople and buried with honor in the church of the Apostles, Theodosius II. thus atoning for the deeds of his parents.
The writings of Chrysostom may be divided, according to his biographer Palladius, into " homilies, treatises, and letters." The list known as the Catalogue Augustanus (from a lost Augsburg MS.) numbers 102 separate titles, including none which is not genuine. His sermons cover practically the whole Bible, including, for example, seventy six on Genesis, ninety on Matthew, eighty eight on John, fifty five on Acts, and 242 on the Pauline epistles, without counting those on Galatians, which are preserved only in the form of a connected com
mentary worked up from the sermons. 6. Writings. There are also discourses for all the
principal festivals, and a large number on various saints, of which the moat notable are the seven on Paul. The " treatises " are partly apologetic and partly practical, the latter being the more numerous. The earliest we have are two letters to Theodore, afterward bishop of Mopauestia, who, on account of a love affair, was thinking of returning to the world. To justify his declination
of a bishopric, about 373, he addressed to his friend Basil the six books " On the Priesthood "; according to Socrates, the composition of this work falls in the period after his ordination as deacon, i.e., after 381. To this period probably belong also the two books " On Penance," and the three against the enemies of the monastic life. The superiority of the single life is dealt with in a work on virginity, written about 380, and two smaller works of about the same period, " To a Young Widow " and " Against a Second Marriage." With these may be classed the two pastoral letters of his early Constantinople days, directed against the abuses in clerical life already referred to. His letters, about 245 in number, are almost all from the period of his second exile, and give an interesting picture of his life and his cares. Of works improperly attributed to him there is no lack. The liturgy bearing his name is not his, though its relation to that of Antioch deserves a closer investigation than it has yet received as does the " Synopsis of the Old and New Testaments." The " Incomplete Work on Matthew," consisting of fifty four sermons, is a Latin original composed by an Arias toward the end of the sixth century.
The significance of Chrysostom's work does not lie in the domain of scientific theology, on the development of which he had but little influence. He was preeminently a practical man, and it was through practical teaching that he left his mark. A disciple of the school of Antioch (q.v.), he displayed throughout his life the characteristics of that school. The pupil of Diodorus of Tarsus is easily to be recognized in his sober exegesis, occupied with determining the literal sense of his text. Constantly bearing in mind the needs of.his flock, he naturally did not carry the exegetical principles of his school to the extreme which is found in the commentaries of Theodore of Mopaueatia; but he was a master of the art of developing practical truths for everyday life from the Scripture. Thus his sermons surpass Origen's in practical value as far as they are inferior to them in speculative insight. His was not, in any case, a systematic mind; the logical development of dogma from point to point he left to others. Where the Church had decided, the question was nettled for him. He took his stand on the Nicene theology, and was ready to defend it against all comers. In order fully to understand and respect this position, one must remember the difficulties in which the church teachers of Antioch were placed how they had to contend not only against pagans and Jews, but against Christian sects of every description, the various kinds of Gnostics, Novatiana, y. His Sig Arians, Manicheana, and many others.
nificance In his anthropology and soteriology and Chrysostorn faithfully represents the
Doctrine. teaching of Diodorus. Man, consist
ing of body and soul, is disposed both
to good and to evil, and thus there is no room for
Manichean dualism. For the development of the
first man, as he was created perfect and immortal
by God, the possession of free will proved fatal.
Not knowing how to use his freedom, man rebelled
against God and brought on himself all the corrup
76 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Chryeoetom