Preface TO THE HOMILIES OF SAINT JOHN CHRYSOSTOM ON JOHN.
AWe have at length reached the Homilies on the Gospel of John, where we discover an entirely new rite of preaching and an unusual method of discourse. We certainly discern the same style and entirely similar diction; we immediately recognize the same master of speech, Chrysostom: yet in order and in the logic of the argument, a great difference presents itself. For in his other commentaries on Holy Scripture, and especially in the Homilies on Matthew, after he has explained the literal meaning of individual verses, he takes an occasion from the series of the text to intersperse many matters pertaining to the instruction of morals; and at the end of the discourse he adds a very long moral exhortation, by which he censures the vices of both the noble and the common people, and adds incentives for pursuing virtue. But he proceeds in another manner of preaching in these Homilies on John. For almost everywhere, after he has presented individual verses, and especially those which certain heretics were accustomed to object against the Catholics, he arms and strengthens his hearers against their arguments and sophisms; and, as is immediately detected, he provides weapons for those who were often engaged in hand-to-hand combat against such enemies. This is the primary aim of the orator; he strains every nerve so that he might train the Christian soldier, who was frequently fighting against heretics, to repel their darts.
Furthermore, these things do not occur in all the homilies, but only in those where those places of John are explained which are either suitable for proving the equality and consubstantiality of the Father and the Son, or which were usurped by heretics to impugn it. But where the divinity and the consubstantiality of the Son are not at issue, he usually explains the letter in a few words. He also touches more rarely upon moral discipline during his preaching, and closes the discourse with a very brief moral exhortation; so that these discourses on John are, for the most part, smaller by nearly half their length than the Homilies on Matthew.
From this, surely, many questions now arise: namely, who are the heretics who were assailing Chrysostom's hearers with missiles taken from the Gospel of John; why does Chrysostom not name them; from what family did these heretics originate; [and] by what arguments in particular he teaches that the objections of the lucifugæ [light-shunners] should be refuted. It will not be tedious to weigh all these matters after we have premised something regarding the number of the Homilies on John, the city in which he preached them, the hour of the discourse, and certain other matters.
§ I. 1. Regarding the number of the Homilies on John. 2. In what city Chrysostom delivered these homilies, whether at Antioch or at Constantinople.
1. The Homilies on John are reported as eighty-eight according to Savile, but only eighty-seven according to Morel, since Morel places the first only in the place of a proem, and does not inscribe it as the first Homily, because, forsooth, nothing from the Gospel of John is explained in this discourse, and it is only, as it were, a prelude to the explanation of that same Gospel. But however that may be, this proem is no less a discourse and a homily than the other succeeding discourses. For here he addresses the people, exhorts them to virtue, restrains them from vices, and fulfills all the duties of one preaching. Wherefore Savile rightly inscribed it as the first Homily: whom it has seemed good to follow. But because the Editio Morelli, which for many years has been in everyone's hands, is for the most part brought forward by writers, and they number the homilies according to the Morellian Edition; and they inscribe as the twenty-ninth the one which according to Savile and according to the true method of numbering is the thirtieth, we have placed both numbers on the top of the page thus: Homily thirtieth, al. twenty-ninth, and so also in the others.
That this variation in numbering is not recent is suggested by Facundus of Hermiane, who in book 3, c. 3, p. 114, calls that the sixty-sixth which is truly the sixty-seventh. But another method of numbering also, which is indeed the true one, is proven to have been in use among others. For Ephraem of Antioch numbers as the eleventh the one which is now the eleventh. And the Greek manuscript codices, which it has been possible to see thus far, follow this method of numbering.
2. A second question arises, namely, whether Chrysostom delivered these homilies at Antioch or at Constantinople. In which city these many discourses were held, we have never been able to detect in the discourses themselves. For if there were any [indication] from which we might draw a conjecture, it would be from the perpetual skirmishes against those who denied that equality with the Father’s power existed in the Son, who were attacking the consubstantiality—against the Anomoeans, namely, whom he everywhere attacks. That is observed at Constantinople just as much as at Antioch. For in both cities Chrysostom preached against the Anomoeans by name, and in both there was a great number of Anomoeans B
those, who frequently used to contend with the Catholic people regarding religion. We can glean nothing further from that source concerning the city where these homilies were delivered: we can form no judgment from the homilies themselves. But the seventh homily on the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in our edition (Vol. 10, p. 53), teaches that these homilies on John were delivered before the homilies on the Corinthians. Since, however, that homily on the Corinthians was delivered at Antioch, as will be proved in its proper place, it follows from this that these homilies on John were also delivered at Antioch. Furthermore, that passage of the seventh homily on the Corinthians reads thus: "For He says to them, 'You neither know me, nor my Father' (John 8:19). How then did He say above, 'You know me, and you know whence I am' (John 7:28)?" But what the manner of this reading is, and what his own opinion is, already stated in the Gospels, and since we A frequently turn to the same subject, we refer the readers to that place. He sends, namely, his homilies on the Gospel of John, to the fiftieth homily, where, explaining these words (ch. 7, v. 28, col. 279), "And you know me, and you know whence I am," he shows how they are best reconciled with the other passage of the same Gospel (ch. 8, v. 19), where he says that the Jews know neither him nor his Father. It is therefore certain and indubitable that Chrysostom delivered these homilies at Antioch before he delivered the homilies on the first and second Epistles to the Corinthians, which were likewise delivered at Antioch, as we shall prove in its proper place.
§ II. 1. At what time he delivered these homilies. 2. Why he preached these while the dawn was breaking. 1. We have already said in the Preface to the Homilies on Matthew, that Chrysostom could not have delivered the Homilies on Matthew to the people during the three first years in which he was a presbyter, because, clearly, in those B three years, 386, 387, 388, he delivered so many long homilies that it seems hardly possible that he could have added others. Certainly, as will be said at greater length in the Life of Chrysostom, it is hardly credible how many sermons he delivered during these first three years of his priesthood: Panegyrics for the feasts of the Saints throughout the year, others on the books of Scripture, and others on various subjects. And so, for this reason, we determine that the Homilies on Matthew were delivered after the year 388, and we shall assign these, which seem to have been spoken after the Homilies on Matthew, to a time after that year. To assign the very year in which he began these homilies is not within human capability. It is certain, indeed, that they were delivered from the year 389 to the year 398, at the beginning of which he was raised to the Constantinopolitan see; but the year itself, or even the years, to determine—for it does not seem that 88 homilies were delivered in one and the same year—this is a difficult task. Let us see, however, if we can glean anything further about that matter. Since the Homilies on Matthew, which are ninety in number, preceded these, and are thought to have been delivered after the year 388; and since those ninety homilies on Matthew do not seem to have been completed in a single year, we probably assign to them the years 389 and 390. These, however, on John, we C reasonably determine were delivered after the year 390, namely from this year to the year 394 or 395. We cannot assign the whole of that span which intervenes until the year 398, when he was elected bishop of Constantinople. Because, as is known to us, after the Homilies on John, he delivered a huge number of other sermons at Antioch, namely the Homilies on the Epistles to the Corinthians, the first of which is completed in 44 homilies, the second in 30, and those longer ones; and he preached on the other Epistles of Paul, not a few, at Antioch, after he had finished these on John, as will be proved in its proper place by various arguments. We cannot, therefore, cast these Homilies on John into the last years of his presbyterate; but we probably designate the time for them to be from the year 390 to the year 394 or 395. With the sequence thus established, everything seems to fit.
Nor could he have completed all these 88 sermons in one year, if he had delivered single homilies every fifth day, as he himself hints a little before the end of the first Homily, where he says such things: col. 27: "Let no one say to me, that there is a brief time between this and the next sermon. For it is permitted, not only in the space of five days, but even in a single moment of time, to change one's whole life." Even if he had preached only every fifth day, he could not have completed these 88 sermons in one year. But if he only preached every fifth day, as he says, how can that be squared with what he says at the beginning of Homily 25, col. 147, "For we do not preach daily, but twice a week, and that for a brief part of the day, so that we may lighten the labor, we exhort you to attend the sermon and be attentive." If twice a week, certainly he D did not preach only every fifth day, but more frequently. Indeed, these things can be reconciled if we say that he used to preach now less frequently, now more frequently.
2. But what Chrysostom says regarding the time of day when he delivered these homilies is altogether singular. For in Homily 31, col. 182, he speaks thus: "But if the Samaritan woman exhibits such zeal, that she might learn what is useful, and sits by Christ, even if she does not know him: what pardon shall we obtain, we who know him, who stand not by a well, not in the desert, not at midday, not scorched by solar rays; but at dawn, under this roof we enjoy the shade and pass the time pleasantly, yet we do not patiently listen to anything, but grow sluggish from laziness?" Thus, at dawn, that is, at the morning hours as the dawn was breaking, he delivered these discourses; though he was not accustomed to delivering the other sermons at the first peep of day. But in these homilies explaining the Gospel of John, we discover many things done beside the custom. First, that they are by far shorter than all the others. Second, that they were delivered as the dawn was breaking; third, that the moral exhortations are, contrary to custom, very brief. Fourth, that their primary aim, in most of the homilies at least, seems to be to instruct the audience to do battle against the heretics who abuse the Gospel of John. For indeed, when he had issued the first homily as a kind of preface,
and in the second he had agitated the foremost leaders of the pagan philosophers, finally in the third (col. 39), he opens his purpose with these words: "It is time, however, that we come to the proposed subject, so that you do not approach these contests weary. For contests indeed stand before us against the enemies of truth; against those who leave nothing undone to cast down the glory of the Son of God, or rather, their own: for *It* [the glory] always remains as it is, etc." There you see him sharpening his listeners to engage in the contests against the heretics, and providing them with weapons. You may observe this more or less throughout the whole course of the Homilies on John, at least in those discourses explaining the passages of the Gospel which either prove Christ to be equal and consubstantial with the Father, or were being warped and usurped by the heretics against that consubstantiality and equality. For those heretics, since they were wont to be most forcefully assailed by the words of John, were attempting to defend their own opinion and impiety from those very same words. But because those heretics were then mingled with Catholics in great numbers, and frequently debated with those they met using the words of the Evangelist John, Chrysostom deemed it necessary to instruct his listeners to undertake such contests, as he himself says in the place already cited, and repeats here and there in the following discourses.
But why, at the dawning aurora, does he deliver the discourses so brief—why does he touch more sparingly here upon the moral discipline, which he expounds with such abundance in other discourses? As far as I conjecture, it was so that he might not interrupt the course of the other homilies, which he was delivering assiduously throughout the whole year, and which all the Catholics of every age, sex, and condition were attending; he was not speaking these, I say, to the whole populace at the dawning aurora, but only to those men and women who were more fervent, who were talented in mind, and who were able, once instructed by the warnings of Chrysostom, to refute the arguments—mostly drawn from the Gospel of John—of the heretics during the daily skirmishes. Therefore, for the holy doctor, to whom one would scarcely find an equal in abundance of speech in all past centuries, two duties were especially incumbent: first, to instruct the whole assembly of Catholics against every vice, which he carried out strenuously, often discoursing on the whole of moral discipline with amazing eloquence twice in the same week throughout the year; second, to arm the Catholics living among the countless herds of heretics, who were attacking the true faith in private conversations especially from the Gospel of John—to arm them, I say, against their adversaries. But because not all Catholics at all, as we have said, men and women of every age and condition, were capable of undertaking this fight—perhaps not all attended these morning discourses, but only those men and women who were talented in mind, and were able to hurl the weapons supplied to them by Chrysostom against the heads of the heretics. These more fervent ones were to be instructed separately from the rest; for the arguments brought forward here and there exceeded the grasp of the common folk. He delivered these at the dawning aurora, if I am not mistaken, because he reserved other times of day for those greater discourses in which he gave more abundant effort to repelling vices and inculcating every virtue. In the morning discourses, however, he touched upon that moral discipline more sparingly, because his primary purpose was to supply weapons to his own against the heretics. Furthermore, women were also admitted to these morning discourses, those who were able to dispel the difficulties placed in their way by heretics in private conversations. For the holy doctor does address women, even if more rarely, in these Homilies on the Gospel of John. But now let us move on to the rest.
§ III. 1. The heretics who are impugned in these discourses were the Anomoeans. 2. Whence the Anomoeans arose. Their history is brought forward in summary. 3. What their status was at the time when Chrysostom was delivering these discourses.
1. There is no need for much investigation to discover who those heretics were who were borrowing weapons from the sayings of the Evangelist John to attack Catholics, even in private conversations: since they were present in great number and mixed with the common people, they raised daily skirmishes; so that the holy doctor, looking to both sound doctrine and the salvation of his listeners, was compelled to instruct them to hurl those very weapons against the heads of the heretics. These heretics, to be sure, are the Anomoeans, with whom Chrysostom contended for so long, and indeed throughout the whole time he performed the office of preaching, whether he was a presbyter at Antioch, or bishop at Constantinople. At Antioch, indeed, in the first year he began to preach, he entered into the contest against these heretics who were here and there intermingled with Catholics, and in twelve discourses he famously refuted the Anomoeans, parried their weapons, and supplied the most valid arguments against them. You will find those twelve homilies, most of which were scattered in the old Editions here and there, collected together in our Edition, and they begin in Tom. 1, col. 701. Nor did the holy doctor refute those heretics only in those twelve orations or homilies, but also in others wherever the occasion presented itself.
Truly, what would be well worth noting is that he did not attack the Anomoeans immediately at the beginning of the first year of his presbyterate; but as he testifies himself in the first discourse, he undertook the struggle against the Anomoeans—destined since long before—somewhat late, though still in the same year, because he saw many of the Anomoeans attending his discourses and lending him their ears with pleasure. For this reason, so as not to drive away the prey, as he says, and so as to snare their souls, he curbed his tongue from such contests. Finally, with the Anomoeans themselves urging him on, he descended into the arena; he began to attack the errors of the Anomoeans, but with a friendly spirit, not to wound the adversaries, but to raise up those who were fallen. It is likely, however, that the Anomoeans were milder at that time, because the Catholic princes Valentinian II and Theodosius were then governing the empire; nor could the heretics
enjoy the same liberty and petulance, as they had formerly under Constantius and later under Valens. Although Chrysostom refuted the Anomoeans with a friendly spirit, he nevertheless attacked them fiercely, and indeed rightly and deservedly. For they boasted that they had received all knowledge, and what is more to be wondered at, that they knew God as He knew Himself. And since they thought themselves equipped with such great knowledge, it is no wonder if they boldly scrutinized the substance of God, and moved so many questions regarding it, and threw them at any Catholics they met, even in public. If anyone reproved them for such audacity, they would reply: "Are you ignorant of what you worship?" (T. 1, col. 742.) And they constantly sang this to the ears of all: that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father, that He is a created thing, that He does not have equal power to judge with the Father, and that He cannot be equal to the Father, since He prays to the Father. They added further that the Son is not ὅμοιος (similar) to the Father, and hence they were called Anomoeans, as if to say "dissimilar." Chrysostom constantly attacked them in his homilies, both at Antioch and Constantinople, even in those discourses whose subject matter seemed to have nothing in common with the Anomoean heresy. Since these heretics were entirely contentious and pugnacious, and were constantly skirmishing with the Catholics, Chrysostom let slip no opportunity to refute such impudent men.
But although the arguments of the Anomoeans are brought forward and refuted throughout the course of Chrysostom’s homilies, we nowhere find such an abundance of their armory as in these Homilies on the Gospel of John; since, forsooth, from this Gospel most of all, they borrowed their arguments, having explained it according to their own mind, and as they themselves said, "all-encompassing knowledge." It will not be unwelcome to the reader to relate these arguments of theirs, or at least the principal ones, along with Chrysostom’s responses, after we have briefly summarized the origin and progress of that heresy up to the present matter. We hope this will not displease the reader; for no one would say it is useless to know from their origin and deeds those whom we see so frequently castigated by Chrysostom.
2. Arius brought his execrable heresy into the Church around the year 320; he had many disciples and caused countless disturbances by which almost all the Churches of the world were stirred up. But the chief heads and tenets of Arius and the Arians were these: that God had not always been Father; that the Son had not always existed, but that there was a time when He did not exist; that He did not exist before He was born, but was made in time and from nothing; that He was not proper to the nature of the Father; that He was indeed a perfect creature, but not like other creatures; that He was not true God, but God by participation; that He was not eternal, but created before the times and the ages; that the Son did not perfectly know or perfectly see the Father. They proceeded even to this point of impiety, to say that the Son was the one and true Word, but only by name the Word, only by name Wisdom, only by name the Son, the beginning of creatures; that the Word was by nature mutable, and that there were many Words. Indeed, Arius himself used to say that the Word which is in God is one thing, and that of which John speaks is another: "In the beginning was the Word." In this impious doctrine, they were not all consistent with themselves; one would often say the contrary of something else, indeed, as error can hardly remain consistent, they themselves were not always in agreement.
Many among them also said that the Son was not similar to the Father. Concerning this opinion of the Arians, divisions arose. For some excluded all similarity entirely; others admitted similarity even in substance; but these latter constituted, as it were, a peculiar sect, who denied that the Son was ὁμοούσιον (consubstantial), but admitted that He was ὅμοιος κατ’ οὐσίαν (similar in substance), and because they fell short in some things from the perfect Arians, they were called Semi-Arians. Furthermore, these are also divided among themselves. For some said that the Son was similar to the Father in substance, with an imperfect similarity, such as could exist between a creature and the Creator, like the similarity of an image to its archetype. They said that that image and similarity was outside of God, made by God, and that it was similar in substance only to the extent that a thing created outside of God can be similar to the substance of the Creator. These differed from the perfect Arians only in name. For Arians who admitted the Gospel could not deny that some imperfect similarity could exist between creatures and the Creator: since it is written in the Gospel, "That you may be like your Father," etc.
But as for other Semi-Arians, whose leader was Basil of Ancyra, they interpreted the term ὅμοιος κατ’ οὐσίαν, that is, similarity of substance, in a far different way. For they admitted a perfect similarity of substance in the Father and the Son: but they rejected the term ὁμοούσιον, or the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; and indeed for many reasons which Athanasius recounts and refutes in his book *On the Synods*, p. 764, and in the same book, p. 757, he says that the term ὁμοούσιον was rejected by the Semi-Arians of whom we speak, because it had been proscribed at the Council of Antioch, where Paul of Samosata was condemned; although not in the sense in which it was later accepted, promulgated, and placed in the confession of faith at the Council of Nicaea. For that the term ὁμοούσιον was not absolutely condemned at the Synod of Antioch is clear from the words of Dionysius of Alexandria, who had been present at and subscribed to the Council of Antioch. For when he was accused before Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, because he did not use the word ὁμοούσιον in his sermons, he replied that he did accept such a term, and considered it altogether Catholic. But he at that time abstained from it because he was dealing with the Sabellians. You have these things written at greater length in Athanasius's book *On the Opinion of Dionysius*, where he recites the very words of Dionysius, transcribed from his letter. Nevertheless, these Semi-Arians rejected the term ὁμοούσιον and substituted for that word the term ὅμοιος κατ’ οὐσίαν. But in explaining the word, they proceeded in such a way that they differed in no respect from the true opinion of the Catholics, even if they fought over the words themselves. For between the substance of the Father and the Son, they established a perfect similarity.
But these people, the Semi-Arians, did not accept this consequence, even though it appears to follow openly from the word A *homoousios*. These men, certainly, even if they approached the Catholic opinion, nevertheless introduced this word wrongly, and were also to be blamed because they did not admit the word B *homoousios* which was introduced into the sacred Nicene synod. Nevertheless, that great light of the Church, Athanasius, does not wish for them to be regarded as adversaries. For in his book *On the Synods*, p. 755, he holds as follows: "However, as for men who receive all the other things written at Nicaea, but hesitate only over the term 'consubstantial' (*homoousios*), it is not right to regard them as enemies. For we do not attack these men as if they were Ariomanites or adversaries of the Fathers, but we dispute as brothers with brothers, who are of the same opinion as us, with only the name brought into controversy." For since they confess that the Son is from the substance of the Father and not from another substance, and that He is not a creature or a work, but genuine and natural offspring, and that He exists from eternity together with the Father as the Word and Wisdom, they are not far from accepting the word "consubstantial." Such is Basil of Ancyra, who wrote about the faith. For if He is called "similar" only according to substance, that does not signify the same thing as the word "from the substance," by which word—as they themselves have said—the Son is signified to be the genuine Son of the Father, etc. From these things you see that these Semi-Arians dissented from the Catholics only in words, but in reality were of the same opinion. Hence Athanasius seems to hope that they would eventually arrive at a Catholic manner not only of thinking but also of speaking, when he says that they themselves are not far from accepting the word "Consubstantial." And indeed they, as it seems, were later joined to the Catholics: for we do not see the formulas of speech used by them being brought forward for long. C But just as these Semi-Arians agreed with the Catholics in reality, so too other Semi-Arians, who said that the Son was a created thing and not coeternal with the Father, even if they said that He was *homoiousios*, that is, similar to the Father’s substance, differed little or nothing from the Arians and from those who asserted the *anomoios*, that is, that the Son is dissimilar to the Father; for which reason these Semi-Arians also do not seem to have remained separated from the Arians and the Anomoeans for long, and thus at last almost all of them, as I indeed believe, were called by the name of Anomoeans.
But those Anomoeans, having arisen at the same time, are said to have had Aetius as their founder—that Aetius, I say, who for his impiety was surnamed "atheist" (*atheos*). Now, therefore, they began to cause disturbances in the time of Athanasius, and said that the Son was completely dissimilar to the Father, which heresy agreed entirely with the errors of Arius and the Arians. For since the Arians said that the Son was a thing made and created, from this it certainly followed that there was as much dissimilarity between the Father and the Son as there is between the Creator and the created thing. D Since, moreover, there is an immense dissimilarity between the Creator and the created thing, it certainly followed that the same existed between the Father and the Son. Therefore, they called Christ *anomoios* (dissimilar), and from this they are called Anomoeans. In the beginning, however, dissensions arose between the Anomoeans and the Arians; not all said the same things, and at times, even if they sensed the same things in reality, they still fought in words; but under these circumstances, the Anomoeans gradually became stronger and occupied almost the entire Orient. Certainly, at the time when Chrysostom began to preach, namely in the year 386, Antioch was full of Anomoeans: for which reason in that very year he began those Homilies *On the Incomprehensible*, and refuted them brilliantly in that and the following years; for in a single series we have provided twelve homilies in the first volume, in which Chrysostom repels the arguments of the Anomoeans.
3. But besides the entire Arian heresy which they embraced and maintained, they also added things full of madness, which the holy doctor rebukes them for everywhere. They said, therefore, as we have already warned, that they had received all knowledge: that they knew God just as He knew Himself; what madness could be greater than that! Nor does Chrysostom attack them only in those orations which he held specifically against the Anomoeans; but he also brings forward and refutes the Anomoeans everywhere in other homilies, and indeed sometimes, as in T. 3, col. 31, he confronts those present. For many of them were present at his sermons, as we have already said. Nor did he find many Anomoeans only in Antioch, but also in Constantinople, whom he also attacked everywhere. For these men, mixed with the Catholic laity, daily skirmished with whoever they met. This was the chief care for Chrysostom, both at Antioch and at Constantinople. But because in this latter city, where the bishop preached, he was distracted by other most serious cares and business, attacked by many, and twice driven into exile, he could not apply as much care there to repelling the Anomoeans as he did at Antioch. And although, as we have already said, he acts against the Anomoeans everywhere in his homilies, even if he rarely calls them Anomoeans by their own name: he never brings forward and refutes their arguments as specifically as here in the *Homilies on John*. Wherefore, it is my intention here at least to review the principal ones: for it would be necessary to go further if we were to produce everything.
IV. The Anomoeans arose from the Arians; why they borrow arguments from the Gospel of John. Their arguments are refuted from that same Gospel.
The Anomoeans who arose from the Arians were seen to be distinguished by this mark and token, that they said they had attained to all-encompassing knowledge; that they knew God just as God knew them, and also just as God knew Himself: which was at once insane and impious. Thinking themselves to be supported by this knowledge, they attacked Catholics everywhere with confidence. But since, from the Gospel of John...
they were most often refuted, and since Catholics borrowed weapons from it so that they might drive them back and utterly defeat them, they twisted many passages from the same Gospel in order to deflect the weapons aimed at them. It stung the impious that their own position was overturned by these sayings of John the Theologian: *The Word was God*; and, *I and the Father are one*; and, *I am in the Father, and the Father is in me*; and, *That all may honor the Son as they honor the Father*; and, *As the Father knows me, so I also know the Father*; and, *He who sees me, sees also the Father*; and, *If you had known me, you would certainly have known the Father* (John I, 1; X, 30, 38; V, 23; X, 15; XIV, 9 et 7), and similar passages, by which He declared Himself to be one in substance with the Father, equal to Him, and true God. In order to defend themselves against these, they attempted to borrow weapons from the very first words of the Gospel of John. They said, namely, that the phrase *In the beginning was the Word* does not signify the eternity of the Son, since it is also said of created things: *In the beginning God created heaven and earth*. Therefore, they argued, the phrase *In the beginning* is brought forward in vain to prove the eternity of the Son. Chrysostom meets this sophism in many places, accommodating himself to the capacity of the audience; but for the sake of brevity, we bring forth only those things that are most opportune for repelling this useless weapon. In explaining these things, *In the beginning was the Word*, one need not seek testimonies from far away; rather, a very few things must be added from what follows: *And the Word was with God; and the Word was God*. The phrase, *was with God*, signifies *in God*. Whatever, however, is in God, is eternal and exists. But that the Word who is in God is the Son Himself, He says: *I am in the Father, and the Father in me*. *I am in the Father, and in turn the Father is in me*, by which saying the parity and equality, and consequently the eternity, of the Son are most clearly demonstrated.
That phrase, therefore, *with God*, signifies *in God*. But as for the statement *In the beginning*, let no one from this ascribe to the Word a beginning of existence or a beginning of time or duration. For no one of sane mind can attribute such a beginning to the Son of God. For that word, *was*, in *In the beginning was*, cannot signify that the Word was made in the beginning. Nor do the words themselves sound that way, and otherwise God could never have been without the Word, which is gathered even more from the Greek D; for it signifies both "Word" and "Reason." It is most certain that God never was without Reason or the Word: and this is evidently asserted by what follows: *This was in the beginning with God*, and hence it follows that the Word or Son is eternal just as the Father is. Furthermore, what we have just said is extracted not only from the third homily, but also from other homilies of Chrysostom.
Chrysostom repels another objection of the Anomoeans in the fourth homily, an objection which is indeed sought from the fact that in these Greek words of the Gospel of John, Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, the article is used before the word Θεόν (God), where it speaks of the Father, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν: but where it treats of the Son and of the Word, the article is not placed before the word Θεός: καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. From this, they argued as follows: The word Θεός, with the article, has a certain force by which it is signified that He Himself is God, that is, true God, as it is read of the Father. Without the article, however, as is said of the Son, it does not have the same force. Thereby it is signified, they said, that the Father and the Son are not God in the same way: for the Father is God by nature and is the only true God, but the Son is God only by adoption, and not true God. This was counted from the beginning among the chief arguments of the Arians, and this same point they perpetually touted. But Chrysostom strenuously refutes and confutes such an objection, not only here but also in other works, so that one cannot even mutter against it, unless one is professing the utmost impudence. For he shows in many places of Sacred Scripture that God the Father is placed without the article, and conversely God the Son with the article, whence the futility of such an argument is immediately proved. For the sake of brevity, we refrain from citing such places.
In the fifth homily, col. 53, he attacks the same heretics, who corrupted this clause by inserting a full stop: *And without Him was made nothing that was made*. But they, adding a full stop after the word *nothing*, corrupted the whole meaning as they placed the punctuation thus: *And without Him was made nothing. What was made, in Him was life*. How absurdly it is read in this way, and how many and how great are the incongruities that follow from such a reading, Chrysostom shows at length. But we shall refrain from reporting them, as they are too long; let the studious reader go to the homily itself.
He does not attack only the Anomoeans; but also, and not rarely, Paul of Samosata, the Sabellians, the Marcionites and the Manichaeans, and also those who said that the Son took on flesh only in appearance; that is, that the incarnation was a phantasm and a fiction, and that the Son was never truly incarnate; but that He only put on the pretense of an incarnation. This heresy, which arose in the first centuries of the Church, was still alive in Chrysostom's age, as he himself testifies in homily eleven, col. 79.
Chrysostom often arms and fortifies his hearers against older heretics, because members of their families still survived in his own age and frequently clashed with Catholics. And he had to struggle not only with them, but also with the heathens, who still survived in great numbers and were in conflict with the Catholics. Therefore, he prepared them for such contests in homily 17, col. 112 et seq. Not only did many of the common heathens attack the Christians they met; but some of the philosophers of the heathens wrote books against the Christian religion, which the holy doctor commemorates in col. 113 et seq.
But although he frequently commemorates and chides the heathens and those heresies, he applies the greatest effort in refuting the Anomoeans, sometimes by repelling their objections and demonstrating weapons to the hearers, sometimes by exposing their arrogance and insanity, as in Homily 16, col. 106.
A John states that he is unworthy to untie the strap of his sandal. Yet the enemies of the truth break out into such insanity as to claim that they know him as he knows himself. What is worse than this madness? What is more furious than this arrogance?
These daily skirmishes, then—which arose everywhere among the common people—were directed chiefly against the Anomoeans. They were by far more numerous and rose up more fiercely to engage in these contests; they used to twist those things which Christ said more humbly as a man, so as to diminish His divinity and prove that He was far inferior to the Father. Thus, in Homily 30, col. 172, they would twist this passage: *He who comes from above is above all. And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony* (John 3:31-32)—they would twist this passage, I say, these fugitives from the light, to argue that He was inferior to the Father. But these and similar sayings, Chrysostom says, Christ offers as a man, just as are also these: *As I hear, I judge; and, What I have heard from my Father, I speak; and, What we have seen, we speak* (John 5:30; 8:26; 3:11). For it is most certain that Christ often spoke as a man; but it is no less certain that He very often said many things as God, and as equal to the Father; as when He says, *I and the Father are one*; and, *I am in the Father, and the Father in me*; and, *That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father*; and, *As the Father knows me, I also know the Father*; and, *He who sees me, sees the Father*; and, *If you had known me, you would have known my Father also* (John 10:30; 10:38; 14:9; 14:7). Elsewhere, too, He shows Himself to be both equal to the Father and God.
From this, however, arose the fact that the Jews accused Him, rose up against Him, and indeed wished to kill Him—*not only because He was breaking the Sabbath, but also because He said that God was His Father, making Himself equal to God* (see Homily 38, col. 215). To this, indeed, the heretics replied that Christ did not make Himself equal to God, but that the Jews had suspected that He did. But against this, Chrysostom hurls weapons at the head of the heretics and repels them in such a way that he leaves them no loophole for escape. He argues thus: The Anomoeans admitted that the Jews thought Christ was making Himself equal to God; nor could they deny that Christ had said many things which would entirely lead to this opinion; for example, that saying: *I and the Father are one*; and *I am in the Father, and the Father in me*; and, *He who sees me, sees the Father*; and many similar things which we have brought forward above. To these, very many things could be added, by which both the Jews and anyone else who heard Christ would necessarily think that He was showing Himself to be equal to God the Father and truly God. If, therefore, He were not equal to the Father, He would not be truly God: could He—whom the Anomoeans themselves confessed to be pious, holy, and just—have left the Jews in such an opinion, namely, that He was saying that He was equal to God the Father and God? Would He not have removed them from such an opinion and said that He was neither equal to the Father nor truly God? Certainly, He could not have refrained from such a declaration unless He were a fraud and a deceiver, which is impious to say. He, however, insists on the contrary in these same things always, and confirms His equality with the Father with new sayings.
Yet it is true that Christ, in those sayings which prove His divinity, His equality with the Father, and His consubstantiality, mixes in many humble things—partly because He often spoke as a man and was showing Himself to all mortals as an example of modesty and humility; and partly also for that which Chrysostom often hints, that He might gradually lead back and recall to a better life the Jews, those obstinate men, hostile to Him, who were seeking an occasion to accuse Him and who could not bear this doctrine of the divinity and consubstantiality of Christ. And yet He never retracted any of those statements which demonstrated His equality and consubstantiality with the Father, such as those: *I and the Father are one*; and, *I am in the Father, and the Father is in me*; and, *That all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father*; and, *As the Father knows me, and I know the Father*; and, *He who sees me, sees the Father*; and, *If you had known me, you would have known my Father also*; nay, even if He mixes in humble things at times, He repeatedly adds others which confirm that He is truly God and consubstantial with the Father.
Wherefore there is need of much caution, lest anyone run into snares B or fall into precipices. For the result proves that precipices are set on both sides for those who trust in their own understanding and do not cling to the Church of God. For Sabellius, attending to the sayings of Christ in which He indicated that He was equal and consubstantial with the Father, from a badly understood consubstantiality destroyed the distinction of persons and said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were one and the same; Arius, however, from the humble sayings of Christ, deflected into the opposite impiety when he said that the substance of the Father was one thing and the substance of the Son another, and that the latter was inferior to the former. Thus, for those who do not hold the anchor of the Church, shipwreck is always to be feared.
Let these things suffice: for if we were to produce all the noted passages which those impious Anomoeans plucked from the Gospel of John to defend their heresy, the discourse would extend too far. If we were to recount the things which Chrysostom brings forward to repel weapons of this kind, there would be no end to the speaking. There is one thing in which industry would perhaps not be spent in vain: in reporting, asserting, and illustrating those passages which are found in the Gospel of John suitable for asserting and demonstrating the divinity of Christ, His equality with the Father, and His consubstantiality. Chrysostom indeed pursued this not carelessly in this commentary; but he did it far more fully and ardently in those twelve Homilies against the Anomoeans, which you have edited in the first Tome. Where, C as he himself says—nay, as he invited them to descend into the arena against him—with the Anomoeans themselves for the most part present and listening, as you may see in col. 406 et seq., he undertook this fight, where not only his eloquence shines forth, but also the force of his arguments. There he repels the weapons and objections of the heretics with such powerful responses that you will scarcely find an equal athlete, and you will rightly admit that these orations against the Anomoeans are to be numbered among the most excellent works of Chrysostom.
PREFACE. V. 1. How highly Suidas valued the Homilies of Chrysostom on John. 2. Passages of his cited by the Council of Chalcedon, Theodoret, Ephraem of Antioch in Photius, and Facundus of Hermiane. 3. Why Chrysostom omitted the story of the adulterous woman.
A Suidas enumerates his Homilies on John when he says: "He is said to have written many things: among his works, the books on the Priesthood excel in sublimity, diction, and elegance, as well as in the composition of their names. The Commentaries on the Psalms of David, the Annotations on the Gospel of John, and the Commentaries in the same way on Matthew, Mark, and Luke, etc., compete with them." Such is Suidas, and such, perhaps, were others in the time of Suidas. Truly, however, the opinion seems not to have been the same in our age and in the preceding one, as many do not account these Commentaries among those works of Chrysostom in which he uses a ready and flowing abundance of words. And in truth, Suidas could not have been looking to these sermons when he said: "His tongue surpassed the cataracts of the Nile in abundance of speech. No one was ever so adorned with the riches of eloquence and fruitfulness; and so, he alone obtained the golden and divine name without blemish." For in these sermons on John, the method of preaching is far different than in his others. Here he states matters more briefly and concisely, because his scope was otherwise—namely, to instruct his hearers concerning the Gospel of John, which was on the tongues of all and even of the heretics, and to prepare them to repel the darts of his adversaries.
2. These Commentaries are also cited with praise by other writers—namely, by the Council of Chalcedon, by Theodoret, by Ephraem of Antioch in Photius, and by Facundus of Hermiane in the place which we have already mentioned above.
The Council of Chalcedon, Tom. 4 Conc., p. 830: "S. John Chrysostom on John." For what does he add? "And he dwelt among us": as if to say, do not suspect anything absurd from this phrase. "It came to pass"; for he does not speak of a change in the immutable nature. You have this passage in Homily eleven, col. 80.
Theodoret, Dial. 1, T. 4, p. 32, cites this passage of Chrysostom: "Therefore when you hear 'the Word was made flesh,' do not be troubled nor yield: for the substance did not fall into flesh." You have this passage also in Homily eleven, col. 79.
Ephraem of Antioch B in Photius, Bibliotheca, cod. 229, p. 803: "John Chrysostom, explaining the Gospel of John in the eleventh Homily, testifies saying: In unity and conjunction, the Word who is God and the flesh are one without any confusion or removal of substances." But you have this passage in col. 80. Here you also see that Ephraem rightly numbers it as the eleventh homily, just as it is numbered in the Manuscripts, and in Savile, and in our own Edition. In the Morellian and other Editions, however, it is called the tenth.
3. Now let it be asked why John Chrysostom omitted the story of the adulterous woman in these commentaries, which story comprises the beginning of the eighth chapter of John up to the twelfth verse. Chrysostom, however, in Homily 52, col. 289, where he begins to explain chapter 8, having omitted this story of the adulterous woman, begins from these words of the same chapter: "I am the light of the world," which are recorded in the twelfth verse of the same chapter. Why, therefore, having omitted this story, does he proceed to what follows? It is certain that this story was missing in some copies, regarding which matter one must look to the critics who have treated the Gospel of John, and specifically Sixtus of Siena in the Bibliotheca to the Gospel of John, book 6, annotation CXCVIII. Hence some have rashly judged that this first part of the eighth chapter should be excluded, while all others rightly pronounce that it ought to be retained. But the question is, as I have already said, why Chrysostom in Sermon 52 omitted it. He certainly may have done so because this story was not contained in his copy, or because he thought it not conducive to the matter to expound this story to a race too much given to adulteries, as is argued from his sermons, or for some other reason unknown to us. Whether or not this story was in the copy of Chrysostom, we cannot investigate from his writings. For I do not recall seeing this story read or mentioned anywhere in the writings of Chrysostom. For what is in the Morellian Edition, Homily 60, which is now 61, p. 389, B, in the Latin interpretation: "But that they should ask for the sake of C not learning, is evident not only here, but in many places, as when they asked whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar, and whether the adulteress should be stoned; and when they questioned about her who had been caught having had seven husbands," that crept in through the fault of an old translator. For those words, "and whether the adulteress should be rejected" (or, as the Greek most poorly expresses it, καὶ ὅτε περὶ ἀφέσεως γυναικὸς διελέγοντο), which are held thus in the Morellian Edition and in all other copies, both printed and manuscript, and are doubtless to be rendered thus: "and when they were discussing about the rejected wife." And so we have detected no trace of this story in Chrysostom thus far. Whence perhaps the suspicion might arise that the story was not in the Antiochene copies: which would contribute nothing to diminishing his authority. For it was read in the whole West, in Africa, in the Church of Alexandria(a), which was the second in the Christian world, and also in all of Greece, with few places excepted. Whence the author of the Synopsis, which circulates among the works of Athanasius, confirms that this story is contained in the Gospel of John with these words, dealing with this very passage: "Here he deals with the woman who was accused of adultery." I think, therefore, that this story was absent from the Antiochene copies: for I do not see why, if it had been read, Chrysostom would have skipped it purposely. Let these things be sufficient.
(a) Yet even Cyril of Alexandria himself omits it. ED.