The five homilies On the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, were also preached at Constantinople, (t. 11, p. 510.) In the second, he exhorts all to make the torments of hell a frequent subject of their meditation, that they may never sin; and to entertain little children often with some discourse on them instead of idle stories, that sentiments of holy fear and virtue may strike deep roots in their tender hearts. On traditions received by the church from the apostles he writes as follows: (Hom. 4, in 2 Thess. p. 532.) "Hence it is clear that they did not deliver all things by their epistles, but communicated also many things without writing: and these likewise deserve our assent or faith. It is a tradition: make no further inquiry." In the same Hom. 4, p. 534, he expresses how much he trembled at the thought of being, by the obligation of his office, the mediator betwixt God and his people; and declares, that he ceased not most earnestly to pour forth his prayers for them both at home and abroad. Hom. 4, ib., he severely reprimands those who reproach the poor in harsh words, adding to the weight of their affliction and misery.
The thirty-four homilies On the Epistle to the Hebrews, (t. 12, p. 1,) were compiled at Constantinople. In the seventh he shows, that the evangelical precepts and counsels belong to all Christians, not only to monks, if we except the vow of perpetual virginity: though also men engaged in a married state are bound to be disentangled in spirit, and to use the world as if they used it not. Hom. 17, ib. p. 169, he explains that the sacrifice of the New Law is one, because the same body of Christ is every day offered; not one day one sheep, another day a second, &c. (On this sacrifice see also Hom. 5, in 1 Tim. t. 11, p. 577, Hom. 3, contra Judæos. t. 1, p. 611. Hom. 7, contra Judæos. t. 1, p. 664. Hom. in St. Eustath. t. 2, p. 606. Hom. 24, in 1 Cor. t. 10, p. 213.) In Hom. 34, ad Hebr. p. 313, he expresses his extreme fears for the rigorous account which a pastor is obliged to give for every soul committed to his charge, and cries out, "I wonder that any superior of others is saved."
A letter to a certain monk called Cæsarius, has passed under the name of St. Chrysostom ever since Leontius and St. John Damascen; and not only many Protestants, but also F. Hardouin, (Dissert. de ep. ad Cæsarium Monachum) Tillemont, (t. 11, art. 130, p. 340,) and Tournely, (Tr. de Euchar. t. 1, p. 282, and Tract. de Incarnat. p. 486,) are not unwilling to look upon it as a genuine work of our holy doctor. But it is demonstrated by F. Le Quien, (Diss. 3, in St. Joan. Damasc.) Dom Montfaucon, (in Op. St. Chrys. t. 3, p. 737,) Ceillier, (t. 9, p. 249,) F. Merlin in his learned dissertations on this epistle, (in Mémoires de Trevoux an. 1737, pp. 252, 516, and 917,) and F. Stilting, the Bollandist, (t. 4, Sept. Comment. in vitam St. Chrys. §82, p. 656,) that it has been falsely ascribed to him, and is a patched work of some later ignorant Greek writer, who has borrowed some things from the first letter of St. Chrysostom to Olympias, as Stilting shows. Merlin thinks the author discovers himself to have been a Nestorian heretic. At least the style is so opposite to that of St. Chrysostom, both in the diction and in the manner of reasoning, that the reader must find himself quite in another world, as Montfaucon observes. The author's long acquaintance with this Cæsarius seems not easily reconcilable with the known history of St. Chrsysostom's life. This piece, moreover, is too direct a confutation of the Eutychian error to have been written before its birth: or if it had made its appearance, how could it have escaped all the antagonists of that heresy? Whoever the author was, he is far from opposing the mystery of the real presence, or that of transubstantiation, in the blessed eucharist, for both which he is an evident voucher in these words, not to mention others: "The nature of bread and that of our Lord's body are not two bodies, but one body of the Son," which he introduces to make a comparison with the unity of Christ's Person in the Incarnation. It is true, indeed, that he says the nature of bread remains in the sacrament: but it is easy to show that by the nature of bread he means its external natural qualities or accidents.
Among former Latin translations of St. Chrysostom's works, only those made by the learned Jesuit Fronto-le-Duc are accurate. These are retained by Montfaucon, who has given us a new version of those writings which Le Duc had not translated. The edition of Montfaucon in twelve volumes, an. 1718, is of all others the most complete. But it is much to be wished that he had favored us with a more elegant Latin translation, which might bear some degree of the beauty of the original. The Greek edition, made by Sir Henry Saville at Eton, in nine volumes, in 1612, is more correct and more beautiful than that of the learned Benedictin, and usually preferred by those who stand in need of no translation.
{274}
As to the French translations, that of the homilies on the epistles to the Romans, Ephesians, &c., by Nicholas Fontaine, the Port-Royalist, in 1693, was condemned by Harlay, archbishop of Paris; and recalled by the author, who undesignedly established in it the Nestorian error. The French translation of the homilies on St. John, was given us by Abbé le Merre: of those on Genesis and the Acts, with eighty-eight chosen discourses, by Abbé de Bellegarde, though for some time attributed to de Marsilly, and by others to Sacy. That of the homilies on St. Matthew, ascribed by many to de Marsilly, was the work of le Maitre and his brother Sacy. That of the homilies to the People of Antioch, was given to by Abbé de Maucroix in 1671. That of the saint's panegyrics on the martyrs, is the work of F. Durauty de Bourecueil, an Oratorian, and made its appearance in 1735.
St Chrysostom wrote comments on the whole scripture, as Cassiodorus and Suidas testify; but of these many, with a great number of sermons, &c., are lost. Theophylactus, Æcumenius, and other Greek commentators, are chiefly abridgers of St. Chrysostom. Even Theodoret is his disciple in the excellent concise notes he composed on the sacred text. Nor can preachers or theologians choose a more useful master or more perfect model in interpreting the scripture; but ought to join with him some judicious, concise, critical commentator. As in reading the classics, grammatical niceties have some advantage in settling the genuine text; yet if multiplied or spun out in notes, are extremely pernicious, by deadening the student's genius and spirit, and burying them in rubbish, while they ought to be attentive to what will help them to acquire true taste, to be employed on the beauties, ease, and gentleness of the style, and on the greatness, delicacy, and truth of the thoughts or sentiments, and to be animated by the life, spirit, and fire of an author; so much more in the study of the sacred writings, a competent skill in resolving grammatical and historical scruples in the text is of great use, and sometimes necessary in the church: in which, among the fathers, Origen and St. Jerom are our models. Yet from the conduct of divine providence over the church, and the example of the most holy and most learned among the primitive fathers, it is clear, as the learned doctor Hare, bishop of Chichester, observes, that assiduous, humble, and devout meditation on the spirit and divine precepts of the sacred oracles, is the true method of studying them, both for our own advantage, and for that of the church. Herein St. Chrysostom's comments are our most faithful assistant and best model: The divine majesty and magnificence of those writings is above the reach, and beyond the power, of all moral wit. None but the Spirit of God could express his glory, and display either the mysteries of his grace, or the oracles of his holy law. And none but they whose hearts are disengaged from objects of sense, and animated with the most pure affections of every sublime virtue, and whose minds are enlightened by the beams of heavenly truth, can penetrate the spirit of these divine writings, and open it to us. Hence was St. Chrysostom qualified to become the interpreter of the word of God, to discover its hidden mysteries of love and mercy, the perfect spirit of all virtues which it contains, and the sacred energy or each word or least circumstance.
The most ingenious Mr. Blackwall, in his excellent Introduction to the Classics, writes as follows on the style of St. Chrysostom, p. 139: "I would fain beg room among the classics for three primitive writers of the church—St. Chrysostom, Minutius Felix, and Lactantius. St. Chrysostom is easy and pleasant to new beginners; and has written with a purity and eloquence which have been the admiration of all ages. This wondrous man in a great measure possesses all the excellences of the most valuable Greek and Roman classics. He has the invention, copiousness, and perspicuity of Cicero; and all the elegance and accuracy of composition which is admired in Isocrates, with much greater variety and freedom. According as his subject requires, he has the easiness and sweetness of Xenophon, and the pathetic force and rapid simplicity of Demosthenes. His judgment is exquisite, his images noble, his morality sensible and beautiful. No man understands human nature to greater perfection, nor has a happier power of persuasion. He is always clear and intelligible upon the loftiest and greatest subjects, and sublime and noble upon the least." All that has been said of St. Chrysostom's works is to be understood only of those which are truly his. The irregular patched compilations from different parts of his writings, made by modern Greeks, may be compared to scraps of rich velvet, brocade, and gold cloth, which are clumsily sewed together with {}thread.
{275}