JOHN
456
JOHN
Very soon he felt so weak that they had to return to
Comana. Some hours later Chrysostom died. His
last words were: A6?o tiJ $cf iravTijiv IveKiv (Cilory be to
God for all things) (Palladius, xi, 38) . He was buried at
Comana. On 27 January, 438, his body was trans-
lated to Constantinople with great pomp, and en-
tombed in the church of the Apostles where Eudoxia
had been Ijuried in the year 404 (see Socrates, VII,
45; Constantine Porphyrogen., " Cceremoniale Aulse
Byz.", II, 92, in P. G., CXII, 1204 B).
II. The Writings op St. Chrysostom. — Chrys- ostom 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 lit- erary activity. The foUowmg deal with monastical subjects: "Comparatio Regis cum Monacho" ("Op- era", I, 387-93, in P. G., XLVII-LXIII), "Adhor- tatio ad Theodorum (Mopsuestensem?) lapsum " (ibid., 277-319), "Adversus oppugnatores vitte monastic£e" (ibid., 319-87). Those dealing with ascetical subjects in general are the treatise "De Compunctione " in two books (ibid., 393^23), "Adhortatio ad Stagi- rium " in three books (ibid., 433-94), " Adversus Sub- introductas " (ibid., 495-532), " De Virginitate " (ibid., 533-93), "DeSacerdotio" (ibid., 623-93). (2) Among the "homilies" we have to distinguish commentaries on books of Holy Scripture, groups of homilies (ser- mons) 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., 007 sqq.); fifty-nine homihes " On the Psalms " (4-12, 41, 43-49, 108-117, 119-150) (V, 39-498), concerning which see Chrys. Baur, "Der urspriingliche Umfang des Kom- mentars des hi. Joh. Chrysostomus zu den Psalmen" in XpvffoaroniKd, fasc. 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, " Chryso.stomus Fragmente" in Xpvao<TTo/j.i.Kd, I, 217 sq.); the authenticity of the fragments on the Proverbs (XIII, 659-740), on Jeremias and Daniel (VI, 193-246), and of the Syn- opsis 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. Mat- thew" (about the year 390; VII), eighty-eight homilies on "St. John" (c. 389; VIII, 23 sqq.— probably from a later editor) , fifty-five homilies on ' ' the Acts " (as pre- served by the stenographers, IX, 13 sqq.), and homi- lies "On all the 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 hom- ilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews were only pub- lished after Chrysostom's death, and the commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians also very proba- bly comes to us from the han<l 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 Incomprehensi- bili Dei natura " (ibid., 701-812), and the seven famous homilies "On St. Paul" (III, 473-514). (c) A great number of "single homilies" deal with moral sub- jects, 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 seven- teen letters to the deaconess Olympias. Among the numerous "Apocrypha" we may mention the liturgy attributed to (Hiry.sostom, who perhaps modified, but
did not compose the ancient text. The most famous
apocryphon is the " Letter to Caesarius " (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 impcrfectum", written by an
Arian in the first half of the fifth century (see Th.
Paas, "Das Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum ", Tu-
bingen, 1907).
III. Chrysostom's Theological Importance. — (1) Chrysostom as Orator. — The success of Chrys- ostom'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 explanations 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 ser- mons followed any 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.
(2) As an exegete Chrysostom is of the highest im- portance, for he is the chief and almost the only suc- cessful representative of the exegetical principles of the School of Antioch. Diodorus of Tarsus had in- itiated 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 .\lexandrian School. But Chrysostom rightly avoided pushing his principles to that ex- treme to which, later on, his friend Theodore of Mop- suestia, the teacher of Nestorius, carried them. He did not even exclude all allegorical or mystical ex- planations, but confined them to the cases in which the inspired author himself suggests this meaning.
(3) Chrysostom as Dogmatic Theologian. — As has been already 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 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 vene- ration of images. Bishop Peter of Nicomedia cried out: "If John Chrysostom speaks in that 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 quotc<l him was Pelagius, when he wrote his lost l)Ook " De Natura " 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 " Ilom. ad Neophytos", pre- served only in Latin) as being against original sin (see Chrys. Baur, "L'entrde litteraire de St. Jean Chrys. dans le monde latin" in the "Revue d'histoire Ce- cils. ", 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 Cath- olic, and these polemics have never wholly ceased.
