PREFACE TO THE HOMILIES ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
The Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans are reckoned among the more elegant and excellent of Chrysostom’s discourses. A For our doctor applied himself with greater care to their composition, because in this Epistle Paul had intermingled many things that are obscure and transcend human reasoning, which require an ingenious and energetic interpreter. To the explanation of those hidden mysteries which occur throughout this Epistle of Paul, our John applied such effort that one can scarcely find his equal in his other writings. And certainly there are many things in it concerning grace and predestination which tax the minds of the most learned, and which cannot be treated without the danger of error unless great caution is applied. It is marvelous how much Isidore of Pelusium praised these homilies; he writes as follows in Book 5, Epistle 32, to Isidore the deacon: "In the interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans, the wisdom of the all-wise John is most especially stored up; for I think—and let no one suppose that I speak out of favor—that if the divine Paul had taken up the Attic tongue to interpret himself, he would not have interpreted it otherwise than as the aforementioned renowned man did; for in such a way is the interpretation adorned with thoughts, beauty, and propriety of language." That is to say: In the commentary, especially on the Epistle to the Romans, are found the treasures of the sagacity of the most wise John. For I think—and lest anyone suspect me of speaking out of favor—that if the divine Paul had used the Attic language to interpret himself, he would not have explained it in any other way than the aforementioned distinguished man did; for indeed his interpretation is adorned by its sense, elegance, and propriety of words.
Other learned men also offer the same opinion regarding these discourses. In short, everyone detects here a great subtlety of genius, power and elegance of speech, and his native eloquence, and a style so similar to the other works of Chrysostom that no egg could be more like another, so that not even one person has doubted that this is a true and genuine work of Chrysostom.
There is not a small consensus among writers concerning the place where Chrysostom delivered these discourses. B For it is questioned whether he preached them at Antioch or at Constantinople. Savile is of the opinion that the Homilies on the Romans were delivered at Antioch, led by the authority of Photius, who says that the Antiochene homilies of Chrysostom are more elegant than the Constantinopolitan ones of the same. Therefore, when Savile saw that these discourses excelled in wit, vigor, and eloquence, he pronounced that they were composed and delivered at Antioch. But this critical note of Photius, which is often proven to be true, has some exceptions. For sometimes certain Constantinopolitan discourses of Chrysostom are to be preferred in elegance to some Antiochene homilies.
Tillemont, however, who is accustomed to treat things with greater accuracy and sagacity—having brought forward passages of Chrysostom from one side and the other, and having examined the arguments on both sides—remains in hesitation and does not dare to affirm in which city these discourses were delivered. But Chrysostom openly says that both he and his hearers have a pastor, specifically Flavian, by which he signifies that he is preaching as a presbyter at Antioch. Here are his words from the eighth homily (col. 464): "What do you say? You see us all being within the same walls, under the same church-roof, standing under the same sheepfold in harmony, no one fighting, under the same shepherd, crying out in common, listening in common to what is said, sending up prayers in common, and you recall fighting and sedition? C I recall fighting, and I am not raving, nor am I out of my mind. For I see what I see, and I know that we are under the same roof and [have] the same shepherd." That is to say: What do you say? You see us all within the same walls, in one and the same church-enclosure, living most harmoniously in the same sheepfold, no one fighting, under the same shepherd, shouting together, listening to the same recited words, sending up prayers together, and you record a fight and sedition? I record a fight, and I am not insane, nor am I out of my mind. For I see those things which I see, and I know that we are under the same enclosure and pastor. What is clearer? The preacher Chrysostom himself is under a pastor, just as the people are, namely under Flavian the bishop; and therefore he is addressing Antiochenes, not Constantinopolitans, of whom he himself, while he was at Constantinople, was always the principal pastor and bishop. In many previous homilies, D where we note that the supreme pastor is mentioned, we have immediately pronounced, with Tillemont, that the discourse was delivered at Antioch.
What, moreover, of the fact that he signifies even in another place that he is preaching at Antioch, and not obscurely? That certainly
under the guidance of Tillemont himself, we observe in the thirtieth homily (col. 666), where he thus addresses the people: "For if, entering after such an interval of time, where Paul remained, where he was bound, where he sat and discoursed, we are winged, and are transported from these figures to the memory of that day; while the events are yet recent, what is it likely that those experienced who received him with reverence?" That is: "For if we, entering after so long a space of time into the place where Paul remained, where he was bound, where he sat and discoursed, are raised as if gifted with wings, and are sent back to the record of that day by the very places themselves: how could those not be moved, who received him with piety, when the events themselves were present?" In that city, therefore, he was preaching where Paul had remained, where he addressed those who came to him, from whence the places where Paul had been bound were easily accessible; and John Chrysostom preached in only two cities, Antioch and Constantinople. Is it not entirely clear that the discourse here is about Antioch? For the Apostle never had a see at Byzantium.
Tillemont, however, still hesitates, and brings forward the reason for his hesitation from the end of the twenty-ninth homily, where Chrysostom calls himself a pastor, and, commemorating the duties of a pastor, closes thus: "These things, indeed, have been said by me concerning the best shepherds, not concerning myself and those like us, but if there be any such as Paul was, such as Peter, such as Moses. Let us, therefore, imitate these, both rulers and subjects." That is: "These things, furthermore, have been said by me concerning excellent shepherds, not of myself; but if there be anyone such as Paul was, such as Peter, such as Moses. Let us therefore imitate these, both those who govern and those who are subject." Led by this one testimony, Tillemont refrained from passing judgment and was unwilling to decide whether he had delivered these sermons at Antioch or at Constantinople.
I certainly praise the thoughtful deliberation of such a great man in passing judgment, which is found throughout his writings, so celebrated in the Christian world; but here he certainly seems to me to exercise excessive caution. Chrysostom says that he is under a shepherd, namely, under Flavian, the bishop of Antioch. It can be understood in no other way: that he was in that city where the reverent citizens were visiting the places or dwellings in which Paul had remained. Was this not the very same thing as if he had said he was preaching at Antioch? "But," you will say, "in another sermon on the Epistle to the Romans, he calls himself a pastor." Certainly, whether he called himself a pastor in the passage mentioned above could perhaps be called into controversy; but even if he did call himself such, what follows? Are not other priests, who are not bishops, but who have the care of Christ’s sheep, shepherds and called as such? John Chrysostom, indeed, in the Homily on the Earthquake and Lazarus, vol. I (col. 1029), which was undoubtedly delivered at Antioch, calls himself not obscurely a shepherd, and clearly a sower, a teacher, a physician, and a watchman.
Behold his words: "But you will say to me, 'And what benefit do you bring by speaking?' I bring benefit if anyone listens to me. I perform what is my own; the sower sows. The sower went out to sow; and some fell by the wayside, and some upon the rock, and some among the thorns, and some upon the good earth. Three parts perished, and one was saved; yet he did not desist from the farming, but because one was saved, he did not cease from husbandry... since even that shepherd, having left the ninety and nine sheep, ran to the one that had gone astray. I do not despise a man; even if it be but one, he is a man, a creature most precious to God." That is: "But you will say to me, 'What do you profit by speaking?' I profit, if any man hears me. I do what my office requires; I sow as a sower. He went out who sows to sow; some fell by the way, some upon the rock, some upon the thorns, some into good ground: three parts perished, and one was saved; yet he did not desist from agriculture, but since one was preserved, he did not cease from tilling the field... Since even that shepherd, who had left ninety-nine sheep, ran after the one that had gone astray. I do not contemn a human being: though he be but one, man is a creature most dear to God." 420 Would he who speaks thus not dare to call himself a shepherd? Nay, does he not truly and clearly call himself a pastor by putting forth these things? Shortly after, he adds: "I shall not cease from speaking, even if there be no one who hears. I am a physician, I apply medicines; I am a teacher, I have been commanded to exhort; for he says: 'I have given you as a watchman to the house of Israel.'" That is: "I will not make an end of speaking, even if there be none who hears; I am a physician, I apply remedies; I am a doctor, and I admonish; for he says: 'I have given you a watchman to the house of Israel.'"
In other homilies also, delivered at Antioch, he says that he exercises those offices which seem to pertain to the principal duties of bishops. Thus, in the twentieth homily to the people of Antioch, vol. II (col. 211): "Forty days have now passed. If, therefore, the holy Pascha passes, I will spare no one henceforth, nor will I offer exhortation, but a command and a judgment not to be despised... Therefore I forewarn and protest to all, that if, when I meet you privately, and take trial (and I shall certainly take it), I find some who have not corrected their fault, I will demand punishment, having commanded them to remain outside of the holy mysteries." That is: "Forty days have already passed: if therefore the holy Pascha also passes, I will grant no one further indulgence, nor will I offer admonition, but I will apply the force of authority and a severity not to be despised. I therefore announce to all and protest; that if I assemble you one by one, and making an investigation (for I will undoubtedly make one), I discover some who have not corrected this vice, I will inflict punishment, I will decree that they stand outside the holy mysteries." Would he who speaks such things not dare to usurp the name of pastor? But these things have kept Tillemont from passing judgment: whether the Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans were delivered at Antioch or at Constantinople.
C We, however, believe that they should be held as certain and verified: that they were delivered at Antioch. For Tillemont’s objection cannot move us from holding such an opinion. For why should Chrysostom—a point Tillemont grants—twice clearly indicate that he is preaching at Antioch, and why should we look for anything further? And why should we be led away from following Chrysostom's testimony by such a light conjecture? We cannot even by conjecture establish the year in which John arranged and delivered these homilies; we can say no one thing without the danger of error, except that Chrysostom could not have applied his hand and effort to these until after the year 388: for in those earlier years, in which he performed the office of preacher, he produced so many sermons and homilies that he would not have been permitted to add others to them.
Furthermore, since Julian, who defended the errors of Pelagius, had used Chrysostom’s authority to abolish original sin, Augustine—who brilliantly repelled this champion of heresy—brought forward many things gathered from the tenth homily of Chrysostom in book 1 against Julian, and these, having been translated into Latin, we have decided to set down here, with the places in the margin noted from which Augustine excerpted them.
D (a) Read also how this same holy man explains that very same passage of the Apostle where it is written: *By one man sin entered into the world* (Rom. v, 12). For there he treats with greater clarity than light the truth of this Catholic faith. Because it is too long to weave the whole of it into this work, I will touch upon a few things from it: “It is manifest,” he says, “that it was not the sin itself that came from the transgression of the law, but that sin which came from the disobedience of Adam—that was what contaminated everything.” And a little later: “Sin,” he says, “reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin. How did it reign? In the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one to come (Ibid., 14). Therefore, Adam is also a type of Christ. How is he a type, they ask? Because just as he became the cause of death for those born of him—even if they did not eat of the tree—which was introduced through food: so too Christ became the provider of righteousness for those who are of him, even if they have done nothing justly, which he bestowed upon us all through the cross” (b).
In another place in the same sermon: “So that when the Jew says to you,” he says, “How was the world saved by the virtue of one Christ? you may be able to say to him: Just as by one disobedient Adam the world was condemned. Although grace and sin are not equal, nor are death and life on a par, nor is God and the devil equal” (c). Likewise, after a little while: “But not as the trespass,” he says, “so also is the grace. *For if by the trespass of one many died, much more have the grace of God and the of the gift in the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, abounded unto many* (Ibid., 15). For what he says,” he says, “is of this sort: If sin prevailed, and the sin of one man; how will the grace of God—and not only the Father's, but also the Son's—not prevail even more? For this is much more reasonable. For one to be condemned for another does not seem to hold much reason; but for one to be saved for another appears both more becoming and more reasonable. If, therefore, the former happened, much more will the latter” (d). And likewise elsewhere in what follows: “Judgment,” he says, “was by one unto condemnation, but grace is out of many trespasses unto justification (Ibid., 16). This is the same thing,” he says, “as is said, that indeed sin was able to introduce death and condemnation; but grace did not kill only that one sin, but also the sins that entered after it.” And a little later concerning this same thing: “Because, therefore,” he says, “many more blessings have been introduced, and not only was that sin destroyed, but also all the rest, he shows by saying: *But grace is out of many trespasses unto justification.*” And after a little while he says: “First he said: For if the sin of one killed all, much more will the grace of one be able to save. After these things, however, he shows,” he says, “that not only was that sin destroyed by grace, but also all the rest: and not only were sins destroyed, but righteousness was also bestowed: and Christ profited not only as much as Adam harmed, but much more and greater” (e).
After these things, when he was dealing with baptism in the same sermon, he interposed the words of the Apostle, saying: *Or are you ignorant, brethren, that whoever of us have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death.* What is *We were baptized into His death*? That we too might die as He died. For baptism is a cross. Therefore, what the cross and the tomb were for Christ, baptism has become for us; even if not in the very same things. For He both died and was buried in the flesh; we, however, [died and were buried] to sin in both. Therefore he did not say: *United with His death*; but, *The likeness of His death.* For while both are death, it is not subject to the same thing: but the former is the death of Christ’s flesh, while ours is the death of sin. Just as, therefore, that is true, so too is this (f).
[422] To these it seemed good to add those things which Savile prefixed in his notes to his edition of Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistles of Paul. He thinks that Chrysostom’s Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans were delivered at Antioch, an opinion we have embraced. But he did not use the same criterion that we have used to defend that opinion.