eleven he-
il agonies of the poor Jew by marching him, | ^^^j^^^ opinions advanced in his lectures. Among other other fellow-countrymen, at the head of the , , • , ^^.^j^. gpcused of "ridl
things, he was accused of "ridiculing image-worship." Continuing, however, to teach the same doctrines, he was anathematized by the Church, and, fearing persecu- tion, he forsook the rostrum. It is said that in his later years he publicly renounced his errors. His principal works (all in INISS.) are, "Eicc^ootc h'c cuapopa ^ririifia- ra ; "EkSotiq tig tA TOTriica ; nf|Oi haXiKTiKi'ig ; MiBo- Sog priTopiKtjg t/ct^oS-fTaa Kara avroxl^tv; some dis- courses, etc. See Anna Comnenus, A lexius, v, 8, 9 ; Fa- bricius, Bibl. Grceca, iii, 213-217; vi, 131 ; xi, 64G-G52 ; Cave, Ilist.Litt. ii, 154; Oudin, Comment, de Sc7-iptoribus et Scriptis Eccles. ii, col. 760 ; Lambece, Commentar. de imiioth. Ccesar. iii, col. 411, edit. Kollar; Le Beau, IJist. dii B(is-Empire,]x7i.Ku49-, Huse, Notices d. Manuscripts, vol. ix.— Hoefer, Kom: Biog. Gen. xxvi, 557.
John Jejunatok. See John the Faster.
John of Jerusalem (1), originally a monk, was bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 386) when not much more than thirty years of age (Jerome, Epist. Ixxxii, 8). Some speak of him as patriarch, but Jerusalem was not elevated to the dignity of a patriarchate until the fol- lowing century. John was a man of insignificant per- sonal appearance (Jerome, Lib. contra Joan. c. 10), but he was generally celebrated for eloquence, talent, and learning. He was acquainted, at least in some degree, with the Hebrew and Syriac languages, but it is doubt-
JOHX
970
JOHN"
ful if he was acquainted with Latin. He is said to have been at one period an Arian, or to have sided vvitli the Arians when they were in the ascendant under the em- peror Valcns (Jerome, Lib. contra Joan. c. 4, 8). For eight years after his appointment to the bishopric he was on friendly terras with St. Jerome, who was then living a monastic life in Betlilehem or its neighborhood; bur towards the close of that period -strife was stirred up by Epiphanius of Constantia (or Salamis), m Cy- {irus, who came to Palestine to ascertain the truth of a TC\wTt whidi had reached him, that the obnoxious sen- timents of Origen were gaining ground under the pat- ronage of John. Epiphanius's violence against all that had even the appearance of Origenism led him into a con- troversy with John also. See Epiphaxius. Whether John really cherished opinions at variance with the or- tliodoxy of that time, or only exercised towards those who held them a forbearance which was looked upon with suspicion, we do not know; but he became again involved in squabbles with the supporters of orthodox views. He was charged by them with favoring Pela- gius, who was then in Palestine, and who was accused of heresy in the councils of Jerusalem and Diospolis (A. D. 415), but was in the latter council acquitted of the charge, and restored to the communion of the Church. See Pelagil's. In the controver:.ies waged against Chrysostom, John of Jerusalem always sided decidedly with Chrysostom. See Ciirysostoji. John wrote, ac- cording 10 Geimadius {De Viris Illuslr. c. 30), Adver- siis Uhtrectatores sui Studii Liber, in which he showed that he rather admired the ability than followed the opinions of Origen. Fabricius and Ceillier think, and with apparent reason, that this work, which is lost, was the a])ologetic letter addressed by John to Theophilus, patriarch of iUexandria, which resulted in a reconcilia- tion between John and Jerome. No other work of John is noticed by the ancients; but in the 17th centu- ry two huge volumes appeared, entitled Jommis Nepo- tis Si/h-ani, IIiero.iolf/m. Epigatpi .rllr. Opira omnia gitw hactenus incoyuita, reperiri pulin runt : in iimim col- lecta,suoque Auctori et Auctoritnti trllix-^ \'i.ndiciarum libris asgertaper A.R. P. Petrum IVasfelium (Brussels, 1 ()43, fol.). The Vindiciae occujiied the second volume. 'J'he works profess to be translated from the Greek, and are as follows: (I) Liber de Institutione primorum Mo- imcluirum, in [j'nc Vrleri exortorum et in Nova perseve- riiHliiim, (td Ciiprniiiuin Jfon/ichiiiii. LiterprHe Ai/mT- icit I'niriiirrlri . I iitiorh.iin. This work is inciitinil,.,! hv Tritliemiiis .,i|,ud I'al.ri.-ius, y_y/W. Or. x. ;V.'i;) as -WJ,,- nun iii.'iiipi, ,1, ju-iiinp'u, it profictu oriliiiis CnninUtiri,'' and is ascribed by liira to a later John, patriarch of Je- rusalem (in the «th century). It is contained in several editions of the Jiibliotheca Patrmn, in which work, in- deed, it seems to have been first published (vol. ix. Par. l."»H!>. fol.), and in the works of Thomas ii Jesu, the Car- mehte (i, 4ir,, etc., Cologne, 1()84, folio). It is gener- ally admitted to be the production of a Latin writer and of much later date than our John :— (2) In strata- yeninla Beali ./obi Libri Hi, a commentary on the first three chai)ters of the book of Job, often i^rinted in Latin among the works of Origen, but supposed to belong nei- ther to him nor to John:— (3) In S. Afatthceum, an im- perfect commentary on the (iospel of Matthew, usually printed, under tlie title of Opus imperfectum in Matthm- um, among the works of Chrysostom, in the Latin or (ir;eco-Latin editions of that father, but supposed to be the work of some Arian or Anomoean about the end of the Gtii or some part of the 7th century :— (4) Frarjmenta ex Comment a rio ad prima Capita xi's. Marci, cited by Thomas Acjuinas {Catena Aurea ad Kcam;.) as a work of Chrysostom :— (5) Fratpnenta ex Comm'entario in Lu- cam, extant under the name of Chrvsostom, partly in editions of his >vorks, partly in the Latin version of a (.reek Catena in Lucam published by Corderius (Antw lOJS, fclio), and partly in the Catena Aurea of Thomas A.punas :—((!) Ilomilice Ixiii, almost all of them amon<.- those pubUshed in the works of Chrysostom. There is