Gennadius I

ON ST. GENNADIUS I, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE,

In the year CDLXXI.

HISTORICAL COLLECTION.

Gennadius I, patriarch of Constantinople (St.)

BY THE AUTHOR J. P.

§ I. His worship; the gifts of nature and of grace;

his writings against St. Cyril of Alexandria not rightly understood; his episcopate, and his favor toward the clergy of Constantinople.

Among so many prelates of Constantinople

whom the Greek church

venerates as saints, an outstanding

place is deserved by St. Gennadius, His public veneration from the Fasti:

who by the integrity of his life and manners,

and by diligently fulfilling the parts

of the episcopal dignity, obtained singular

praise, as will be made plain from his

deeds. To these, however, we premise from the sacred Fasti

a confirmation of his public worship. The Arabo-Egyptian

Martyrology, rendered from the Arabic into Latin for us by Grazia Simonio,

thus relates him on this day: The memory of SS. Gennadius and John,

bishops of the city queen of cities, that is,

of the city of Constantinople. In the great Menaea published in print,

and in the Menology of Sirleto, our Patriarch

is likewise inscribed. Consult what is said by us

on this day in St. Epiphanius, archbishop

of the same see. In the Turin Ms. copy

there is also had on this XXV of August: Μνήμη

τῶν

ἁγίων

πατέρων

ἡμῶν

Γενναδίου

καὶ

Ἰωάννου

ἀρχιεπισκόπων

ΚΠ.

That is: The memory of our holy Fathers

Gennadius and John, archbishops of C. P.

Of John consult today's Passed-over. The praised

Menaea again honor St. Gennadius on the day XVII

of November, and announce him in this manner: On the same

day holy Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople,

is consummated in peace. There follow

these Greek verses, which I thus render into Latin:

Ὁ

Γενναδιος

εὗρε

τὴν

Ἐδὲμ

στέφος

Φανεὶς

νοητὴν

πρὸς

πελαίστραν

γεννάδας

Gennadius has found the crown of the hall of heaven,

who proves himself strenuous in the wrestling-school of the mind.

There is an allusion to the proper name Gennadius and

to the adjective γεννάδας, that is, strenuous,

excellent. But now, since it is not certainly established for us

on which day the Saint ought rather to be honored — whether on this day

XXV of August, or on the XVII of November, or on one or the other —

we judge that we are free to choose today's.

Baronius at the year of Christ 471, num.

2, writes this: The Greeks have him reckoned among the Saints

in the Menology on the day XXV of the month of August,

deservedly following his memory yearly with honorable

worship.

[2] he is praised for various gifts of nature and of grace In what year he began to sit, and when he ceased to sit,

being called to those above, the reader will find

in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Constantinople,

prefixed to the first tome of this month,

page 44 *. Of this matter, however, there will be incidental treatment

toward the end of this collection. Let us go on therefore to

other things, which pertain both to his gifts of nature and of grace,

and to his deeds before the patriarchate, and

to the course of it. In the Lives of the Fathers, book

10, chapter 145, page 905 of the second edition published by

Rosweyde, our holy Patriarch is thus praised in John

Moschus in the Spiritual Meadow:

We came to the monastery which is called

Salama, distant nine miles from Alexandria,

and we found there two aged presbyters,

who told us that they were presbyters of the church of Constantinople,

and they related to us about

the blessed Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople,

that he was most gentle, and pure in body,

and greatly continent.

[3] gifts. Gennadius, presbyter of Marseilles, in the Ecclesiastical

Library, in Le Mire, chapter 90: Gennadius,

he says, bishop of the church of Constantinople,

a man polished in tongue and keen in wit,

was so rich from the reading of the ancients that he expounded Daniel

the prophet, commenting upon him entire, word by word.

He composed also many Homilies.

He dies while Leo the elder held the empire.

These few specimens of praise which we have hitherto brought forward

indicate not obscurely what sort of man

St. Gennadius was, and how excellently fitted

to preside over the see of Constantinople.

But before we speak of the things done by him

in that dignity, it is helpful to premise certain things

which happened earlier.

[4] Famous, if we believe the author presently to be given,

is his writing against St. Cyril of Alexandria

(whose deeds were illustrated by us on the day XXVIII

of January), in which with a sharp and biting pen he inveighed

against him, Gennadius beyond measure and stung him with injurious

terms, because he thought that the holy man, while

he wrote against Nestorius, had fallen into the error of Apollinaris.

Someone will add these things to lighten

the fault here committed by him: Gennadius burned

with a most ardent desire of defending the Catholic faith:

he did not understand St. Cyril's meaning:

he thought that it could not be reconciled with orthodox faith:

hence the discord arose: hence the writing sprinkled with acrimony

which out of a good intention indeed,

but out of error, he wrote against St. Cyril.

But we shall afterwards try to weigh this matter in an even

balance. Meanwhile that affair of which there is here question

seems able to be tied to

the year of Christ 431 or 432, when the controversy was still hot

between St. Cyril and John, bishop

of Antioch. Consult Baronius at

the year 431. But now it will be useful to set forth and weigh the deed

from an ancient, but schismatic, author.

[5] Facundus, bishop of Hermiane in the African

province, inveighed addressed 12 books to the emperor Justinian

in defence of the three Chapters

of the council of Chalcedon, which Sirmond published

at Paris in the year 1629: where in book

2, chapter 4, from page 76, he indicates of what sort this

writing was: But what is this which

they boast, that they therefore condemned this letter, because

its writer seems in it to have thought ill about blessed Cyril, whereas

against that same holy Cyril and his 12 chapters there also wrote

Gennadius of blessed memory, bishop of this royal city,

nor is he, being unreproved by these men, named in this

condemnation, who handled him in his answer much more vehemently

and contumeliously? For thus he says against him: "Woe

is me from evils. Alas, alas! For whence should anyone

at present take his beginning otherwise?

What and how great blasphemies of Cyril the Egyptian

… have I heard! Who indeed will give water to my head,

and to my eyes a fountain of tears?

and I will weep for this day and night: since his tongue

has stretched out a lie, and not faith:

he has been strengthened upon the earth. Assuredly peace to sinners

is a deception: for on this account, he says, their pride

has laid hold of them unto the end:

they have thought and spoken in malignity. They have spoken iniquity

on high: they have set their mouth in

heaven, and their tongue has passed over the earth." These are the Psalmist's words …

[6] "Woe to the evil of Alexandria, to his familiar, and

to this man now his own second. in a writing against St. Cyril of Alexandria; Let us bewail the corrupted things,

and the things which he corrupts. Already wholly a mystery

of iniquity, and I fear lest perhaps he who holds it back

may never be taken out of the midst … For what

is small, or what is middling in those things? He has hurled every

surpassing height of blasphemy

against the holy Fathers, against their forerunners the Apostles,

against the Saviour himself; he has meditated

against the resurrection. He does injury to the humanity assumed

from us and for us: he contends that his divine

nature, and that impassible, lies subject to sufferings." Behold, says

Facundus, how great and of what kind are the things which holy Gennadius poured out

against blessed Cyril, and hence there arises no ill-will against his name,

since he himself was not present at the council of Chalcedon.

Nay, even answering the first

chapter of that same St. Cyril, in which he said: "If

any one does not confess Emmanuel to be God according to truth,

and therefore the holy Virgin the Bearer of God, for she bore

carnally the Word of God made flesh, let him be anathema" —

thus he inveighed against him: "God shall anathematize

thee, thou whited wall …" and the rest,

which anyone who wishes will find in the same Work.

[7] whether he is to be excused; These things being related in Gennadius's case against St. Cyril

from the very words of that same Gennadius,

the cited bishop Facundus thus goes on, and will have them not to stand in the way

of his being held orthodox: Why then, he says, in this vengeance,

as they say, for the injuries of blessed Cyril, is not rather

the name of holy Gennadius bandied about, both for the authority of his place,

as bishop of the royal city, and for

the greatness of his maledictions and contumelies?

But if they have considered this, that Gennadius would not write such things about Cyril

unless he had less understood the speaker's intention;

this prudent and pious consideration

I too accept. For he too, believing what is right about the Christian religion,

could with good intention blame blessed Cyril, whom he did not understand:

and they have believed it damnable to condemn a good intention.

But if they have also considered this, that if those things which a hundred years ago

were written by blessed Gennadius were now condemned,

it would come to the reproach of the whole Church,

which did not do this before; that this also was wisely

and modestly considered, whoever is wise

and modest will acknowledge.

[8] which error he afterwards washed away, and proved himself orthodox. Tillemont, to be cited below, in St. Gennadius,

page 68, says that he could have had

only most Catholic sentiments, and yet could have blamed

Cyril's writings with good intention. But indeed how his erroneous

sentiments can be so liberally excused from good intention

we do not conceive: especially if we consider his virulent

execration, which he vomits against the first chapter

of St. Cyril, as was just said; chiefly

if he wrote it after the council of Ephesus;

that we may perhaps omit many other things of this kind,

since Facundus adds, and the rest, which anyone who wishes

will find in the same Work. We readily believe

that Gennadius was then carried away against St. Cyril by a certain youthful

impulse; which perhaps also his love toward Nestorius,

cast down from his see, kindled. But that Gennadius retracted and

washed away his error, those things persuade which afterwards he did

orthodoxly. What indeed? that otherwise he would never have been promoted

to the see of Constantinople.

[9] He is created patriarch of C. P. That he was a presbyter of Constantinople when

he was raised to the see of that same city is established.

Hear Theodore the Lector, or the Excerpts

from his ecclesiastical history, which together

with Evagrius Scholasticus &c. were published at Paris

by Valois, page 553: Anatolius being dead, Gennadius,

presbyter of the church of C. P., is substituted in his place.

Add Nicephorus, archbishop of Constantinople,

in the brief Chronography, printed at Paris from the royal press, page 414.

For the rest, that he was not elected to the patriarchal

dignity by the votes of all, the just-praised Theodore indicates,

when he mentions Acacius, provost of the orphanage,

named to it at the same time by the suffrages of certain men.

But God on that occasion spared the church of Constantinople.

For what sort of man Acacius was, who was afterwards

substituted when St. Gennadius died, is narrated in the Chronological History

of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, of which above,

from page 44 *. But the Acts of St. Anatolius,

of whom mention has just been made, were illustrated by us

at the day III of July, page 651 and

following, where we indicated that he departed this life

in the year 458, in which St. Gennadius succeeded him,

as may be seen in the just-cited History, page 44 *:

[10] Further, Gennadius appointed as steward of the church

Marcian, [he extends the favors of the Great church to all the churches of the city of C. P.] who from the sect of the Cathari

had passed over to the Catholic Church, as Theodore

the Lector designated above witnesses, who adds: He,

as soon as he was made steward, decreed that

what was offered in each several church, the clerks

of that same church should receive: whereas up to that time

the Great church was wont to receive all. Since

this happened either by the command, or at least with the knowledge

and without doubt the approbation, of our Patriarch, it is a token

that he in this matter wished rather to extend

ecclesiastical munificence to the common good of the clergy of Constantinople

than to the particular good

of the clergy of the Great and patriarchal church,

because perhaps for this latter provision was sufficiently made from elsewhere

with fitting revenues for honorable sustenance;

but for the former not so. However it be,

this change was not made without cause, since

a contrary custom cried out against it up to that time.

Further, about the Great church, or St. Sophia,

more will be said on this day in St. Mennas or Menas,

patriarch of Constantinople, §2.

§ II. His acts against the impious Timothy Aelurus; his dealings with St. Daniel the Stylite, and our observations upon them.

Our Saint St. Pope Leo sent Domitian and Geminian,

bishops, to Constantinople, that with the emperor,

also named Leo, they might obtain the punishment

of Timothy Aelurus, who, being a schismatic,

cut off from the communion of the Church

and infected with the Eutychian heresy, had nevertheless invaded the see

of Alexandria, had slain St. Proterius,

its lawful bishop, and was striving earnestly

to ruin the Catholic faith in all Egypt.

All the prelates of the East whom the emperor had consulted

had declared themselves enemies of Timothy.

Yet he persisted, upheld by the authority of Aspar the Arian,

to whom Leo owed his empire. This argument,

which has been drawn into a compendium, is set forth at greater length

in Tillemont, tom. 15 of the Ecclesiastical Monuments,

in St. Pope Leo, article

156 and following, the series of deeds being woven

partly into the year of Christ 457, partly into 458,

in which our Saint succeeded St. Anatolius the patriarch,

as was indicated before.

[12] But what then afterwards? Gennadius held out to St. Pope Leo

a helping hand against the impious Aelurus, does excellent service

who, being driven from Alexandria, was banished

to Gangra by the order of the emperor Leo,

as Theophanes testifies in the Chronography, page

96 of the royal Paris edition, in these words, which in

the Latin version are there thus rendered from the Greek text:

Moreover, that things wickedly perpetrated might be subjected to a worthy

vengeance, Gennadius employed all zeal with

the emperor, although Aspar the Arian, set against him, favored the adverse

party. Further, the most pious

emperor banished Aelurus to Gangra, whither Dioscorus his

master had been deported.

But he began again to hold conventicles and to stir up disturbances there:

of which the emperor, being made more certain,

banished the man to the Chersonese. But another

Timothy, surnamed Leucus,

who is also Salophacialus, a man thinking rightly about matters of faith,

and dear to all for the probity of his manners,

was ordained bishop of Alexandria in the former's place. Tillemont

cited above has gathered more about this history at article 172. Gennadius

therefore proved himself an excellent champion of the orthodox faith,

an untiring enemy of the infamous Timothy, and

a diligent helper of St. Pope Leo in a matter of so great moment.

[13] to the Catholic faith That these things may the more appear and be confirmed,

we desire it to be observed that Aelurus was permitted

to go to Constantinople; of which matter our Patriarch

made St. Leo more certain; who,

in epistle 138, otherwise 100, given to St. Gennadius,

complains of this permission, requires his vigilance,

and praises him, as is understood from the very text of the epistle

which we give: By thy Charity's

letters, and by the discourse of our brethren and fellow bishops

Domitian and Geminian, I have learned

that Timothy, after he was driven out of the church of the city

of Alexandria, was permitted to come to Constantinople

(certain adversaries of the faith bringing it about),

that, so far as it is given to understand — because, being constrained

by the sentences of all the Lord's priests,

he may at least unwillingly turn himself to the Catholic dogma —

so that, as though he seemed to have been cast out for this fault only,

the error of heretical perversity being condemned,

he may acquiesce in the Apostolic doctrine, in order to return to Alexandria:

whereas, even if he were proved Catholic, this vehemently

stands against him, that, the bishop being alive,

he is the invader of so great a see, and appeared the author

of an unheard-of cruelty committed.

[14] and to holy Pope Leo And therefore thy Charity, with that solicitude for which thou art renowned,

must strive and labor that with so wicked

a man no discourse be held privately or publicly,

and that under the appearance of his correction

no occasion be afforded for the assembling of certain men: lest

he obtain full liberty of returning, upon whom already

the most Christian prince has passed judgment by his edicts.

With all labor therefore and ever-watchful circumspection strive to profit

ecclesiastical unity, most dear brother,

that hope may be taken from his supporters,

and that a Catholic bishop from their own clergy be consecrated for the Alexandrians

according to the ancient custom by orthodox

bishops: because that parricide is not otherwise deserted by his defenders,

unless the church of Alexandria, which is to be restored to the honor of her fathers

and to her own liberty, obtain a most approved ruler

for healing all things that have been ill done.

Given the XV Kalends of July, in the consulship of Magnus and Apollonius, that is, in the year of Christ 460.

Our Archbishop satisfied St. Leo's desire:

for Aelurus obtained nothing at Constantinople,

or did not even come thither, and before

St. Leo's letters had come to Gennadius's hands,

Timothy Salophaciolus, whom we praised above,

had already then been chosen bishop of Alexandria.

[15] For St. Leo gave the epistle just recited

on the XVII day of June; against the impious Aelurus. but at the beginning of the month of July,

or a little after, the episcopal ordination of Timothy

Salophaciolus must have taken place; since the same Vicar of Christ

on earth congratulated him on the XVIII

of August of the same year in epistle 139, otherwise 101,

after he had learned that that same ordination had been made,

both from the writings of Timothy the prelate and from those of the presbyters

and deacons of the church of Alexandria.

For in epistle 140, otherwise 102, noted with the same day

and year, he thus addresses these: I rejoice exultantly

in the Lord over the most pious affection which ye have among

you, since, as your writings show,

both the shepherd is shown to love the flock, and the flock

the shepherd. But in the congratulatory epistle

which we just now designated: Since therefore, he says,

there have arisen opportunities of writing which thy fraternity

might use, as thou hast necessarily and after the custom

done, in directing to us through our sons Daniel the presbyter

and Timothy the deacon the writings of thy ordination,

so at all times persevere in this office. The writings of St. Leo therefore —

the earlier epistle to Gennadius on the XVII day of June; then

the writings of Salophaciolus and of the others of whom there has been treatment,

which St. Leo received, and to which he wrote back

on the XVIII of August — are to us an argument that

Gennadius satisfied the desire of this most holy

Pontiff, since by singular vigilance

and earnest zeal for the public good and

for the Catholic religion, before he had received the former of these

epistles, he took care that it should be committed to execution.

[16] Behold for thee, reader, what was done at about the same

time between our Patriarch and St.

Daniel the Stylite, It is related of whom there will have to be more treatment

at the day XI of December, on which the Roman

Martyrology records him. In Surius this

history of both Saints stands at that same day

in the Life of St. Daniel the Stylite, chapter 16, on occasion of the column

which that Daniel had ascended: When

the lord of the place (it was near Constantinople)

came to knowledge of these things (and his name

was Gelasius), being inconsiderately troubled in mind by anger,

or rather stirred by the demon's importunity,

and roused to fury against the holy man

(and the cause alleged was that he had not

set up that column by his will), he reports indeed

to the emperor what had been done.

But he reports it also to Gennadius (for he had been appointed

bishop of Constantinople after

the decease of Anatolius): and by the emperor indeed

he was not heard when he spoke: but the bishop, moved by envy,

or yielding to him who had asked,

judged not only that the Saint should be cast down from the column,

but also that he should be subjected to punishment. Gelasius therefore returns,

wholly roused with anger, taking with him also many others,

and wishing to drag the Saint from the column. Then the Life narrates

how God defended Daniel.

[17] In the same place, chapters 24 and 25, these things follow:

That great threats were about to assail the great city,

a historical narration of those things, when he had received a revelation from those above,

he signifies it to Gennadius the bishop, bidding him

use more earnest prayer. Nay, he foretells like things to the emperor

Leo, and bids common supplications

be made twice in the week. For so

he promises them that God's anger will be milder. And

they indeed, the Saint's precepts being held in contempt,

were to learn by very experience those things which

the multitude of sins caused to be brought

to effect … (Likely here Daniel foretells the fire of the city of C. P., which happened in the year

465.) But since Daniel, who had already before sacrificed to him

both body and soul, was also to be a sacrificer of the divine Lamb,

the Spirit from above moves the emperor,

and the emperor moves Gennadius also, and

writes to him that, taking many from the church, he should come

to the great Daniel, and consummate him

in the priestly order.

[18] which between St. Gennadius But when he had done these things, he who indeed had great power

of foreseeing things to come,

first foreknows in the spirit his coming

to him. Then, when he had now come to

the column, he said that he had long since desired to ascend

to him: but that ecclesiastical cares had hindered

him from putting an end to his desire; but now

he was coming that he might both see him, and enjoy his prayers

and discourses. And he asked

that ladders also be brought. In vain, said

Daniel, endowed with great power of foretelling, did he who moved thee

to us procure that thou shouldst undertake this labor. This

brings at once both amazement and fear to the Priest:

amazement indeed, in what way he thus knew

his coming; but fear, because his mind was manifest

to the great Daniel: for indeed, unless he had been compelled by the emperor,

he would never have consented to come to him.

[19] and St. Daniel the Stylite But when both the bishop and those who followed

the bishop had greatly asked that ladders be brought,

that he might ascend to him, the unconquered Daniel forbade it:

but the sun was now overhanging

the midst of their heads, striking them with hot rays,

and the Bishop saw the multitude scorched with thirst

and heat; he bids the archdeacon below

say the accustomed prayers: but he himself,

when he had prayed, ordains the great Daniel,

even though not present, a presbyter, and at the same time

the multitude cried out about him who was truly worthy:

Worthy. When the patriarch Gennadius had thus named Daniel

a priest, and had said, Behold, both the people has

for this cause uttered to thee the just voice according to custom, and God

from above has laid his hand upon thee through me,

and thou hast received all, to say it once, the signs

of the priesthood. It remains therefore that ladders be brought

to the column, that thou mayest be a partaker also of the sacred

Sacrifice, and mayest wholly yield to God who calls thee.

[20] are said to have been done. Then, when blessed Daniel had learned that these things

were not done without God's will, but that what was done was also pleasing

and acceptable to him, he bids ladders be set,

and gives and receives the heavenly pearl, the divine

communion, I mean. Then, when he had also

done all the other things which are wont to be done by priests,

and had prayed for the multitude, he dismissed them

rejoicing and at the same time marvelling, partly indeed

for his foreknowledge and truly praiseworthy

timidity; partly because with difficulty indeed,

yet he is persuaded, both to receive the priesthood himself

and to afford them prayers and blessing.

These things are signified to the emperor also, and

fill him with like gladness and admiration.

[21] Various observations These things are narrated in the Life of St. Daniel the Stylite,

and published in Surius under the name of Symeon

Metaphrastes. Leo Allatius in the Diatriba on the writings

of the Symeons, page 129, among many other

Lives of Saints as proper to Metaphrastes,

sets the Life of St. Daniel the Stylite, with this beginning

or characteristic mark: Ὡσπερ

ἐπὶ

τῶν

ἀριστέαν,

which agrees with the opening of the Latin Life in Surius:

Even as to brave men. But these things

are the cause why we dare not attribute full authority to the Life

of that writer, especially in those

circumstances which he commemorates as having happened between the two Saints.

For it displeases, first,

that which above in a disjunctive proposition

he sets about St. Gennadius: But the bishop, moved by envy.

For why is mention here made of envy? since the holy Man

could for another cause have judged that St.

Daniel should be removed from the column, namely because

that manner of living was so singular, because

it was subject to the peril of vanity, because it arose

not so much from a divine impulse as from the motion of his own will:

which drawbacks, even if they had no place in St. Daniel,

yet the holy Patriarch may perhaps have suspected

that they had: to say nothing

of the complaints of others which perhaps were brought to St. Gennadius,

of which at least one, and that a very grave one,

is set forth in the disjunctive proposition

of which we have already made mention. However

these things stand which we have related by conjecture,

the holy Man does not seem to be accused

of envy, since he can be excused from another quarter.

There is also another thing above about which we judge

the writer of the said Life should be taken to task.

[22] For it displeases, secondly, that wondrous manner of the priesthood

wherefore which St. Gennadius is reported to have conferred upon St. Daniel

in these words: He ordains the great Daniel,

even though not present, a presbyter,

to whom among other things he narrates that he said: God from above

has laid his hand upon thee through me … It remains therefore that

ladders be brought to the column &c. It displeases, I say,

this ordination, which would be to us more probable

and more likely if the biographer said that St.

Daniel, being absent, was indeed designated by St. Gennadius

for the priesthood; but that afterwards by that same

holy Patriarch hands were laid upon Daniel when present,

and that those things were performed which are necessary

for the consecration of a priest, whatever be the case

about the accidental parts. This my thought I confirm

by the following fact. St. Gregory of Nyssa in the Life

of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, which was published at Paris in the year 1615,

and which is there had in tom. 2 of the Works of that same holy Father,

narrates on page 976 and

the following a like example about the praised Gregory:

When Phaedimus, he says, in whom there was divinely from the Holy

Spirit a certain foreknowing power (of things to come),

was at that time prelate of the church of the people of Amasea,

and labored with all zeal that, having brought the great

Gregory into his power, he might set him over the administration

of the church, … when he perceived that the priest

was agitating and attempting this, he began to consider

by what means he might lie hid, passing now to one, now to another

solitude …

[23] But while each strove with the other in zeal,

the one desiring to catch him, certain things in this history the other to escape

the hands of his pursuer …, Phaedimus, carried on by a certain divine

impulse to his purposed zeal,

taking no account of the interval by which he was parted from Gregory

(for he was distant a three days' journey),

but looking up to God, and praying

that both he and the other alike might in that hour be looked upon by God,

in place of the laying on of hands he employs a word

toward Gregory, consecrating to God him

who was not present in body, and destining and assigning to him

that city which had happened

even down to those very times to be so given over

to the error of images … Thus therefore, being compelled to undergo the yoke,

ALL THE SOLEMN THINGS WHICH ARE WONT TO BE DONE

BEING THEREAFTER PERFORMED IN HIM, when he had asked a short

time from him who had assigned him the priesthood, in order to learn the mystery

more exactly &c. This Latin interpreter could have said:

All things thereafter being LAWFULLY performed in him:

for in the Greek text it is: Πάντων

μετὰ

ταῦτα

τῶν

νομίμων

ἐπ᾽

αὐτῷ

τελεσθέντων. From these things I conclude

that in this or a like manner it is more likely we should reason

about the priesthood of St. Daniel the Stylite, lest,

for so slight an authority of Metaphrastes, or of another biographer,

whoever he was, we should have recourse to so unusual

and extraordinary a manner of a priesthood received from

that same Saint.

[24] are disapproved by us. It displeases, thirdly, that the author of the Life of St. Daniel

should rub off upon St. Gennadius an officious lie.

For he affirms that he said to St. Daniel

that he had long since desired to ascend to him; but

that ecclesiastical cares had hindered him from putting an end to his desire …

To whom Daniel said: In vain … did he who moved thee

to us procure that thou shouldst undertake this labor.

To which the biographer subjoins this:

For indeed, unless he had been compelled by the emperor,

he would never have consented to come to him.

If these things are true, St. Gennadius lied:

and although even holy men have their blemishes,

and these do nothing against their sanctity, yet this

I would not dare to impute to St. Gennadius, because

other circumstances of which I have spoken in the foregoing

history of that biographer seem to be of suspect

credit: but whether there be many others of this kind in the Life

of St. Daniel the Stylite may be examined at

the day XI of December.

§ III. A synod gathered by the holy Man against

simony; an encyclical letter; his pastoral vigilance; a miracle; a criminal clerk punished in a wondrous manner; churches built at Constantinople in the time of this Patriarch; relics translated by him; visions.

[The Saint is praised, gathers a synod and writes an encyclical letter against simoniacs:] The most eminent Cardinal Baronius praises

St. Gennadius as most abundantly deserving of the orthodox faith

and of ecclesiastical discipline:

for at the year of Christ 459, num. 1, he writes of him

as of a most keen vindicator and guardian of the Catholic faith

and of ecclesiastical discipline:

who, among other deformities, when he had found

that church (of Constantinople) disfigured with the simoniacal

stain, in order utterly to root it out

and to extirpate other depraved manners, hastened to gather

a synod. Which things, briefly indeed but yet

magnificently pronounced about him by Baronius,

how aptly and deservedly they fit the holy Man

will be made plain from what we are now about to say. There still

remains to us an illustrious monument of that implacable

hatred with which that same holy Prelate

pursued this most pernicious plague, in

an encyclical or circular letter, which among the Commentaries

or scholia of Theodore Balsamon on the canons

&c., published at Paris in Greek and Latin in the year 1620,

is had on page 1084, with this title, which, rendered there from

the Greek into Latin, thus runs: Of Gennadius,

patriarch of Constantinople, and of the holy synod gathered with him,

to all the most holy metropolitans

and to the Pope of the city of Rome, a circular letter &c. Tillemont, presently

to be cited, raises on page 71 difficulties against those things

which Baronius writes at the year 459, num. 1 and 2,

saying that at that council there were present Domitian

and Geminian, bishops and legates of the Apostolic

See; likewise that that council was convoked

from the nearest provinces. But what that collector

objects to Baronius we forbear here to relate.

For the council of Constantinople itself was celebrated

in the year 459 or thereabouts, that same collector not gainsaying it:

from which we learn the true and solid praises of St. Gennadius;

and let that suffice for our purpose.

[26] The holy Patriarch had ecclesiastical seemliness

also earnestly at heart, [he wills that those to be ordained know the Psalter by heart; a miracle; a criminal clerk,] since, as Theodore

the Lector, whom I cited above, witnesses, page 554,

he ordained no one who did not know the Psalter

by heart. What he did for the clerks we have narrated

above at num. 10 from the same author, who

on page 554 just designated relates a miracle wrought by our Prelate.

Under the same Gennadius, he says,

the hand of a certain painter withered, who

had dared to paint Christ in the likeness of Jove.

But Gennadius presently healed the painter by his prayers.

The Man's vigilance also against depraved

manners is indicated in the same place in these few words: To Eleutherius

the martyr, on account of a certain clerk of his, Gennadius

wrote in this manner: Thy soldier does not keep discipline.

Do thou therefore either amend him,

or blot him out: and straightway the clerk died,

as being one endowed with evil manners.

[27] This deed, which is there very briefly touched, is set forth in fuller discourse in the Lives of the Fathers

in the place indicated by us before, whom he could not amend, whose history

that it may be more clearly and distinctly understood,

I have taken care to transcribe it here. Thus therefore it has:

They told us this also about him (the discourse is about our

Gennadius), that, when he was troubled by many

about a certain clerk exceedingly delinquent,

Charisius by name, the Patriarch summoned him and

tried to amend him. But when he profited nothing

by rebuking, he permitted him to be scourged with fatherly

and ecclesiastical censure.

[28] But after he learned that he was made better in nothing,

he commits him to St. Eleutherius to be amended or punished. neither by words nor by scourges (for he was

given to homicides and magical illusions), he sent

a certain apocrisiary of his and bade him say to the holy

martyr Eleutherius (for Charisius was a lector in his

oratory): Thy soldier, holy Eleutherius

of God, is a great sinner: either amend him

or cut him off. The apocrisiary therefore came into the oratory,

and, standing before the altar, and looking toward

the martyr's tomb, and stretching out his hand,

said to the martyr: The patriarch Gennadius signifies to you,

holy martyr of Christ Eleutherius, through me

a sinner, that thy soldier greatly sins.

Either amend him, or cut him off. But on the morrow

Charisius, the worker of crimes, was found dead,

and all, being astonished, glorified

God. Hence it is gathered that the holy Patriarch,

even though he was most gentle, as was said above in §

1, num. 2, yet exercised also a just severity

when the common good and ecclesiastical discipline

required it. Tillemont,

tom. 16, in St. Gennadius, page 70, relates that at Constantinople

there was a church of St. Eleutherius the martyr,

likely, as he will have it, a Byzantine senator;

whom the Greeks, he says, honor on the IV of August, and

to whose church he judges that the history related above

pertains. But that the sacred house at Constantinople must be attributed

not to this one, but to another Eleutherius of like name, a bishop and martyr,

we have tried to show in tom. 1 of August, at the IV day of that same

month, where we illustrated the Acts of St. Eleutherius, M.

at Tarsia in Bithynia, from page 318.

[29] In the time of that same holy Patriarch the city of Constantinople

was adorned with new churches.

In the times of this Gennadius, Studius built the church

of St. John, and placed in it monks from the Acoemetae,

as Theodore the Lector witnesses, page 454.

Theophanes in the Chronography, published at Paris in the year

1655, page 97, indicates that it was of

St. John the Baptist, for he calls it the temple of the Precursor.

Codinus, On the Origins of Constantinople,

printed in the year and place just said, page 51,

adds this about Studius, founder of that monastery:

He enriched it with very many possessions, and established

a thousand monks in it. About St. Alexander,

founder of the Acoemetae, and their origin, their first

monasteries, and the etymology of the name of those ascetics,

tom. 1 of January may be consulted, at the day XV,

page 1018 and following; where the Studites also are praised.

About the several churches built at Constantinople in the time

of St. Gennadius Tillemont treats

among the things which he collected about that same Saint: but since

that argument takes away or adds nothing greatly to his sanctity

or to the deeds done by him, we forbear

to transcribe it hither at greater length, being about to go on

to other things which pertain more nearly to that same Patriarch.

[30] The relics of the Saints In Surius, in the Life of St. Daniel the Stylite,

chapter 34, relics of St. Symeon the Stylite are said

to have been translated with solemn rite and brought to that same St.

Daniel, the emperor Leo taking care of this matter,

whom Daniel is there narrated to have thus addressed: If

thou wilt do me a pleasing thing, hasten to bring hither

his relics, and I shall reckon a thing most pleasing to me

acceptable to thee … But when those who had been sent

to Antioch, the emperor so bidding, had brought the relics,

the great Daniel signified to the Bishop of the city

that he should proclaim and publicly announce

the bringing forth of the tabernacle, and that he himself should sit

in the emperor's carriage, holding the relics in his lap,

and so make the journey with psalms and hymns,

and, when he had brought them to the temple of Michael the prince

of the heavenly host, that they should there celebrate the divine mystagogy.

[31] translated by him: And when these things were being performed, and they were being escorted

with a great and most splendid retinue, the Lord was seen

to work many miracles through them as they passed …

But after those things which pertained to the relics

came to an end, both the Priest himself

and all who followed together

ascended with joy to the Saint, and he poured out upon them the greatest

thanks with words of a most sweet soul. Thus

there. The Acts of that Saint were long since illustrated by us

in tom. 1 of January, at the day V, from page

261. But if by the relics of which we have just treated

thou understand not the whole body, but some

notable part, thou wilt easily reconcile the things

just now set forth about the relics translated to Constantinople

with the third Life, published in the same place under the name of Symeon

Metaphrastes: whose chapter 15, page 285,

may be seen. That while the same Leo reigned,

and St. Gennadius governed the patriarchal see,

other relics were translated to Constantinople,

Theodore the Lector affirms, page 568, in these words: While he (namely Leo Augustus)

reigned, and Gennadius administered the patriarchate,

there were brought from Sirmium (of Lower Pannonia

a city) relics of holy Anastasia, and they were laid

in the martyrium (that is, in the sacred house)

of the same, which is in the portico of Domninus. There may be read

what Du Cange gathered about this house, book 4

of Constantinopolis Christiana, from page 141.

[32] two visions of his St. Gennadius is reported toward the end of his life to have had

a certain vision, by which he was bidden to destroy

the church of the holy martyr Irene, which had nothing

worth beholding, to be rebuilt under his successor:

and that in very fact that church was destroyed

by his order; but that when he was dead

it was magnificently built under his said successor, by

St. Marcian: in whose Life, which was published by us under

the name of Symeon Metaphrastes in tom. 1

of January, at the day X, this matter is narrated at greater length on page

614. But Suidas in his lexicon, which is noted as printed in the year 1619

at Geneva, at the name

Ἀκάκιος, Acacius (he was St. Gennadius's

successor), page 118, writes that that whole work

was finished under Gennadius. However it be,

we should give greater credit to this deed if

it were propped by the testimony of more ancient writers.

[33] But that is worthy of greater attention and credit

visions. which Theodore the Lector, page 555, reports to have befallen our Saint

toward the end of his life:

Gennadius, he says, when by night for prayer's sake

he had gone down to the altar, saw a certain demoniac

spectre. Which, when he had rebuked it, he heard

crying out in these words: that, while he indeed survived,

it was at rest: but afterwards it would utterly lay waste the church.

Fearing which, Gennadius, when

he had prayed to God most ardently, a little after departed

this life. But that this vision was true

and not fantastic, so many and so great evils persuade

which happened under Acacius, his successor and

a perfidious favorer of heretics, of which there is treatment

in the Chronological History of the Patriarchs of C. P.,

from page 44 *. But our holy Prelate

gave other remarkable specimens, before he departed this life,

of that plainly singular zeal with which he burned

toward the orthodox faith; as will appear from

the next paragraph.

§ IV. His acts for the orthodox faith; the time of his episcopate; the day of his death; St. Macedonius is said to have been St. Gennadius's nephew; his writings.

Various things are given which he excellently did It was without doubt St. Gennadius who, together with

St. Marcellus, abbot of the Acoemetae, showed himself

leader and first spearman in that tumult of the people of Constantinople,

raised for this cause, that it might deter

the emperor Leo from giving the title of Caesar

to Patricius, son of Aspar, infected with the stain of the Arian heresy,

unless he first embraced the orthodox faith.

This deed is written to have happened

in the year of Christ 468, of which Baronius treats at

the year 469. Let us meanwhile hear a few things from the Life of the praised

abbot in Surius, at the day XXIX

of December, where in chapter 34, page 354, are these things:

But that matter was greatly disturbing the church,

if again an Arian was about to invade the empire. For Aspar

and his sons and the whole house embraced the madness of Arius

in a wonderful manner. Since therefore

they were full of tumult, they came together in common,

and, with Geladius and Marcellus as leaders, they came

to the Hippodrome, that they might keep the emperor from this dishonorable

and unworthy undertaking … When

therefore the army of Christ was thus prepared, to them also

God showed a leader, namely Marcellus,

about whom more there. Tillemont thinks that by that Geladius

Gennadius is without doubt indicated.

[35] But although in the two different editions

which I have consulted, this holy Patriarch the Surian ones, Geladius is written,

yet in the Greek Ms. Life which we have

in the codex ✠ Ms. 195, and which, as our Papebroch

wrote upon that same Life, was taken

from a Medicean Ms. R. Fr., there is had Γεννάδιος,

so that we not unwillingly admit that Gennadius the patriarch

strenuously played his part in a matter of so great moment for the good

of his church and the preservation of the Catholic faith,

even though we should wish to see this

confirmed from an author more ancient and of better note

than is Symeon Metaphrastes, under whose

name the Life of St. Marcellus, archimandrite

of the monastery of the Acoemetae, was printed in Surius.

This the author of the Ecclesiastical Monuments indeed praises,

tom. 16 from page 51; yet he indicates

that he cannot be a surety for it, since there is nothing in

the circumstances of a Metaphrastic invention. Further,

a historical compendium about that abbot the same author

of the Monuments has put together in the tome cited from

page 52: but our successors will illustrate the Acts of that same Saint

at the day XXIX of December, on which he is inscribed

in the Roman Martyrology.

[36] for the safety of the Catholic faith There are two other deeds most worthy of note, in

which St. Gennadius proved himself a true and excellent champion of the Catholic

faith. Receive the first.

In the year 470 or 471 Peter the Fuller,

corrupted with the plague of the Eutychian heresy, but upheld by the authority of Zeno,

who was son-in-law of the emperor Leo,

had invaded the see of Antioch,

Martyrius being thrust out of it. But Gennadius, by his own authority,

in which he had very great weight, being interposed with the emperor,

brought it about that Martyrius was graciously dismissed

by him. And so earnestly did the holy Patriarch

plead his cause that he was restored to his own

see. But let us recite the words of Theodore the Lector,

pages 554 and 555: Martyrius, when

he had come to the emperor, was honorably dismissed

by the zeal and exhortation of Gennadius. But returning

to Antioch, when he observed that the people of Antioch

delighted in tumults and seditions, and that Zeno favored them,

he renounced the bishopric before the whole

church, using these words: To a contumacious clergy,

and an unruly people, and a defiled church

I renounce, the dignity of my priesthood being kept for me.

But how long Martyrius sat, when

this renunciation was made, and with what praises

this prelate was adorned, the reader will find in the Chronological History

of the patriarchs of Antioch

before tom. IV of the month of July, pages 79 and 80.

[37] safety: We subjoin another deed to the former, equally glorious

to St. Gennadius. After the praised Martyrius

of his own accord, as we have seen, had abdicated the bishopric,

and Peter the Fuller had again thrust himself into it,

St. Gennadius made the emperor more certain of this matter:

Peter was cast out, and Julian

lawfully chosen prelate. After the departure of Martyrius,

as Theodore the Lector testifies, page 555,

Peter tyrannically invaded the episcopal see.

And straightway he ordained a certain John, who had before been deposed,

bishop of Apamea.

Which when Gennadius had learned, he signified all things to the emperor.

But the emperor bids Peter be sent into exile.

Who, having foreknown it, escaping by flight

avoided exile. But in his place Julian

by the common consent of all was promoted to the bishopric. If anyone desires

a fuller knowledge of these matters, let him consult the said Chronological

History of the Patriarchs of Antioch,

pages 80 and 81, where Peter Cnapheus or the Fuller,

and Julian, are treated of.

[38] Thou hast, reader, few enough things about so illustrious

and which it has seemed good to weave into this Commentary.

to which add other things, even if they were not written. We suspect that many more things were either once written,

or at least ought to have been written, in praise of that Man,

which the outworn memory of antiquity has grudged us.

However it be, among the things excellently done by him

there seem deservedly able to be numbered all the laws

which the emperor Leo made for the Catholic Church

in the time of Gennadius's episcopate, since it seems very

probable that by this Prelate they were either suggested to him

beforehand, or approved by his reckoning before they were issued. This matter

the Most Eminent Baronius at the year of Christ 471

declares and confirms in these words: There are found

constitutions of the emperor Leo given at different times

under Gennadius about matters pertaining to the worship

of religion, of which that same Gennadius is believed

to have been the author for him. For that the emperor Leo himself was wont

to issue sanctions of this kind at the judgment of the bishops,

those which after these things, at the suggestion of Acacius the new bishop, he promulgated,

will easily show.

[39] Of the Saint's public worship among the Greeks

we have spoken above at num. 1. Worship, day of death, years of episcopate, the Saint's nephew: To which may be added

that by Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, he is called

of good memory and Holy, as may be seen among

those things which above, in §1, num. 5 and 7, we have recited from that writer.

Our Patriarch sat from

the year of Christ 458 to 471 according to the Chronological

History assigned in the same place, num. 2: but which

day, namely whether today's or the XVII of November,

coincided with his death, or whether either one

fits him, we have indicated that it is not sufficiently ascertained by us

in the same History, page

44 *. Yet for the day XVII of November some

light seems to be supplied from the great Menaea, because

they then record about the holy Man: Ἐν

εἰρήνῃ

τελειοῦται,

that is, in peace he is consummated; by which he seems

to be indicated to have then rested in the Lord. Macedonius,

who was afterwards raised to the see of Constantinople,

and was the second of this name,

is said to have been St. Gennadius's nephew in Theodore

the Lector, page 559, and is there praised

in these words: Further, this Macedonius was of the highest

strictness and abstinence and sanctity, as being

brought up under Gennadius, whose nephew also by a sister

he is said to have been. About that holy Patriarch

consult the Chronological History cited a little before,

from page 54 *, and the day XXV of April, tom. III

of that month, page 369 and following, where

we long since treated of him.

[40] His lucubrations It now remains that we supply to the reader some knowledge

of St. Gennadius's lucubrations.

Besides those things which he wrote against the doctrine

of St. Cyril, about which matter we spoke above,

§1, from num. 5; likewise besides the Commentaries

on Daniel, and the many homilies which we related

at num. 3 in the same place, from Gennadius

of Marseilles, that he composed; Marcellinus Comes in the Chronicle

which, by the care of Sirmond, was published at Paris

in the year 1619, on page 36, at the year

470, indicated there by Indiction and consuls,

says: He expounded all the epistles of Paul.

But that certain other things also were written by him

is gathered from Sirmond's notes on Facundus,

bishop of Hermiane, of whom above, num.

5; for at page 76 of Facundus's text he

observes this: Another passage of his, from book 2 to

Parthenius, Leontius brings forward in the commonplaces

on the origin of souls, Γενναδίου

Κωνσταντινούπολεως

ἐκ

τοῦ

πρὸς

Παρθένιον

δευτέρου

λόγου. Thus Sirmond.

But since that Greek text so runs,

Of Gennadius of Constantinople, from the second DISCOURSE

to Parthenius, someone might perhaps suspect

whether that writing ought not to be numbered among the homilies

which St. Gennadius composed. About his letter

against simoniacs we have spoken in §3.

[41] are recounted. Ussher, On the Antiquities of the British churches,

chapter 16, page 773, judges that this our Patriarch

is cited by Sedulius, who wrote collectanea

on the epistles of St. Paul. This opinion

does not appear improbable, because, besides the name of the writer

Gennadius, there concurs the argument of the writing,

as Marcellinus Comes just cited witnesses.

Further, that Sedulius is known to bibliographers. He is reported

to have flourished in the year 818, according to the heterodox Cave:

yet this, he says, is not so very certain. Elsewhere he is called

the younger, and is written to have flourished about the year

820. Of the Seduliuses Labbe discourses in the book On

Ecclesiastical Writers, tom. 2, page 324 and

following. Ussher also, whom we just now alleged, is copious

on this matter. With these things we set an end

to our historical collection.