...but pious, for he does nothing which the Father does not do: for the things that He (the Father) does here, these also He (the Son) does. That statement, therefore, "The Son can do nothing of himself," removes neither freedom nor power, but demonstrates concord, consent, and close conjunction, and is a sign of perfect union. For when He was breaking the Sabbath, and they were accusing Him of transgression, saying: "God has commanded one thing, and you do another," He, A curbing this impudence of theirs, says: "Nothing has been done by me other than what has been done by the Father; nor am I contrary or hostile to Him." But if He did not speak in that way, He fashioned his speech in a more human and crasser manner, considering that He was conversing with Jews who thought Him to be contrary to God. Therefore, lest anyone suspect any such thing, He immediately added: "For the works which He does, these also the Son does in like manner" (John 5:19). But if He does nothing of Himself, how does He do it in like manner? For to do it (at all) is not the great thing: for the apostles were doing that too—they were raising the dead, they were cleansing lepers—but not "in like manner" as He. But how did they? "Why do you look at us, as though by our own power or authority we had made this man walk?" (Acts 3:12). But how does Jesus? "That you may know that the Son of Man has power to forgive sins on earth" (Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24); and again concerning the resurrection of the dead: "As the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wills" (John 5:21). Although it would have been enough to have said "So," yet out of abundance, B so as to blunt the impudence of those who wished to contradict, He added: "To whom He wills," certainly with all power. For that reason He says: "The works, indeed, which He does": He does not say, "The Son does similar works," but "The Son does the self-same things." "For all things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing" (John 1:3). You see how He aims His discourse to indicate the most intimate union, conjunction, and consent, not saying "similar things," but "the self-same things," and "in like manner," as the Father? For that reason, tempering Himself and condescending, He used a statement of this kind even there with great caution. For He did not say, "Unless He be taught somewhat by the Father," lest you should introduce Him as a learner; nor did He say, "Unless He be ordered," lest you should suspect Him to be in the order of servants: but, "Unless He sees the Father doing it." And this, too, said in that way, indicates great conjunction with the Father. For if He is able to see the Father working, and know how He works, He is of the same substance. For we have often shown before that no one is able to see the substance of God accurately, nor to know it clearly, C unless he be of the same nature. A human being, indeed, adorned though he be with great virtue—Daniel, for instance—could not see an angel in his naked substance. Therefore, he was extolling this as a unique prerogative of His nature, saying: "No one has ever seen God; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has revealed Him" (John 1:18). And again: "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father" (John 6:46). Although many others, prophets, patriarchs, righteous men, and angels, had seen Him: but He speaks of perfect knowledge. Let us not, therefore, say that He does it then when He sees Him: for by what reason would that stand, "All things were made through Him, and without Him was made nothing" (John 1:3)? And likewise that, "The works which He does, these also the Son does in like manner" (John 5:19)? For if He does it in like manner, how does He do it only when He has first seen Him? For it will be necessary, from this statement of yours, that the Father also works only when He sees another working; which would be the height of madness and insanity.
But that we may not draw out our discourse D further, we shall add this: because He was conversing with Jews who said He was contrary to God and an enemy to the Lawgiver—which they concluded from the things that had been done—in this way He formulated His discourse in a more human and crasser manner, leaving it to the prudent hearer to form the right opinion concerning these things, and correcting those who understood in a crasser way; wherefore He was saying: "For the works which He does, these also the Son does in like manner." For He does not wait until He sees the Father doing it, so as to act then, nor does He have need of instruction: but He sees His substance, and clearly knows it. "As the Father knows me, and I know the Father" (John 10:15); but He works and effects all things with a power becoming to Him, with intelligence and wisdom accompanying Him, to whom there is no need either to learn or to see. For how would there be a need, when He is the perfect image of the Father, and does all things that He does, in like manner, and with the same power? For speaking of power He added this: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). Knowing and understanding, therefore, all these things that have been said, let us turn away from the gatherings of the heretics, and let us adhere perpetually to the right faith, and let us institute a life that is accurate and equal to the doctrines, so that we may obtain the good things to come, by the grace and mercies of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory and empire, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, now and always, and for ever and ever. Amen.
NOTICE
This homily, too, the most praiseworthy man Eric Benzelius drew from the English Codices and published at Uppsala. It is, moreover, regarding no small part of it, not unlike the preceding one. For although it deals with Melchisedec, as the inscription suggests, yet no small part of the homily is against the Anomoeans. Then, too, it is disputed against the Melchisedecians, who said that Melchisedec was greater than the Son; others, however, thought he was the Holy Spirit, as Epiphanius also teaches in Heresy 46, alt. 55, which we speak of in the notes below. Beware, however, of thinking that this homily on Melchisedec is the one which Chrysostom mentions in his Homily [alt-version omitted]PREFACE TO THE HOMILY ON MELCHISEDECH
in Psalm 41, which was published above in its own order among the expositions on the Psalms. For where mention is made here of more things, it is the seventh against the Jews. At what time Chrysostom said this, we cannot ascertain by any indication. For nothing here appears, and we cannot extract any mark. Likewise, it seems uncertain whether it was spoken at Antioch or Constantinople, since he more frequently used his authority against the Anomoeans.HOMILY BY THE SAME ON MELCHISEDEK
1. I wish to set before you today an apostolic table, and I am preparing to extend my discourse toward the sea of Paul’s voice. Yet what am I to do? I hesitate and fear that, once we have left the harbor and arrived at the depths of the apostolic meanings, we might be seized by giddiness, just as those do who are unaccustomed to sailors. For when they have left the land and see the sea on both sides of the ship, and nothing but sea and sky, they are seized by vertigo and think that the ship is turning in a circle along with the sea. Yet these giddinesses do not arise from the nature of the sea, but from the inexperience of those sailing. Other sailors, however, dive naked into the waves and suffer nothing of the sort; but having descended into the depth of the sea, they spend their time more securely than those sitting on the ground, and by receiving the brine into their mouth, their eyes, and their whole body, they are not distressed. So great and such a thing is the evil of inexperience. Thus, inexperience convinces one to disregard even fearful things; while experience makes one suspect and fear even what is safe. For those sitting on the high rigging of the ship are dizzy at the sight, while those in the midst of the waves are not disturbed.
This also happens to our own understanding. For often waves of passion—fiercer than the sea’s—overtake it, such as a storm or deep anger churning the heart, and winds of evil desire, causing great confusion in the mind. The inexperienced and unpracticed person, at the beginning of the winter of anger, is immediately disturbed, unsettled, and shaken; he sees his soul being submerged by the passions, and suffering shipwreck. But the experienced and disciplined man bears such things courageously; like a pilot at the tiller, he sets his Reason above the passions and, doing everything, he does not stop until he guides his vessel into the very harbor of philosophy. Thus, what happens on the sea also occurs in the understanding, and it is necessary that this same thing happens in the interpretation of the Scriptures: that we are troubled and disturbed when we go out into the sea—not because the sea is fearful, but because we who are sailing are inexperienced.
For that a discourse is easy by nature, yet becomes difficult through the inexperience of the hearers, I shall set Paul before you as a witness. For having said that Christ became a high priest according to the order of Melchisedek, and while asking who this Melchisedek is, he added: "Concerning whom we have much to say, and hard to be interpreted" (Hebr. 5:11). What do you say, Paul? Is it hard to be interpreted for you, who possess spiritual wisdom? For you who have heard the ineffable things? For you who were caught up to the third heaven? If it is hard to be interpreted for you, to whom is it graspable? "It is hard to be interpreted for me," he says, "not because of my own weakness, but because of the difficulty of the hearers." Thus, having said, "hard to be interpreted," he added: "seeing you are dull of hearing" (Hebr. 5:11). See how it is not the nature of the discourse, but the inexperience of the hearers, that has made the undifficult difficult? And it makes it not only difficult, but also "much"—the same cause makes the short long. Therefore, he did not only say it was hard to be interpreted, but also "much," attributing the cause of both the length and the difficulty to the dullness of their hearing.
For just as in the case of the sick it is not necessary to set before them a brief and hurriedly prepared table, but it is necessary to prepare various foods, so that if the sufferer does not wish for this, he might take that, or accept the other, or receive something else—and if he pushes this away, he might take the next, and by the variety we might overcome the difficulty and by the manifold nature of the table cure the displeasure of the spirit—so too must one often do in the case of hearing, when we are weak. It is necessary to prepare a "much" discourse, having various parables and examples, arguments and periods, and many other such things, so that the choice of what is profitable may become easy for us. However, although the discourse is "much" and "hard to be interpreted," he did not deprive them of the teaching of Melchisedek; by saying "much and hard to be interpreted," he roused their zeal, so that they would not become more slothful regarding the hearing; and by providing the table, he gratified their desire.
2. Let us also do this. Even if we are incapable of the sea and the depth of the meanings, let us cut through the sea—not according to our own power, but according to the grace given to us from above. Not for the sake of our own boldness, but for your benefit let us make bold to face the sea, and in this imitating Paul. For that he did not deprive them of the discourse concerning Melchisedek, hear what follows. For having said, "Concerning whom we have much to say, and hard to be interpreted," he added: "For this Melchisedek, king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is, king of peace."
A ...without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life, made like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest continually. Do you see how he addresses you, discoursing about a man and saying, "Without father, without mother, without genealogy"? If he says this about a man, why do you not provide much investigation for the Son? For if he is without father, how is he a Son? And if he is without mother, how is he the Only-begotten? For the Son must have a father; otherwise he would not be a Son. But the Son of God is without father and without mother: without father, according to the lower generation; without mother, according to the upper generation. For he had neither a father on earth, nor a mother in the heavens. "Without genealogy." Let those who curiously explore his substance hear. And yet, some think this "without genealogy" was said concerning his upper generation.
B The heretics, indeed, do not even want this; for they inquisitively inquire into and scrutinize even that; but the more moderate among them, while granting that, think that this "without genealogy" is said of the earthly generation. Let us show, therefore, that Paul said this concerning both generations—both the upper and the earthly. For both that one is fearful and this one is very mysterious. Therefore, Isaiah says: "Who shall declare his generation?" (Isa. 53:8). You will say, however, that the prophet is speaking of that heavenly one. What then shall we say of Paul, who, after he had mentioned two generations, added: "Without genealogy"? It was so that you might believe him to be without genealogy not only according to that generation by which he was without mother, but also according to this earthly one by which he was without father; and so, when he had set forth both, then he said, "Without genealogy." For this earthly generation is incomprehensible, just as we do not even dare to gaze upon that heavenly one. For if the vestibules of the temple were so fearful and unapproachable, who would have dared to enter the Holy of Holies? I know that he was begotten by the Father, but how, I do not know. I know that he was born of the Virgin, but I do not grasp the mode here either. Both generations are confessed, and the mode of both is passed over in silence. And just as here concerning the Virgin, being ignorant of how he was born of the Virgin, I confess that he was born, and I do not deny the fact because of my ignorance; do the same regarding the Father: even if you do not know how the Son was begotten of him, confess it nonetheless. If the heretic says to you, "How was the Son begotten of the Father?" bring his haughtiness down to the ground and say to him, "Descend from the heavens and show how he was born of the Virgin, and then look to those things." Detain him and conclude, do not let him escape and return to the labyrinth of arguments, but detain and stifle him, not with your hand, but with your word. Do not give him a chance to flee to where he wants. For they stir up a tumult during the dispute because we follow them and do not lead them under the laws of the divine Scriptures. Set around him on all sides a wall, the testimonies of the Scriptures, and he will not be able even to gasp. Say, "How was he born of the Virgin?" I do not retract my step, I do not recede. But he will not be able to explain the mode to us, even if he argues it six hundred times. For when God has closed it, who afterwards can open it? These things can be grasped by faith alone. If, however, you cannot [do this], but seek arguments, I will say to you that which Christ said to Nicodemus: "If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe if I shall speak to you heavenly things?" (John 3:12). I spoke of the birth from the Virgin, and you do not understand, and you do not dare to gasp, and yet you curiously explore the upper generation. And would that it were only the heavens! But you also curiously examine the Lord of the heavens. "If I have spoken to you C earthly things, and you believe not." He did not say, "You are not persuaded," but, "You do not believe," showing us that if earthly things have need of faith, much more so do heavenly things. Although at that time he was speaking to Nicodemus about a birth far lesser; for it was a sermon about baptism and spiritual regeneration: but it is plain that those things also are to be apprehended by faith. He called them "earthly" not because they are truly earthly, but because they are accomplished on earth, and in comparison with that ineffable generation which surpasses every mind, these are earthly. If, therefore, it cannot be understood how we are regenerated by water, but it is necessary to grasp that by faith alone and not curiously explore the mode, what an insanity it would be to stir up human arguments concerning the upper generation of the Only-begotten Son and to demand the reasons for the mode of generation? How the Son of God is without father and without mother, and how he is without genealogy, has been sufficiently demonstrated.
There are those who have written about Melchisedech, and have even said that he is greater than Christ, and have formed a heresy, and they are called Melchisedechians, and they contend with us and fight, [claiming] that he is greater than Christ, bringing forward that: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech" (Ps. 109:4): it is necessary to meet them as well. For they say: "How is he not greater than Christ, according to whose image and order Christ exercises the priesthood?" We therefore say that he is a man, subject to passions just as we are, and not greater than Christ, or even than John the Baptist: "For among those born of women there has not risen a greater than he," says Christ (Matt. 11:11). Others again, erring, say that he is the Holy Spirit; but we do not say this. For what necessity would there have been for the Word of God to be incarnate if the Holy Spirit had already been made a man long ago? Since he is truly neither greater than Christ nor the Holy Spirit, let them tell us: of what place do they suppose him to be? Whether of the heavenly? Or the earthly? Or the subterranean? If, therefore, they say that Melchisedech is from the number of the heavenly or of any other place, let them hear that he bends the knee to Christ, who is incarnate from the Theotokos Mary. For the Apostle says: "To him every knee shall bow," etc. (Phil. 2:10). If every knee is bowed, surely Melchisedech will be lesser than Christ, for he adores Christ. If those unhappy and miserable [men] would consider the things that follow; for he adds, "Made like unto the Son of God" (Heb. 7:3): it is so to be understood, namely, that he, just as we are, was made to the image and likeness of God. The Jews, indeed, say that he was born of fornication, and therefore is without genealogy; to whom we shall say that they speak wrongly. For Solomon, who was born of the adulteress, the wife of Uriah... D
is the genealogy led. But since Melchizedek was a type of the Lord, and carried the image of Christ, just as Jonah did, therefore Scripture says he was "without father and without genealogy," so that we might gaze upon Christ in him as in an image. The Melchizedekians also object to us: "Why," they say, "does the Father say to him, 'You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek' (Ps. 109:4)?" To whom we respond, that this Melchizedek was a just man, and truly bore the image of Christ. Moved therefore by the prophetic spirit, perceiving the offering to be brought forth for the Gentiles, he honored God with bread and wine, imitating Him who was to come, Christ. Since, therefore, the synagogue of the Jews was offering sacrifice to God according to the order of Aaron, not bread and wine, but calves and lambs, and was glorifying God with bloody sacrifices, God cries out and says to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was to be born of the Virgin Mary: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek; not according to the order of Aaron," who worshiped with calves and lambs; "but, You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," bringing forever the offering of those who bring it, with bread and wine. Through whom to the Father be glory with the most holy Spirit, now and always, and to the ages of ages. Amen. For I have one year remaining upon having stepped into your city, B litanies, with one day having passed in between, let such people, therefore, be cast out,
AD MONITION TO THE FOLLOWING HOMILY
A such men; but that it may be proven that he said these things from his heart and sincerely, a few words being interjected, he speaks thus: But if you have been terrified while hearing this sentence (for I see everyone groaning and pricked in heart), let them repent, and the sentence is released, B *let them be cast out* (μεταβαλλέσθωσαν, καὶ λύεται τὰ τῆς ἀποφάσεως). These words seem to put forward the sentence as truly pronounced. But I think these things were said by the prelate only in the spirit of threatening, and he would not have wished anyone to undergo excommunication unless they had fallen into the same sin again, those who had run to the spectacles.
Another thing is proposed to be explored, namely, on what day Chrysostom gave this sermon: for the matter does not seem to be without difficulty. For in this sermon he says, "three days ago [there was] a heavy rain" (πρὸ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἐπομβρία). Now that rain fell on Wednesday of Holy Week, and on Thursday, the Supper of the Lord, nothing is remembered to have happened; on Good Friday, equestrian games turned many away, [and on] Saturday the same people went to the theatrical spectacles. From hence it seems to follow that this Homily was given on holy Easter day itself; counting back between that day and the Wednesday preceding, three days intervene, full and complete—Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday. But if the sermon was given on Easter, why is there not even a word about the resurrection of the Lord in the whole homily? For even if it could perhaps be said that Chrysostom gave an address to vent his indignation upon those who went to the theaters on holy days, and thought of nothing else, was it proper on the holy day of Easter to have nothing at all about such a great celebration, not even to speak of it briefly? But if we move the Homily to the following day, another difficulty arises: for not only three days, but four full and complete days intervene; but perhaps Chrysostom said "three days" without counting, which in his case is not unusual. As for the matter, otherwise, we leave it in doubt, not being of such great moment.
D This difficulty can be easily resolved, provided it be held as certain that this homily was delivered on the day of Pascha. For just as Chrysostom the presbyter often gave a sermon with the bishop and others on the same day and continuously in church, a fact which appears from his sermons: so he could have given an address after the bishop or another, whether presbyter or another, on the day of Pascha, and he himself have argued gravely against spectacles and theaters. I have on this matter the agreement of Montfaucon. See Vol. V, p. 118, n.b. Add to these the Preface of Fr. Matthaei to the book inscribed: *J. Chrysostomi Homilia IV*, Vol. 2, p. 77, Misen, 1792. To these add Montf. Pref. of this volume, § 11, the same volume, p. 321.