though the nature of the bread has remained," is to be understood only concerning the species and properties of the bread. Nor did he intend to deny the change of the bread and the wine into the body and blood of Christ; for that truly happens, and he acknowledges it. A And if it has been obliterated by age in one place, let it receive light from another. I am compelled to admit that this is true of the manuscript of this epistle; although it is 500 years old, it is written with little accuracy and requires help from the Greek manuscript, or at least from another Latin one. In the one I saw, sometimes words are continuous, sometimes a simple vowel E is written instead of the diphthong Æ; T instead of D, and vice versa D instead of T; sometimes the words are so corrupted that they cannot be restored to health without the aid of other manuscripts. I opine that the negligence of the scribes deterred Peter Martyr from editing it. I pass over the translation, which seems less accurate, or indeed downright barbaric. I have not thought that benevolent readers would be offended by all these flaws of mine, since I suppose that we are giving the epistle exactly as we received it (as it is currently being rendered in Latin in the way it was written, a fragment of which was published by Peter Martyr and has long agitated the minds of learned men). B For who, when he has read it, could grasp the mind of John Chrysostom, or observe on what occasion, or with what intention, those words were written? But even further, one might wonder at the summary and unusual divine charity of a most loving man, who, although he was oppressed by countless troubles and by continual terrors concerning the incursions of the Isaurians—as he writes in his epistles to Olympias—was nearly exhausted; nevertheless, having heard that his friend the monk Caesarius had fallen into the heresy of the Apollinarians and the Synousiasts, he endeavored in this epistle to turn him away from heresy out of his incredible goodness and to call him back to the way of sincere piety. How much the Apollinarian heresy was then spreading, and how many it had invaded, can be gathered from the fact that Diodorus of Tarsus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theophilus of Antioch, to omit many others, wrote against the Apollinarians and Synousiasts. And so that John might recall Caesarius from that error, C and indeed to the Catholic faith, which confesses that in Christ there are two natures, not confused, in one person, he brings in the analogy of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in which bread after consecration is not yet called bread, but body of Christ. Even though the nature of the bread, he says, has remained in it, it is preached as one body of the Son, and not two bodies. By which words the holy doctor assumes and acknowledges the true and real presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist; otherwise, no comparison would exist between the human and divine nature in Christ and the Eucharist. Chrysostom himself, in his 2nd Homily to the people of Antioch: "For D Elijah left his mantle to his disciple, and the Son of God, ascending, left his flesh to us; but Elijah, having put it off, left it; Christ also left it to us, and having it, he ascended: for Elijah indeed left his mantle to his disciple, but the Son of God ascending into heaven left his flesh to us: but Elijah departed; Christ both left his flesh to us, and having it, he ascended." And in Homily 83 on Matthew: "So also in the mysteries we do; not looking only at what lies before us, but contemplating his words. For his Word is unerring, but our sense is easily deceived. This never failed, but that is frequently mistaken. Since then the Word says, 'This is my body', let us both be persuaded, and believe, and look at it with our intellectual eyes." I would excerpt all these passages from Chrysostom, in which he speaks similarly concerning the most holy Eucharist, if I were to compose an entire book; but it will be more pleasant and salutary for you to read them at the source.
THE EPISTLE OF THE BLESSED JOHN, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE, TO CAESARIUS THE MONK, AT THE TIME OF HIS EXILE, BEGINS.
We have inspected the letters of your reverence; we have inspected them, however, not without tears; for how shall we not weep, and constrain our soul with grief, seeing a brother who from boyhood chose a solitary life, and who conducted himself consummately—that is, perfectly—in matters of piety, suddenly fallen by the darts of heretics?
cogor; qui licet sit annorum 500, parum tamen emendate scriptus est, et opem a Græco præcipue Codice, aut ab alio saltem Latino, postulat. In eo quem vidi, aliquando voces continu antur. A And you might perhaps say that you have come from error to that which is better, and give thanks to those who brought forward that wonderful book, which your best writings call great, as it clearly proclaims B a substantial concurrence and a divine mixture to have taken place between divinity and flesh, and that from this a single nature was formed. This, O wonderful one, is the absurdity of the senseless Apollinarius; this is the most impious heresy of those who introduce a mixture and a conflation.
Possess yourself again, therefore, beloved, and return to the former order, away from that abominable opinion, which is that of Apollinarius and those who are called C Synusiasts. That impious thought, constantly flowing into the minds of men, knows how to harm those who live according to our simplicity. For the teacher of their heart is free; Apollinarius, even if this reverence of yours does not correctly handle matters. But for us, remembering your conversation with us: perceiving from that which you wrote the error that persists concerning your affection, and their folly; not only concerning the mystery of the dispensation, but concerning the conjunction of names, we have devised, with the Lord helping our infirmity, to make manifest to all an ostentation for the refutation of the evil opinion of those who brought to you the heretical book; and for the correction of your reverence.
Therefore, when you acknowledge, beloved, that which is simple of nature, which is uncompounded, which is unchangeable, which is invisible, which is immortal, which is incircumscriptible, which is incomprehensible, and such things as these. But saying "man," you signify that which is weak of nature, hunger, thirst, tears over Lazarus, fear, the emission of sweat, and the like, by which the divine is outside.
But when you say "Christ," you have conjoined both: D whence it is also said that the same is passible and impassible; passible in flesh, but impassible in deity. These same things are preached of the Son, and of Christ, and of Jesus, and of the Lord: for these names are common, and indicate two essences, the conjunction of which in heretics makes error, since they use the common name of Christ. But we, when these common names are used, when the mystery of the dispensation must be confessed. For if you were to say that God suffered in any way, you would say what is impossible and blasphemous; but you have declined the impiety of other heresies: if you were to say that the man who brought it forth, you would find an edifice, the temple of flesh. It is never said that he dwells outside, for the time is not yet when he is no temple. And if they perhaps ask, and how does the Lord say, *Why do you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth which I have heard from God* (John 8.40)? It is well and most wisely to be said: for he was not deprived of the indwelling deity; but he wished to signify the passible nature, and made a memorial of the man: because of which he is both God and man, Christ. Therefore, because of the impassibility, man because of the passion. One Son, one Lord, the same one, clearly possessing the unity of natures, one power, even if they are not consubstantial, and each preserves its unmixed property, because of which the two are not confused. Just as before the bread is sanctified, we name it bread; but it is sanctified by divine grace through the priest, it is delivered from the appellation of bread; but it is deemed worthy of the appellation of the Lord's body, even if the nature of bread has remained in it, and we do not preach two bodies, but one body of the Son.
So here too, with the divine
indwelling
nature, that is, the nature residing in the body, one Son, one person, the composite they fashioned. Acknowledged, however, without confusion in an indivisible understanding, not in one nature alone, but in two perfect ones. For on one, how is it unconfused? How is it indivisible? How could a union ever be spoken of? For on itself the composite has fashioned it as acknowledged. The two together. To speak of one nature in Christ. Recognized... perfect ones.A
759 Being such, union is sometimes spoken of as being united to itself, whether it is one; or that it is impossible for it to be confused or divided. What, then, did hell vomit forth to speak of one nature in Christ? We think that by naming only the divine, they do not altogether deny the one—I speak of our salvation—or by retaining the human, they are making a denial of the divine nature. Let them state what it is that lost what was proper to it. For if it is one, the union is saved for us in every way, and those things which are proper to the union must be preserved. For if not, it is not a union, but a confusion and an abolition. But soon, shifting to the answer of the questioners, they leap to something else, which is not relevant to the question, and they utter inconsistent voices. "God endured and did not endure," and if they are asked to state the manner, they retreat into ignorance, saying, "As He willed," the memory of Christ fleeing from among them. After these things, being rebuked for this, they soon say, "And Christ is not God, but also man." And again they say: "After the unity, it is not proper to speak of two natures." Attend to the meaning of the word. You spoke of a union? You do not find the union of one being made, as we said before, "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14): but the subtlety of those speculating is also sought. For he added, "And dwelt among us." Does it not seem to you that the one who dwells is something other than the habitation? B "If they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Cor 2:8). When you again say "Lord," it does not signify a proper name, but a common one, susceptible to passion and impassibility. For they are accustomed to pretend this: "We think it is not the body and blood of God that we receive faithfully and piously—not because it possesses body and blood, that which is by nature divine—but because He makes what is of the flesh His own." O lack of judgment! O impious thought! For the mystery of the dispensation is endangered among them, and again they do not allow the Lord's body to be confessed as a true body. For by thought they imagine it to have been converted into deity, building up from this one 760 nature, and not finding even to say whose it is, so that by inventing passion for the divinity on all sides, according to Apollinarius, they fall away from promised goods. Do we not think they will tremble hearing these things? Do they not consider the eternal judgment and the voice of the Lord saying, "I am, and I do not change" (Malachi 3:6). "The flesh is weak, but the spirit is willing." "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." "My soul is sorrowful even unto death" (Matt 26:41, 39, 38). "Touch and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have" (Luke 24:39). Do we think these things are appropriate to deity? Let them hear also Peter saying, "Christ having suffered for us in the flesh" (1 Pet 4:1); and he did not say, "in the deity"; and again: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt 16:16). He said "of the Living," not "of the Dying," and whatever is similar to these, the divine Scripture teaches us, to which the heretics do not cease to be violent.
C Avoiding these novelties of words, my beloved, let us return to that which lies before us, to confess piously, and very piously, Christ who was encompassed by death as perfect in deity and perfect in humanity, one only-begotten Son, not to be divided into a duality of sons: yet bearing within himself the unmixed properties of the two natures, inconvertibly; not one and another—far be it—but one and the same Lord Jesus, God the Word, clothed in our flesh, and that not inanimate or irrational, as the impious Apollinarius says. Let us apply our mind to these things: let us flee those who divide the nature. For even if there is a twofold nature, nevertheless the union is indivisible and indissoluble, to be confessed in one person of the sonship and one subsistence. D Let us flee those who prodigiously speak of one nature after the union: for by the thought of one, they are driven to attach passion to the impassible God, denying the dispensation and seizing the gehenna of the devil. I think these things are sufficient for the measure of the letter for the confirmation of your love, O wondrous man.
denying the dispensation and seizing the gehenna of the devil. I think these things are sufficient for the measure of the letter for the confirmation of your love, O wondrous man.
MONITION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING ORATION OF CHRYSOSTOM IN PRAISE OF DIODORUS OF TARSUS, AND CONCERNING ANOTHER FRAGMENT IN PRAISE OF DIODORUS TAKEN FROM FACUNDUS HERMIANENSIS.
The same Emericus Bigotius published the oration of John Chrysostom on Diodorus after the Life of Chrysostom by Palladius, and before the letter to Caesarius. To this we append it, having premised what Bigotius himself prefaced: "By now," he says, "in order to divert and refresh the reader’s mind for a while from the most atrocious and iniquitous conspiracy by which Theophilus attempted to overwhelm Chrysostom and to extinguish his fame and memory, I have subjoined an oration of our John, which he delivered at one time in praise of Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus. Its eloquence and sweetness, I hope, will bestow such pleasure upon the readers that they will find nothing to condemn in it except its brevity. The argument of the oration is as follows: Diodorus had delivered a sermon and had poured himself out in praises of John, comparing him to John the Baptist, the rod of Moses, and the voice of the Church. John himself, having rejected these exceptional praises—which were burdensome to his modesty—wished to refund them upon Diodorus. And so, in the next sermon, he shows that such commendations befit Diodorus, not himself. I have taken the Greek text from the Vatican library; but I have made it a Latin possession: I would have gladly abstained from this labor, if the interpretation of this oration had existed whole among Facundus Hermianensis the bishop. But since it is imperfect there, it has been a matter of conscience for me not to mingle my own words with those of the ancient interpreter. Yet, lest fragments so precious and so ancient—if I may put it so—should be missed here, I have thought it well worth the effort to attach them to each page."
The year in which Chrysostom delivered this discourse, Tillemont sets at 392; the hallmark of its time one may neither attack nor altogether assert as certain. Diodorus had already delivered an oration in which he had extolled John Chrysostom with praises, as was said above. But Chrysostom, being least desirous of praises, returned his own praises to him and composed a very brief oration, because Diodorus was to preach again on the same day after him, as he clearly hints himself at the end of the encomium, or short oration. For we see the custom accepted in Antioch, that two should preach on the same day and in the same church. Diodorus, in fact, the bishop of Tarsus, who had once been the teacher of John Chrysostom, was willingly admitted to this office, because he had long exercised this duty as an Antiochene presbyter: at which time the Arians, having much power and authority, A oppressed the Catholics. When Diodorus resisted them stoutly, he was often driven out by the Arians, as Chrysostom says below; he often came into danger of his life, and if not in fact, at least in purpose he was a martyr, as Chrysostom himself says, both in the following oration, and in the fragment which is subjoined to it. Part of the oration translated into Latin was related by Facundus Hermianensis the bishop, book 4, ch. 2, which we set at the bottom of the page, as Bigotius had done.
We subjoin to this oration another fragment, adduced in the same place by Facundus Hermianensis. It pertains, however, to a certain Homily of Chrysostom on the feast of the Martyrs: on the occasion of whom he calls Diodorus himself a martyr, and praises him according to custom.
PRAISE OF BISHOP DIODORUS (WHO, HAVING PREACHED BEFORE, HAD PRAISED JOHN CHRYSOSTOM)
1. That wise and noble teacher, having put aside his bodily infirmity, and having ascended this throne, began the exordium of my speech, calling me John the Baptist, and the voice of the Church, and the rod of Moses, and other things more with these. And he indeed praised me then, and you shouted; but I, sitting far off, groaned bitterly. For he praised, demonstrating his skill, and you shouted, showing your brotherly love, but I groaned, being pressed by the weight of the praises. For the magnitude of encomiums is wont to bite the conscience no less than sins; and when someone who is conscious to himself of no good, hears others saying many and great good things about him, he reflects upon the present reputation and the coming day, in which all things will be naked and open; and that he who judges then will not judge from the opinion of the many, but from the truth of the things themselves (For he will not judge according to outward show, he says, nor will he convict according to speech (Isai. 11. 3): thinking on all these things, I am pained by the praises and the good opinion of many, seeing how great the distance is between this and the future vote. For now, we are hidden by certain masks, namely by the opinions of the many; but on that day, with head bare, those masks having been stripped away, standing before the tribunal, nothing from this
standing before the tribunal, we shall be able to gain nothing for that judgment from this estimation; but for this very reason we shall be punished more severely, because, having been celebrated by many men with many praises, we have not for that reason become any better. Therefore I am here quickly today, so that I may shake off this kind of opinion from you, my auditors. For a crown, when it is larger than the head of him who is crowned, does not constrain the temples, does not sit upon the head; but, being too loose on account of its own magnitude, it slips down past the eyes, encircles the neck like a necklace, and leaves the head without a crown. And this has also happened to us, while that crown of praises seemed worthy of a head larger than ours. Nevertheless, since these things are so, out of the abundance of his love, the father did not desist until he had imposed it upon us in some way. B [For kings often do this; they place on the heads of their children a diadem that is fit for themselves; then, when they see that the child's head is too small for the crown, since they are content to have placed it upon them in some way, they take it back and place it upon themselves.]
Since, therefore, this father has placed upon us a crown that brings honor and is suitable for him, and it appeared larger than our head, let us take it off our head and place it upon the head of this father, to whom it most appropriately belongs. For the name of John belongs to us, but the spirit to him; we have his appellation, he has attained his philosophy. Wherefore he would be a more righteous heir of this appellation than we: for it is the consensus, not of names, but of actions, that is wont to make men namesakes, even if the names differ. C For not as the outside philosophers, so also is Scripture wont to philosophize about these things. For they do not say men are namesakes unless the names themselves are common along with the substance. But Scripture is not so; but when it sees much kinship in a way of life, even if other names are imposed upon those who are in agreement with one another in character, it calls them by the same name. And the proof of this is not to be sought from afar; but we bring into our midst that very John, the son of Zacharias: for when the disciples had asked if Elias were to come again, he answered, "Are you willing to receive him? This is the Elias who is to come" (Matt. XI, 14). And yet he was called John; but because he had the manners of Elias, for that reason He imposed the name upon him; because he had the spirit of Elias, therefore he also obtained the name. For both inhabited the deserts; and he was clothed in a sheepskin, and this one in a hairy garment; their table was likewise as simple and spare. And this one was the minister of the former coming, and that one shall be of the one yet to come. Since, therefore, the way of life and the wearing of garments and the dwelling in places and the ministry were one, and all things were equal in both, for this reason He gave one name to both, showing that even if one has another name, he can be a namesake to him whose manners he has emulated.
D 749 Since, therefore, this is an undisputed rule and this an accurate definition of namesakes in Holy Scripture, come, let us show how this our wise father has also emulated the manners of John, so that you may learn that he would more rightly inherit that appellation than we. There was no table for him, no bed, no home on earth; and neither has there ever been for this one. And you are testimonies of this, how he has persevered through all time leading an apostolic life, having nothing of his own, but receiving his sustenance from others, himself persevering in prayer and in the teaching of the Word. He preached beyond the river, dwelling in the deserts; and this one, after he had once received the entire city beyond the river, instructed it with sound doctrine. He dwelt in prison and was beheaded for the sake of free speech on behalf of the Law; but this one also has often been exiled from his country because of his free speech for the sake of the faith; and often he has been beheaded for that same cause, if not in reality, yet in purpose. For the enemies of the truth, not bearing the eloquence of his tongue, were weaving countless snares from every side, and the Lord rescued him from them all. Come, therefore, let us hear this tongue, for which he was imperiled and saved. One would not be wrong to say of it what Moses said of the land of promise. What did he say of that? "A land flowing with milk and honey" (Exod. III, 8). This is also what must be said of this tongue: a tongue flowing with milk and honey. So that we may be satisfied with milk and honey, let our sermon now conclude; let us hear the lyre and the trumpet. When I perceive the sweetness of the words, I call his voice a lyre; but when I perceive the power of his thoughts, a certain trumpet of war, and such a one as the Jews had when they destroyed the walls of Jericho. For just as then the sound of the trumpets, swifter than fire, falling upon the stones, consumed and devoured everything, so also his voice now, falling no less than that trumpet upon the fortresses of the heretics, it overthrows their disputations and every height exalting itself against the knowledge of God. Therefore, that we may learn these things not so much through our own tongue as through his, let this our sermon now end, giving glory to God who grants us such teachers.
...it destroys reasonings and every height that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. Yet, that you may not learn these things through our tongue, but through his, let us bring our discourse to a rest, sending up glory to God, who has provided such teachers, for to Him is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
FRAGMENT OF SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM,
Where he speaks of the same Diodorus, from Facundus of Hermiane, who says in Book 4, ch. 2: Again, in another sermon, he said of his own teacher Diodorus: Not superfluously, as it appears, have we spent long-winded discourses. For truly, in the celebration of the Martyrs, we are reminded also of the living martyr, the one who dwells near the martyrdom of the spiritual river. For this man is a living martyr, and a martyr who is dead, and one who is dead often by his own resolve. Behold his mortified members, behold the figure bearing...NOTICE
Fronto Ducæus relegated this homily among the spurious works. On the contrary, Savile, in his notes, said it was of a better quality. Other learned men, among them Tillemont, also held it to be genuine. Savile notes that it contains many things similar to those found in the Homily against Drunkards and on the Resurrection, read above in Volume 2, pp. 441, 442, 443, which places are indicated in the notes. At the beginning of the homily also, certain things are found that are identical, and in almost the same words, to those in the Homily on the Camel-Driver and on the Cross, p. 398. Other minor things are also detected here and there which are found in other works of Chrysostom. Perhaps these prompted Fronto Ducæus, a sagacious man, to relegate this homily among the spurious ones. He undoubtedly thought it to be a patchwork compiled from various Chrysostom...DISCOURSE ON THE HOLY PASCHA.
1. It is fitting today for us all to cry out what was said by the blessed David: Who shall speak of the mighty acts of the Lord, and who shall make all His praises heard? (Ps. 105:2). For behold, the desirable and saving feast has come to us, the day of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, the pretext for peace, the occasion for reconciliation, the abolition of wars, the undermining of death, the defeat of the devil. Today, humans have been mingled with the angels, and those who are clothed in bodies now offer hymns with the incorporeal powers. Today, the tyranny of the devil is broken; today, the bonds of death are loosed, the victory of Hades is vanished; today, it is fitting again to say that prophetic voice: Where, O death, is your sting? Where, O Hades, is your victory? (1 Cor. 15:55). Today, the brazen...