§ 176. III. Златоустый – догматический учитель.

III. Chrysostom’s actual dogmatic works are few, and they again breathe with his concern for the moral state of the soul. In the book to Stagirius, he solves the question why, if there is providence, do the righteous suffer 1222? He spoke about the same thing in his book about the martyr. Vavile and against Julian, in conversations about fishery 1223. In 5 words about the incomprehensible, in denunciation of the Anomeans, followers of the daring Eunomius, the incomprehensibility of God is proven from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, and it is also derived from the thought and infinity of God. In 7 other words against the Anomeans, the consubstantiality of the Son of God with the Father is proven 1224. A wonderful book about the Holy Spirit, according to the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father 1225. In the essay, having spoken to Jews and pagans, the divinity of Christian teaching is proven by the fulfillment of prophecies and the actions of the sermon on the cross on the hearts of people, and in 8 words against the Jews, it is shown that Jewish rituals have been abolished, and therefore to perform them now means to act contrary to the will of God 1226. Chrysostom often spoke against the Manichaeans, defending the perfection of God's creation and the unity of the Creator of everything visible and invisible 1227; sometimes he spoke against other heretics 1228. There are many remarkable things for dogmatics: a) 2 conversations on the Nativity of Christ, where the blasphemies of the pagans and Manichaeans regarding the incarnation of the Son of God are exposed; b) 3 conversations about the devil, where in the first he shows that God rules the world, in the 2nd he teaches that it is our laziness, and not the devil, that harms us; in the 3rd, he solves the question: wouldn’t it be better if the devil were destroyed? The actions of the mystery of redemption 1229 are also shown here. c) explained the redemptive meaning of Christ’s death in conversations about the cross 1230. d) Important are the conversations about Judas, where the mystery of the Eucharist is spoken, and the letter to Caesarius against Apollinaris teaching about the same mystery; e) In 2 conversations on Pentecost, the actions of the Holy Spirit, the comforter in the human soul, are shown; conversation about the Holy Spirit, clearly speaks of the Divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit, His gifts and actions, in denunciation of the Macedonians and part of the Montanists and Manichaeans 1231. Everything that we could still expect for dogmatics from such an excellent teacher as Chrysostom could best be fulfilled and actually fulfilled in his interpretations of St. Scripture; here is St. John excellently explains the dogmatic sayings of St. Scripture, and in addition, often introduces reproofs against various errors. For example: as he explains to In. 16:4. “He will receive from mine, i.e. from my knowledge, one knowledge is mine and the Spirit, therefore what is in agreement with mine will speak. Everything, the tree and the mother, the Father, is My essence. So, since everything is Mine, and He will speak what belongs to the Father, it will not be otherwise than from Mine He will speak... He will receive from Mine, either from the grace that has descended on my flesh, or from the knowledge that I have, but not as one in need, but as instructed by others, but because our knowledge is one and the same.” Op. T. 2. r. 245.465.531. See note. 39. 43. 45. 51. Op. T. 3. r. 797. Montfaucon classified this work as a forgery. But this is arbitrary. – Not only Photius recognized this work as Chrysostom (Bibl. cod. 277), but also St. John Veccus, known for his disposition towards the opinions of papism, did not reject its authenticity. (Ar. Аllatium in Graecia orthod. T. 1). See note. 37. As a benefit from Montfaucon. Index rerum, sub vocab. Manichaeus. in T. 13. Especially against the Marcionites, Docetes, and Macedonians. See Montfauconii Diatriba de haereticis, quos freqventer memorat Chrisostomus. T. 13. p. 184–190. Also Index rerum sub. voc. Marcion et caet. See note. 37. Op. Chrys. T. 2. p. 245. See note. 51. 87. 90. Op. T. 2. Letter to Caesarius (T. 3. r. 742) was written specifically in order to distract Caesar’s friend from the teachings of Apollinarius. This letter aroused many disputes and writings, precisely with its response to the Eucharist. The papists do not like the review too much, which is not similar to their transubstantiation, and they strongly tried to reject its authenticity. They say in favor of authenticity: a) in addition to the manuscripts of Leontius, Anastasius is a contemporary of the confessor. Maxima, John of Damascus, St. Nicephorus, who cite passages from this letter, calling them the work of St. John, Archbishop Constant (Greek text of their words was published in Canisius Lection ant T. 1. p. 233, in Montfaucon, words of Leontius in May nov. Collect, vet. avct. T. 7. Romae 1833. p. 130. 435); b) The style and content do not say anything against authenticity; the style is the same as in other letters, not distinguished by grace; Montfaucon in vain points to the syllable of words against anomeas for comparison; There can be no comparison here. Papist Le-Quesne (Dissert. 3. in fronte op. S. Damasceni) tries with all his might to prove that Chrysostom could not speak about the incarnation as the letter to Caesarius says: but Montfaucon also admits that Le-Quesne took on too much. For comparison, let them read what was written against the Apollinarians by Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Athanasius. Apollinaris and Eutyches - father and son; what is said against one is also said against the other; c) About the Holy Eucharist in a letter to Caesar it is said this way: “as before, when the bread is consecrated, we call it bread; and when grace sanctifies it through the mediation of a priest, it is already free from the name bread, and has become worthy of the name of the body of the Lord, although the property (φυσες) of bread remained in it, there were no two bodies, but we preach one body of the Son: so here, with the penetration (ενεδρυσασης) of the body by the divine nature, both constitutes one Son, one person." If we impartially judge the meaning of these words, then there is as little in them that is favorable for Calvin and even for Luther as for the little-thoughtful Roman transubstantiatio. Against the first two they say the words: “we preach one body of the Son.” Against the latter, “the property of bread remained in him.” See other sayings of the saint about the Eucharist in Bes. on Cor. 24. § 1. 2. 4. in 27 Demon. § 2. 5. 28 Demon. §§ 1–2, where, by the way: αυτω δια του αρτου τουτου ενουμεθα. ρ. 213. T. 10. Tim. Demon. 2. § 4. on Matt. Demon. 82. § 5. 6. Of the papists, the authenticity of the letter was defended except by Basnage (Canisii Lect. T. 1. Amst. 1725. Harduin (Joh. Chrisostomi Ep. ad. Caesarium, gr. et lat ed. et notis ac dessertatione illustrata in Harduini oper. selectis, Amstel. 1709. Dupin (Nouv. Bibl. des avters Ecclesiast T. 3. p. 37. S. T. 19. p. You might be interested in: