14 September 407 A.D. John Chrysostom Dies--Patriarch of Constantinople
14 September 407 A.D. John Chrysostom Dies--Patriarch of Constantinople
Baur,
Chrysostom. "St. John Chrysostom." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton
Company, 1910. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm. Accessed 9 Jul 2014.
St. John Chrysostom
(Chrysostomos,
"golden-mouthed" so called on account of his eloquence).
John — whose
surname "Chrysostom" occurs for the first time in the
"Constitution" of Pope Vigilius (cf. P.L., X, 217) in the year 553 — is generally
considered the most prominent doctor of the Greek Church and the greatest preacher ever heard in a
Christian pulpit. His natural gifts, as well as exterior circumstances,
helped him to become what he was.
Life
Boyhood
At the time
of Chrysostom's birth, Antioch was the second city of the Eastern part of the
Roman Empire. During the whole of the fourth century religious struggles had
troubled the empire and had found their echo at Antioch. Pagans, Manichaeans, Gnostics, Arians, Apollinarians, Jews, made their proselytes at Antioch, and the Catholics were themselves separated by the schism between the bishops Meletius and Paulinus. Thus Chrysostom's youth fell in
troubled times. His father, Secundus, was an officer of high rank in the Syrian army. On his death soon after the birth of John,
Anthusa, his wife, only twenty years of age, took the sole charge of her two
children, John and an elder sister. Fortunately she was a woman of intelligence and character. She not only
instructed her son in piety, but also sent him to the best schools of Antioch, though with regard to morals and religion many objections could be urged
against them. Beside the lectures of Andragatius, a philosopher not otherwise known, Chrysostom followed
also those of Libanius, at once the most famous orator of that period and the
most tenacious adherent of the declining paganism of Rome. As we may see from the later writings of
Chrysostom, he attained then considerable Greek scholarship and classical
culture, which he by no means disowned in his later days. His alleged hostility
to classical learning is in reality but a misunderstanding of certain passages
in which he defends the philosophia of Christianity against the myths of the heathen gods, of which the chief defenders in his time
were the representatives and teachers of the sophia ellenike (see A. Naegele in
"Byzantin. Zeitschrift", XIII, 73-113; Idem, "Chrysostomus und
Libanius" in Chrysostomika, I, Rome, 1908, 81-142).
Chrysostom as lector and monk
It was a
very decisive turning-point in the life of Chrysostom when he met one day
(about 367) the bishop Meletius. The earnest, mild, and winning character of
this man captivated Chrysostom in such a measure that he soon began to withdraw
from classical and profane studies and to devote himself to an ascetic and religious life. He studied Holy Scripture and frequented the sermons of Meletius. About three years later he received Holy
Baptism and was ordained lector. But the young cleric, seized by the desire of a
more perfect life, soon afterwards entered one of the ascetic societies near Antioch, which was under the spiritual direction of Carterius and
especially of the famous Diodorus, later Bishop of Tarsus (see Palladius, "Dialogus", v; Sozomenus, Church History VIII.2). Prayer, manual labour and the study of Holy Scripture were his chief occupations, and we may safely
suppose that his first literary works date from this time, for nearly all his
earlier writings deal with ascetic and monastic subjects [cf. below Chrysostom
writings: (1) "Opuscuia"]. Four years later, Chrysostom resolved to
live as an anchorite in one of the caves near
Antioch. He remained there two
years, but then as his health was quite ruined by indiscreet watchings and
fastings in frost and cold, he prudently returned to Antioch to regain his health, and resumed his office as lector in the church.
Chrysostom as deacon and priest at Antioch
As the
sources of the life of Chrysostom give an incomplete chronology, we can but approximately determine the
dates for this Antiochene period. Very probably in
the beginning of 381 Meletius made him deacon, just before his own departure to
Constantinople, where he died as president of the Second Ecumenical Council. The successor of Meletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F.
Cavallera, "Le Schime d'Antioche", Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and
friendship connected Chrysostom with his new bishop. As deacon he had to assist at the liturgical functions, to look after the sick and
poor, and was probably charged also in some degree with teaching catechumens. At the same time he continued his
literary work, and we may suppose that he composed his most famous book,
"On the Priesthood", towards the end of this period (c. 386, see Socrates, Church History VI.3), or at latest in the
beginning of his priesthood (c. 387, as Nairn with
good reasons puts it, in his edition of "De Sacerd.", xii-xv). There
may be some doubt if it was occasioned by
a real historical fact, viz., that Chrysostom and his friend Basil were
requested to accept bishoprics (c. 372). All the
earliest Greek biographers seem not to have taken it in that sense. In the year
386 Chrysostom was ordained priest by Flavian, and from that dates his real
importance in ecclesiastical history. His chief task during
the next twelve years was that of preaching, which he had to exercise either
instead of or with Bishop Flavian. But no doubt the larger part of the popular religious
instruction and education devolved upon him. The
earliest notable occasion which showed his power of speaking and his great
authority was the Lent of 387, when he
delivered his sermons "On the
Statues" (P.G., XLVIII, 15, xxx.). The people of Antioch, excited by the levy of new taxes, had thrown
down the statues of Emperor Theodosius. In the panic and fear
of punishment which followed, Chrysostom delivered a series of twenty or
twenty-one (the nineteenth is probably not authentic) sermons, full of vigour,
consolatory, exhortative, tranquilizing, until Flavian, the bishop, brought back from Constantinople the emperor's
pardon. But the usual preaching of Chrysostom consisted in consecutive
explanations of Holy Scripture. To that custom,
unhappily no longer in use, we owe his famous and magnificent commentaries,
which offer us such an inexhaustible treasure of dogmatic, moral, and
historical knowledge of the transition from
the fourth to the fifth century. These years, 386-98, were the period of the
greatest theological productivity of
Chrysostom, a period which alone would have assured him for ever a place among
the first Doctors of the Church. A sign of this may be
seen in the fact that in the year 392 St. Jerome already accorded to the preacher of Antioch a place among his Viri illustres ("De Viris
ill.", 129, in P.L., XXIII, 754), referring expressly to the great and
successful activity of Chrysostom as a theological writer. From this same fact we may infer
that during this time his fame had spread far beyond the limits of Antioch, and that he was well known in the Byzantine Empire, especially in the
capital.
St. Chrysostom as bishop of Constantinople
In the
ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian
at Antioch. But on 27 September
397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died.
There was a general rivalry in the capital, openly or in secret, for the vacant
see. After some months it was known, to the great disappointment of the
competitors, that Emperor Areadius, at the suggestion of his minister
Eutropius, had sent to the Prefect of Antioch to call John Chrysostom out of the town without
the knowledge of the people, and to
send him straight to Constantinople. In this sudden way Chrysostom was hurried
to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the
presence of a great assembly of bishops, by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had been obliged to renounce the idea of securing the appointment of Isidore, his own
candidate. The change for Chrysostom was as great as it was unexpected. His new
position was not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstart metropolis, half Western, half Oriental, in the
neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and intrigue always played the most
prominent parts, and at the head of the clergy composed of most heterogeneous elements, and
even (if not canonically, at least practically) at the head of the whole
Byzantine episcopate. The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between
Flavian and Rome. Constantinople itself
soon began to feel the impulse of a new ecclesiastical life.
The
necessity for reform was undeniable. Chrysostom began "sweeping the stairs
from the top" (Palladius, op. cit., v). He called his oeconomus, and ordered him to
reduce the expenses of the episcopal household; he put an end to the frequent
banquets, and lived little less strictly than he had formerly lived as a priest and monk. With regard to the clergy, Chrysostom had at first to forbid them to keep
in their houses syneisactoe, i.e. women housekeepers who had vowed virginity. He also
proceeded against others who, by avarice or luxury, had given scandal. He had even to exclude from the ranks of the clergy two deacons, the one for murder and the other for adultery. Of the monks, too, who were very numerous even at that time
at Constantinople, some had preferred to roam about aimlessly and without
discipline. Chrysostom confined them to their monasteries. Finally he took care of the ecclesiastical widows. Some of them were living in a worldly manner:
he obliged them either to marry
again, or to observe the rules of decorum demanded by their state. After the clergy, Chrysostom turned his attention to his flock.
As he had done at Antioch, so at Constantinople
and with more reason, he frequently preached against the unreasonable
extravagances of the rich, and especially against the ridiculous finery in the
matter of dress affected by women whose age should have put them beyond such
vanities. Some of them, the widows Marsa, Castricia, Eugraphia, known for such
preposterous tastes, belonged to the court circle. It seems that the upper
classes of Constantinople had not previously been accustomed to such language.
Doubtless some felt the rebuke to be intended for themselves, and the offence
given was the greater in proportion as the rebuke was the more deserved. On the
other hand, the people showed themselves delighted with the sermons of their
new bishop, and frequently
applauded him in the church (Socrates, Church History VI). They never forgot his
care for the poor and miserable, and that in his first year he had built a
great hospital with the money he had
saved in his household. But Chrysostom had also very intimate friends among the
rich and noble classes. The most famous of these was Olympias, widow and deaconess, a relation of Emperor Theodosius, while in the Court
itself there was Brison, first usher of Eudoxia, who assisted Chrysostom in
instructing his choirs, and always maintained a true friendship for him. The empress herself was at
first most friendly towards the new bishop. She followed the religious processions,
attended his sermons, and presented silver
candlesticks for the use of the churches (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 8; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 8).
Unfortunately,
the feelings of amity did not last. At first Eutropius, the former slave, now
minister and consul, abused his influence. He deprived some wealthy persons of their property, and prosecuted others whom he suspected of
being adversaries of rivals. More than once Chrysostom went himself to the
minister (see "Oratio ad Eutropium" in P.G., Chrys. Op., III, 392) to
remonstrate with him, and to warn him of the results of his own acts, but
without success. Then the above-named ladies, who immediately surrounded the
empress, probably did not hide their resentment against the strict bishop. Finally, the empress herself committed an injustice in depriving a widow of her vineyard (Marcus Diac., "Vita
Porphyrii", V, no. 37, in P.G., LXV, 1229). Chrysostom interceded for the
latter. But Eudoxia showed herself offended. Henceforth there was a certain
coolness between the imperial Court and the episcopal palace, which, growing
little by little, led to a catastrophe. It is impossible to ascertain exactly
at what period this alienation first began; very probably it dated from the
beginning of the year 401. But before this state of things became known to the
public there happened events of the highest political importance, and
Chrysostom, without seeking it, was implicated in them. These were the fall of
Eutropius and the revolt of Gainas.
In January,
399, Eutropius, for a reason not exactly known, fell into disgrace. Knowing the
feelings of the people and of his personal enemies, he fled to the church. As
he had himself attempted to abolish the immunity of the ecclesiastical asylums not long before,
the people seemed little disposed to spare him. But Chrysostom interfered,
delivering his famous sermon on Eutropius, and the fallen minister was saved
for the moment. As, however, he tried to escape during the night, he was
seized, exiled, and some time later put to death. Immediately another more exciting and
more dangerous event followed. Gainas, one of the imperial generals, had been
sent out to subdue Tribigild, who had revolted. In the summer of 399 Gainas
united openly with Tribigild, and, to restore peace, Arcadius had to submit to
the most humiliating conditions. Gainas was named commander-in-chief of the
imperial army, and even had Aurelian and Saturninus, two men of the highest
rank at Constantinople, delivered over to him. It seems that Chrysostom
accepted a mission to Gainas, and that, owing to his intervention, Aurelian and
Saturninus were spared by Gainas, and even set at liberty. Soon afterwards,
Gainas, who was an Arian Goth, demanded one of
the Catholic churches at
Constantinople for himself and his soldiers. Again Chrysostom made so energetic
an opposition that Gainas yielded. Meanwhile the people of Constantinople had
become excited, and in one night several thousand Goths were slain. Gainas however escaped, was
defeated, and slain by the Huns. Such was the end within a few years of three
consuls of the Byzantine Empire. There is no doubt that Chrysostom's authority had been greatly
strengthened by the magnanimity and firmness of character he had shown during
all these troubles. It may have been this that augmented the jealousy of those
who now governed the empire — a clique of courtiers, with the empress at their
head. These were now joined by new allies issuing from the ecclesiastical ranks and including some
provincial bishops — Severian of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, and, for some time, Acacius of Beroea — who preferred the
attractions of the capital to residence in their own cities (Socrates, op. cit., VI, 11; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 10). The most intriguing
among them was Severian, who flattered himself that he was the rival of
Chrysostom in eloquence. But so far nothing had transpired in public. A great
change occurred during the absence of Chrysostom for several months from
Constantinople. This absence was necessitated by an ecclesiastical affair in Asia Minor, in which he was involved. Following the
express invitation of several bishops, Chrysostom, in the first months of 401, had
come to Ephesus, where he appointed a new archbishop, and with the consent of the assembled bishops deposed six bishops for simony. After having passed the same sentence on Bishop
Gerontius of Nicomedia, he returned to
Constantinople.
Meanwhile
disagreeable things had happened there. Bishop Severian, to whom Chrysostom
seems to have entrusted the performance of some ecclesiastical functions, had entered
into open enmity with Serapion, the archdeacon and oeconomus of the cathedral and the episcopal palace. Whatever the
real reason may have been, Chrysostom, found the case so serious that he
invited Severian to return to his own see. It was solely owing to the personal
interference of Eudoxia, whose confidence Serapion possessed, that he was
allowed to come back from Chalcedon, whither he had retired. The reconciliation
which followed was, at least on the part of Severian, not a sincere one, and
the public scandal had excited much
ill-feeling. The effects soon became visible. When in the spring of 402, Bishop
Porphyrius of Gaza (see Marcus Diac.,
"Vita Porphyrii", V, ed. Nuth, Bonn, 1897, pp. 11-19) went to the
Court at Constantinople to obtain a favour for his diocese, Chrysostom answered that he could do nothing
for him, since he was himself in disgrace with the empress. Nevertheless, the party
of malcontents were not really dangerous, unless they could find some prominent
and unscrupulous leader. Such a person presented himself sooner than might have been
expected. It was the well-known Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria. He appeared under rather curious circumstances,
which in no way foreshadowed the final result. Theophilus, toward the end of the year 402, was
summoned by the emperor to Constantinople to apologize before a synod, over
which Chrysostom should preside, for several charges, which were brought
against him by certain Egyptian monks, especially by the so-called four "tall brothers".
The patriarch, their former friend, had suddenly turned against them, and had
them persecuted as Origenists (Palladius, "Dialogus", xvi; Socrates, op. cit., VI, 7; Sozomenus, op. cit., VIII, 12).
However, Theophilus was not easily frightened. He had always
agents and friends at Constantinople, and knew the state of things and the feelings at the
court. He now resolved to take advantage of them. He wrote at once to St. Epiphanius at Cyprus, requesting him to go to Constantinople and
prevail upon Chrysostom at to condemn the Origenists. Epiphanius went. But when he found that Theophilus was merely using him for his own
purposes, he left the capital, dying on his return in 403. At this time
Chrysostom delivered a sermon against the vain luxury of women. It was reported to the empress as though she
had been personally alluded to. In this way the ground was prepared. Theophilus at last appeared at Constantinople in
June, 403, not alone, as he had been commanded, but with twenty-nine of his
suffragan bishops, and, as Palladius (ch. viii) tells us, with a good deal of
money and all sorts of gifts. He took his lodgings in one of the imperial
palaces, and held conferences with all the adversaries of Chrysostom. Then he
retired with his suffragans and seven other bishops to a villa near Constantinople, called epi dryn (see Ubaldi, "La
Synodo ad Quercum", Turin, 1902). A long list of the most ridiculous
accusations was drawn up against Chrysostom (see Photius,
"Bibliotheca", 59, in P.G., CIII, 105-113), who, surrounded by
forty-two archbishops and bishops assembled to judge Theophilus in accordance with the orders of the
emperor, was now summoned to present himself and apologize. Chrysostom
naturally refused to recognize the legality of a synod in which his open
enemies were judges. After the third summons Chrysostom, with the consent of
the emperor, was declared to be deposed. In order to avoid useless bloodshed,
he surrendered himself on the third day to the soldiers who awaited him. But
the threats of the excited people, and a sudden accident in the imperial
palace, frightened the empress (Palladius, "Dialogus", ix). She
feared some punishment from heaven for Chrysostom's exile, and immediately ordered
his recall. After some hesitation Chrysostom re-entered the capital amid the
great rejoicings of the people. Theophilus and his party saved themselves by flying
from Constantinople. Chrysostom's return was in itself a defeat for Eudoxia.
When her alarms had gone, her rancour revived. Two months afterwards a silver statue of the empress was unveiled in the square just
before the cathedral. The public celebrations
which attended this incident, and lasted several days, became so boisterous
that the offices in the church were disturbed. Chrysostom complained of this to
the prefect of the city, who reported to Eudoxia that the bishop had complained against her statue. This was enough to excite the empress beyond
all bounds. She summoned Theophilus and the other bishops to come back and to depose Chrysostom again. The
prudent patriarch, however, did not wish to run the same risk a second time. He
only wrote to Constantinople that Chrysostom should be condemned for having
re-entered his see in opposition to an
article of the Synod of Antioch held in the year 341 (an Arian synod). The other bishops had neither the authority nor the courage to give a formal judgment. All they could do was
to urge the emperor to sign a new decree of exile. A double attempt on Chrysostom's life
failed. On Easter Eve, 404, when all the catechumens were to receive baptism, the adversaries of the bishop, with imperial soldiers, invaded the baptistery and dispersed the whole congregation. At
last Arcadius signed the decree, and on 24 June, 404, the soldiers conducted
Chrysostom a second time into exile.
Exile and death
They had
scarcely left Constantinople when a huge conflagration destroyed the cathedral, the senate-house, and other buildings.
The followers of the exiled bishop were accused of the crime and prosecuted. In
haste Arsacius, an old man, was appointed successor of Chrysostom, but was soon
succeeded by the cunning Atticus. Whoever refused to enter into communion with
them was punished by confiscation of property and exile. Chrysostom himself was conducted to
Cucusus, a secluded and rugged place on the east frontier of Armenia, continually exposed to the invasions of the
Isaurians. In the following year he had even to fly for some time to the castle
of Arabissus to protect himself from
these barbarians. Meanwhile he always maintained a correspondence with his
friends and never gave up the hope of return. When the circumstances of his
deposition were known in the West, the pope and the Italian bishops declared themselves in his favour. Emperor Honorius and Pope Innocent I endeavoured to summon a
new synod, but their legates were imprisoned and then sent home. The pope broke off all communion with the Patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch (where an enemy of
Chrysostom had succeeded Flavian), and Constantinople, until (after the death
of Chrysostom) they consented to admit his name into the diptychs of the Church. Finally all hopes for the exiled bishop had vanished. Apparently he was living too long
for his adversaries. In the summer, 407, the order was given to carry him to
Pithyus, a place at the extreme boundary of the empire, near the Caucasus. One
of the two soldiers who had to lead him caused him all possible sufferings. He
was forced to make long marches, was exposed to the rays of the sun, to the
rains and the cold of the nights. His body, already weakened by several severe
illnesses, finally broke down. On 14 September the party were at Comanan in Pontus. In the morning Chrysostom had asked to rest
there on the account of his state of health. In vain; he was forced to continue
his march. Very soon he felt so weak that they had to return to Comana. Some
hours later Chrysostom died. His last words were: Doxa to theo panton
eneken
(Glory be to God for all things)
(Palladius, xi, 38). He was buried at Comana. On 27 January, 438, his body was translated to
Constantinople with great pomp, and entombed in the church of the Apostles
where Eudoxia had been buried in the year 404 (see Socrates, VII, 45; Constantine Prophyrogen.,
"Cæremoniale Aul Byz.", II, 92, in P.G., CXII, 1204 B).
The writings of St. Chrysostom
Chrysostom
has deserved a place in ecclesiastical history, not simply as Bishop of Constantinople, but chiefly as a Doctor of the Church. Of none of the other Greek Fathers do we possess so many writings. We may divide
them into three portions, the "opuscula", the "homilies",
and the "letters". (1) The chief "opuscula" all date from
the earlier days of his literary activity. The following deal with monastical subjects: "Comparatio Regis cum
Monacho" ("Opera", I, 387-93, in P.G., XLVII-LXIII),
"Adhortatio ad Theodorum (Mopsuestensem?) lapsum" (ibid., 277-319),
"Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae" (ibid., 319-87). Those
dealing with ascetical subjects in general are the treatise "De
Compunctione" in two books (ibid., 393-423), "Adhortatio ad Stagirium"
in three books (ibid., 433-94), "Adversus Subintroductas" (ibid.,
495-532), "De Virginitate" (ibid., 533-93), "De Sacerdotio"
(ibid., 623-93). (2) Among the "homilies" we have to distinguish
commentaries on books of Holy Scripture, groups of homilies (sermons) on special subjects, and a great
number of single homilies. (a) The chief
"commentaries" on the Old Testament are the sixty-seven homilies "On Genesis" (with eight sermons on
Genesis, which are probably a first recension) (IV, 21 sqq., and ibid., 607
sqq.); fifty-nine homilies "On the
Psalms" (4-12, 41, 43-49, 108-117, 119-150) (V, 39-498), concerning which
see Chrys. Baur, "Der ursprangliche Umfang des Kommentars des hl. Joh.
Chrysostomus zu den Psalmen" in Chrysostomika, fase. i (Rome, 1908),
235-42, a commentary on the first chapters of "Isaias" (VI, 11 sqq.).
The fragments on Job (XIII, 503-65) are spurious (see Haidacher,
"Chrysostomus Fragmente" in Chrysostomika, I, 217 sq.); the
authenticity of the fragments on the Proverbs (XIII, 659-740), on Jeremias and
Daniel (VI, 193-246), and the Synopsis of the Old and the New Testament (ibid., 313 sqq.), is doubtful. The chief commentaries on the New Testament are first the ninety homilies on "St. Matthew" (about the year 390;
VII), eighty-eight homilies on "St. John"
(c. 389; VIII, 23 sqq. — probably from a later edition), fifty-five homilies on "the Acts" (as preserved by
stenographers, IX, 13 sqq.), and homilies "On all Epistles of St. Paul" (IX, 391
sqq.). The best and most important commentaries are those on the Psalms, on St.
Matthew, and on the Epistle to the Romans (written c. 391). The thirty-four homilies on the Epistle to the Galatians also very
probably comes to us from the hand of a second editor. (b) Among the "homilies forming connected groups", we may
especially mention the five homilies "On Anna" (IV, 631-76), three "On
David" (ibid., 675-708), six "On Ozias" (VI, 97-142), eight
"Against the Jews" (II, 843-942), twelve "De Incomprehensibili
Dei Naturæ" (ibid., 701-812), and the seven famous homilies "On St. Paul" (III, 473-514). (c) A
great number of "single homilies" deal with moral subjects, with certain
feasts or saints. (3) The
"Letters" of Chrysostom (about 238 in number: III, 547 sqq.) were all
written during his exile. Of special value for their contents and intimate
nature are the seventeen letters to the deaconess Olympias. Among the numerous
"Apocrypha" we may mention the liturgy attributed to Chrysostom, who
perhaps modified, but did not compose the ancient text. The most famous apocryphon is the "Letter to
Cæsarius" (III, 755-760). It contains a passage on the holy Eucharist
which seems to favour the theory of "impanatio", and the disputes about
it have continued for more than two centuries. The most important spurious work
in Latin is the "Opus imperfectum", written by an Arian in the first half of the fifth century (see Th.
Paas, "Das Opus imperfectum in Matthæum", Tübingen, 1907).
Chrysostom's theological importance
Chrysostom as orator
The success
of Chrysostom's preaching is chiefly due to his great natural facility of
speech, which was extraordinary even to Greeks, to the abundance of his
thoughts as well as the popular way of presenting and illustrating them, and,
last but not least, the whole-hearted earnestness and conviction with which he
delivered the message which he felt had been given to him. Speculative
explanation did not attract his mind, nor would they have suited the tastes of
his hearers. He ordinarily preferred moral subjects, and very seldom in his sermons followed a regular plan, nor did he care to
avoid digressions when any opportunity suggested them. In this way, he is by no
means a model for our modern thematic preaching, which, however we may regret
it, has to such a great extent supplanted the old homiletic method. But the
frequent outbursts of applause among his congregation may have told Chrysostom
that he was on the right path.
Chrysostom as an exegete
As an exegete Chrysostom is of the highest importance, for he
is the chief and almost the only successful representative of the exegetical principles of the School of Antioch. Diodorus of Tarsus had initiated him into
the grammatico-historical method of that school, which was in strong opposition to the
eccentric, allegorical, and mystical interpretation of Origen and the Alexandrian School. But Chrysostom
rightly avoided pushing his principles to that extreme to which, later on, his
friend Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of
Nestorius, carried them. He did not even exclude all allegorical or mystical
explanations, but confined them to the cases in which the inspired author
himself suggests this meaning.
Chrysostom as dogmatic theologian
As has
already been said, Chrysostom's was not a speculative mind, nor was he involved
in his lifetime in great dogmatic controversies. Nevertheless it would be a
mistake to underrate the great theological treasures hidden in his writings. From
the very first he was considered by the Greeks and Latins as a most important
witness to the Faith. Even at the Council of Ephesus (431) both parties, St.
Cyril and the Antiochians, already invoked him on behalf of their opinions, and
at the Seventh Ecumenical
Council,
when a passage of Chrysostom had been read in favour of the veneration of
images, Bishop Peter of Nicomedia cried out: "If John Chrysostom
speaks in the way of the images, who would dare to speak against them?"
which shows clearly the progress his authority had made up to that date.
Strangely
enough, in the Latin Church, Chrysostom was still
earlier invoked as an authority on matters of faith. The first writer who quoted him was Pelagius, when he wrote his lost book "De
Naturæ" against St. Augustine (c. 415). The Bishop of Hippo himself very soon afterwards (421) claimed Chrysostom
for the Catholic teaching in his controversy with Julian of Eclanum, who had opposed to him
a passage of Chrysostom (from the "Hom. ad Neophytos", preserved only
in Latin) as being against original sin (see Chrys. Baur, "L'entrée
littéraire de St. Jean Chrys. dans le monde latin" in the "Revue
d'histoire ecclés.", VIII, 1907, 249-65). Again, at the time of the Reformation there arose long and acrid discussions as
to whether Chrysostom was a Protestant or a Catholic, and these polemics have never wholly ceased. It
is true that Chrysostom has some
strange passages on our Blessed Lady (see Newman, "Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in
Catholic Teachings", London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore
private confession to a priest, that there is no clear and any direct passage
in favour of the primacy of the pope. But it must be remembered that all the
respective passages contain nothing positive against the actual Catholic doctrine. On the other side
Chrysostom explicitly acknowledges as a rule of faith tradition (XI, 488), as laid down by the
authoritative teaching of the Church (I, 813). This Church, he says, is but one, by
the unity of her doctrine (V, 244; XI, 554); she
is spread over the whole world, she is the one Bride of Christ (III, 229, 403;
V, 62; VIII, 170). As to Christology, Chrysostom holds clearly that Christ is God and man in one person, but he never enters into deeper examination of
the manner of this union. Of great importance is his doctrine regarding the Eucharist. There cannot be the slightest doubt that he teaches the Real Presence, and his expressions on the change
wrought by the words of the priest are equivalent to the doctrine of transubstantiation (see Naegle, "Die
Eucharistielehre des hl. Joh. Chry.", 74 sq.).
Sources
A
complete analysis and critique of the enormous literature on Chrysostom (from
the sixteenth century to the twentieth) is given in BAUR, S. Jean Chrysostome
et ses oeuvres dans l'histoire litt raire (Paris and Louvain, 1907), 223-297.
(1)
LIFE OF CHRYSOSTOM. (a) Sources. — PALLADIUS, Dialogue cum Theodoro, Ecclesioe
Romanoe Diacono, de vit et conversatione b. Joh. Chrysostomi(written c. 408;
best source; ed. BIGOT, Paris, 1680; P.G., XLVII, 5-82) MARTYRIUS, Panegyricus
in S. Joh. Chrysostomum (written c. 408; ed. P.G., loc. cit., XLI-LII);
SOCRATES, Church
History
VI.2-23
and VII.23, 45 (P.G., LXVII, 661 sqq.);
SOZOMENUS, Church
History
VIII.2-28
(P.G., ibid., 1513 sqq.), more complete than Socrates, on whom he is dependent;
THEODORET, Church
History V.27; P.G., LXXXII, 1256-68,
not always reliable; ZOSIMUS, V, 23-4 (ed. BEKKER, p. 278-80, Bonn. 1837), not
trustworthy.
(b)
Later Authors. — THEODORE OF THRIMITUS, (P.G., XLVII, col. 51-88), without
value, written about the end of the seventh century; (PSEUDO-) GEORGIUS
ALEXANDRINUS, ed. SAVILE, Chrys. opera omnia (Eton, 1612), VIII, 157-265 (8th -
9th century); LEO IMPERATOR, Laudatio Chrys. (P.G., CVII, 228 sqq.); ANONYMUS,
(ed. SAVILE, loc. cit., 293-371); SYMEON METAPHRASTES, (P.G., CXIV, 1045-1209).
(c)
Modern Biographies. — English: STEPHENS, Saint John Chrysostom, his life and
times, a sketch of the Church and the empire in the fourth century (London,
1871; 2nd ed., London, 1880), the best English biography, but it anglicanizes
the doctrine of Chrysostom; BUSH, The Life and Times of Chrysostom (London,
1885), a popular treatise. French: HERMANT, La Vie de Saint Jean Chrysostome .
. . divis e en 12 livres (Paris, 1664; 3rd ed., Paris, 1683), the first
scientific biography; DE TILLEMONT, Mémoires pour servir l'histoire
ecclésiastique des six premiers si cles, XI, 1-405, 547-626 (important for the
chronology); STILTING, De S. Jo. Chrysostomo . . . Commentarius historicus in
Acta SS., IV, Sept., 401-700 (1st ed., 1753), best scientific biography in
Latin; THIERRY, S. Jean Chrysostome et l'imp ratrice Eudoxie (Paris, 1872; 3rd
ed., Paris, 1889), "more romance than history"; PUECH, Saint Jean
Chrysostome (Paris, 1900); 5th ed., Paris, 1905), popular and to be read with
caution. German: NEANDER, Der hl. Joh. Chrysostomus und die Kirche, besonders
des Orients, in dessen Zeitalter, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1821 - 22; 4th ed., Berlin
1858); first vol., translated into English by STAPLETON (London, 1838), gives
an account of the doctrine of Chrysostom with Protestant views; LUDWIG, Der hl.
Joh. Chrys. in seinem Verh liniss zum byzantinischen Hof. (Braunsberg, 1883),
scientific. Chrysostom as orator: ALBERT, S. Jean Chrysostome consid r comme
orateur populaire (Paris, 1858); ACKERMANN, Die Beredsamkeit des hl. Joh.
Chrys. (W rzburg, 1889); cf. WILLEY, Chrysostom: The Orator (Cincinnati, 1908),
popular essay.
(2)
CHRYSOSTOM'S WRITINGS. (a) Chronology. — See TILLEMONT, STILTING, MONTFAUCON,
Chrys. Opera omnia; USENER, Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, I (Bonn,
1889), 514-40; RAUSCHEN, Jahrb cher der christl. Kirche unter dem Kaiser
Theodosius dem Grossen (Freiburg im Br., 1897), 251-3, 277-9, 495-9; BATIFFOL,
Revue bibl., VIII, 566-72; PARGOIRE, Echos d'Orient, III 151-2; E. SCHARTZ, J
dische und chrisl. Ostertafeln (Berlin, 1905), 169-84.
(b)
Authenticity. — HAIDACHER, Zeitschr. für Kath. Theologie, XVIII-XXXII; IDEM,
Deshl. Joh. Chrys. Buchlein ber Hoffart u. Kindererziehung (Freiburg, im Br.,
1907).
(3)
CHRYSOSTOM'S DOCTRINE. MAYERUS, Chrysostomus Lutheranus (Grimma, 1680: Wittenberg,
1686); HACKI, D. Jo. Chrysostomus . . . a Lutheranismo . . . vindicatus (Oliva,
1683); F RSTER, Chrysostomus in seinem Verh ltniss zur antiochen. Schule
(Gotha, 1869); CHASE, Chrysostom, A Study in the History of Biblical
Interpretation (London, 1887); HAIDACHER, Die Lehre des hl. Joh. Chrys. ber die
Schriftinspiration (Salzburg, 1897); CHAPMAN, St. Chrysostom on St. Peter in
Dublin Review (1903), 1-27; NAEGLE, Die Eucharistielehre des hl. Johannes
Chrysostomus, des Doctor Eucharisti (Freiburg im Br., 1900).
(4)
EDITIONS. (a) Complete. — SAVILE (Eton, 1612), 8 volumes (the best text);
DUCAEUS, (Paris, 1609-1636), 12 vols.; DE MONTFAUCON, (Paris, 1718-1738), 13
vols.; MIGNE, P.G., XLVII - LXIII.
(b)
Partial. — FIELD, Homilies in Matth. (Cambridge, 1839), 3 vols., best actual
text reprinted in MIGNE, LVII - LVIII; IDEM, Homilioe in omnes epistolas Pauli
(Oxford, 1845-62), VII. The last critical edition of the De Sacerdotio was
edited by NAIRN (Cambridge, 1906). There exist about 54 complete editions (in five
languages), 86 percent special editions of De Sacerdotio (in twelve languages),
and the whole number of all (complete and special) editions is greatly over
1000. The oldest editions are the Latin; of which forty-six different
incunabula editions (before the year 1500) exist. See DIODORUS OF TARSUS,
METETIUS OF ANTIOCH, ORIGENISTS, PALLADIUS, THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA.
Comments
Post a Comment