Saint John Chrysostom as a participant in the Arian disputes

The 4th century in the history of the Christian Church became a time of unprecedented triumph of the Gospel preaching and at the same time - a time of the most difficult internal crisis of the Christian faith. The triumph was reflected in a decisive reorientation of the Roman Empire towards Christianity. At the beginning of the century, under Emperor Constantine, Christianity from a persecuted religion became a religion equal in rights with others. By the end of the century, things went so far that the Christian confession actually became the state religion within the Roman Empire. The Code of Theodosius the Younger (438) 1 only confirmed this state of affairs. But the change in the conditions of existence of Christianity coincided with an acute internal crisis of the Christian faith, which was subjected to an Arian interpretation that distorted its very essence. In Arian disputes for more than half a century from the mid-20s. IV century All the most prominent representatives of Orthodox theology took part. In the course of the Arian disputes, three periods can be roughly distinguished: 1) the activities of the founder of the heresy Arius from the beginning of the preaching of his teachings until his death (318–336), 2) the search for a compromise solution - the separation of the Omiusian and Omian parties, holding councils in Sardica (342) and Sirmium (357–359); 3) the emergence of Anomaeism - the latest version of Arianism, presented by two theologians - Aetius and Eunomius (c. 350 until the death of Eunomius in 398). Saint John Chrysostom took part precisely in the last period of the Arian disputes, and in its final phase. Twelve homilies related to the polemics with the Arians have come down to us. In the editio princeps of Fronto de Duca (1609), these homilies are collected together and entitled: Contra anomoeos 2, but not all of them are directly related to the Arian disputes. Usually these homilies are considered in two groups: 1) 1–5 on the incomprehensibility of God 3, 2) from 6 to 12 on consubstantiality, which only partially correspond to their name and are generally devoted to the substantiation of the Nicene doctrine of the equality of the Son with the Father in essence 4. The validity of this division is, among other things, confirmed by the manuscript tradition, in which the first five homilies are presented in a single cycle 5. Homilies against the Anomeans have very definite dates - the first group was created in 386 in Antioch, when Chrysostom was a presbyter, the second - in Constantinople, when John was already a bishop, and dates back to the time after 397 6. The first five sermons - on incomprehensibility - were delivered in the first months after Chrysostom's ordination as a presbyter in Antioch - from the beginning of September to December 20, 386 7. By the time they were uttered, Arianism in its Eunomian version already had a turbulent and dramatic history. It was Antioch that was the birthplace of Anomaeanism and Eunomianism, and it was here in the 350s. The preaching of Aetius began, enlisting the support of the ruling bishops Leontius and his successor Eudoxius. The teaching of Arius among the Anomeans received its completed form: they claimed that knowledge of the essence of God was available to them; it is expressed in one of His characteristics - unbornness. Christ, being the Son of the Heavenly Father, of course, does not fall under this characteristic, therefore, is not God. The external harmony and effectiveness of this teaching contributed to its spread. Soon, however, Anomeyism encountered significant difficulties. Eunomius, a follower of Aetius, became a bishop, and his teachings became the subject of church proceedings at a council in Constantinople in 360, to which Eunomius presented a rationale for his teachings, which he called the Apology. As a result, he was deprived of his pulpit and went into exile, where he continued to defend his teaching, writing by 380 the so-called Apology of the Apology. Meanwhile, his teacher Aetius died between 366 and 370, leaving behind him a popular exposition of his teaching in a work called Syntagma. Church theologians undertook broad theological criticism of Anomaeism: 1) Cappadocians: Basil the Great wrote “Against Eunomius” in 364 8. He was followed by Saints Gregory the Theologian 9 and Gregory of Nyssa, who responded to the second Apology of Eunomius in the treatise of the same name “Against Eunomius” 10, written c. 383; 2) Antiochians: Apollinaris of Laodicea 11; Diodorus of Tarsus 12; Theodore of Mopsuestia 13; 3) Alexandrians: Didymus the Blind 14; Saint Cyril of Alexandria 15, an unknown author who composed the anonymous dialogue “On the Holy Trinity,” long attributed to Saint Athanasius. Chrysostom continued the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, following them shortly after the great treatise of St. Gregory of Nyssa. The spread of the latter is usually dated to 383. By the time of Chrysostom's speech against Anomaeism in 386, this teaching had already been officially condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council, but its supporters still continued to exist. It is difficult to say how many Anomeans were in Antioch in the mid-80s, but these were not the remnants of a dead teaching, it was a living and active sect that confused the church community with the imaginary convincingness of its teaching. Comparison with the treatises of Saints Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa gives the most to determine the significance of Chrysostom's homilies in Arian disputes. J. Danielou successfully characterizes the different audiences to whom their works are addressed: "Two Cappadocians address theologians. Chrysostom addresses the Christian people" 16 . It is this circumstance that largely explains the genre of these works and the basis of argumentation of their authors. Basil wrote his treatise as preparatory materials for the church council in Lampsacus (364); Gregory's extensive treatise could only be addressed to a narrow circle of erudite theologians. Both of these texts are constructed as a consistent refutation of the well-known works that came out of the hands of Eunomius - the first and second Apologies. Both Cappadocians consistently destroyed the philosophical foundations of Anomaeism, which can be reduced to two main problems - the theory of knowledge and the theory of language. Saint John Chrysostom does not set himself the task of fundamentally criticizing Anomaeism. The peculiarities of oral preaching, addressed to a wide variety of audiences, do not allow this. He overthrows the most common ideas of Anomaeanism - the doctrine of the intelligibility of God - since he addresses his flock and those whom the teachings of the Anomeans plunged into theological perplexity. There is also no doubt that Chrysostom expected to be heard by the Anomeans themselves. He says that he had long been planning to enter into a dispute with heretics, but refrained from doing so in order to first secure the favor of the listeners: “I have long harbored a desire to talk with you about this, but I hesitated and put it off, seeing that many of those infected with this disease were listening to us with pleasure; not wanting to drive away the prey, I have until now kept my tongue from these competitions, so that, having attracted them more, then I could go out to fight; and since, by grace God, they themselves, as I heard, invite and challenge me to these competitions, then I boldly stepped out into the fight and took up weapons that destroy thoughts and every tribute charged to the mind of God (cf. 2 Cor 10:4,5)” 17. In relation to his opponents, unlike the Cappadocians, who usually do not skimp on strong expressions addressed to their opponents, John Chrysostom is guided by the logic of pastoral participation in the spiritual life of heretics. All five words about incomprehensibility end not with curses, but with lengthy calls for them to return to the bosom of the Church. The saint claims that it is not the heretics themselves that must be eradicated, but their errors. The souls of the Anomeans need healing, and the creations of their minds should be destroyed. The Anomei thus turn out to be for Chrysostom not so much rivals as lost sons. The strategy of the theological refutation of St. John boils down to the following. As the main position of the Arian doctrine, he takes one of the additional premises, on the basis of which the Arians prove the consistency of their teaching - the conviction that the Divine essence is accessible to perfect and complete knowledge. He overthrows the shocking statement of the Anomeans, who declared that they knew the essence of God no less and no worse than Himself: "... about His essence,” we read from Socrates Scholasticus, “God knows no more than we do. It cannot be said that He knows it more, and we know it less, but what we know about it, He generally knows the same; and on the contrary, what He knows, the same thing, without any difference, you will find in us" 18. In his refutation, Chrysostom uses the epistemological principle formulated by Basil the Great - we know that God exists, but we do not know that He exists 19. This principle operates not only in relation to theological subjects, but also in everyday life - "...I,” says St. John, “although I know a lot, but I do not understand the way of existence of objects. I know that God exists, I know that He exists holistically, but I don’t know how; I know that He is beginningless, unborn, eternal, but I don’t know how <...> I know that He begat the Son, but I don’t know how; I know that the Spirit comes from Him, but how - from Him, I don’t know; I take food, but how it is formed into blood, ichor, bile, I don’t know. We don’t understand what we eat and see every day, so how do we want to comprehend the very essence of God?” 20 - it is enough for us to know, - the Saint concludes, - that God exists 21. When constructing sermons on incomprehensibility, St. John Chrysostom uses a remarkable homiletical device. For each sermon, he selects some supporting text of Holy Scripture (usually from the New Testament) and develops his speech, focusing on it. Panagiotis Christou imagines the creation of homilies on incomprehensibility: they were not pre-written; Chrysostom pronounced them in church from the pulpit, having before his eyes only certain passages of Scripture 22. To understand the Saint’s thoughts, it is necessary to take this circumstance into account, otherwise the sequence of reasoning remains incomprehensible. Chrysostom is very attentive to the selection of his supporting texts and to their sequence. Thus, the first homily introduces polemics into the range of problems, focusing the attention of listeners on the peculiarities of human cognitive abilities. However, the homily begins with the theme of love, which is “the beginning, foundation, source and mother of all good” 23. At first glance, the connection between love and knowledge seems unexpected, but below the riddle is resolved by introducing into the text the 13th chapter of the First Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians. Then the Saint’s train of thought becomes clear, which establishes a certain correspondence between knowledge and the virtue of love. Chrysostom's tactical goal is to introduce the next necessary factor of theological certainty - the concept of faith. It is in Paul's letter that the concepts of faith and knowledge are reduced to a single sequence: “If I speak,” writes the Apostle Paul, “in the tongues of men and angels, but do not have love, then I am like a ringing brass or a sounding cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries, and have all knowledge and all faith, so that I can move mountains, but do not have love, then I am nothing <...> Love never ceases, although prophecies will cease, and tongues will be silent, and knowledge will be abolished. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; when the perfect comes, then that which is partial will cease (giving way to complete knowledge - P.M.). The Anomeans claim perfect knowledge, but the Apostle himself says that now our knowledge is flawed and imperfect. It will be complete, but in the next century, but now its insufficiency is made up for by faith and love. In the first homily the Saint lays out a continuation for his reasoning, which in the second homily will be devoted to faith. It is remarkable that this important theological concept is widely used among the Cappadocians, but among them it appears not in polemics with heretics, but in other areas of their activity. Saint Basil the Great, in particular, explains the concept of faith in the “Moral Rules,” explaining to his flock the foundations of church asceticism. For Chrysostom, the purpose of faith is to fill the lack of knowledge and turns out to be a valuable argument against the claims of the Arians: “whenever God reveals something, it should be accepted with faith, and not indulge in empty speculation” 24. In the second homily, the reference text of Scripture is Philippians 3:7–11: But what was an advantage for me, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. And I count all things but loss for the excellency of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; to know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the participation in His sufferings, being conformed to His death, in order to achieve the resurrection of the dead. The ninth verse is especially important: and be found in Him, not having your own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness that is from God by faith 25 . Obviously, here Chrysostom brings the concept of righteousness closer to the concept of knowledge. Thus, theological knowledge acquires a soteriological sound. However, the knowledge of God is not a product of human imagination, but of Divine revelation. Whoever relies solely on the powers of his mind to know God insults Him, since it is said about the truth: “the mind does not teach, but God will reveal” 26 . It is in this audacity of the human mind to comprehend the perfection of God with one’s own strength that the root of heretical error is revealed. The question naturally arises: how do we still obtain knowledge about God, even if it is relative and imperfect? Saint John speaks about this in his third homily about incomprehensibility. Returning again to the theme of the first homily - the incomprehensibility of the Divine essence - he extends its boundaries not only to human nature, but also to angels. The knowledge of the essence of God, says Chrysostom, is unknown even to the angels. They surpass man not in their knowledge of God himself, but in their awareness of His incomprehensibility. Here Chrysostom closely adheres to the apophatic tradition of Orthodox theology, putting forward a number of negative definitions of God: invisible, ineffable, unexplored, inaccessible, unthinkable, ugly, invisible, incomprehensible, incorruptible 27 . Blissful ignorance is that very preliminary knowledge (1 Cor 13) - άγνωσία. This is not agnosticism - do you honor what you don't know? - this is ignorance of the essence of God, but knowledge of His existence 28, for different things are to know something and understand how it works. However, even negative knowledge of God is righteousness from God by faith, God's truth, and not human. Achieving it is possible thanks to Divine condescension. Here John Chrysostom uses a category that is dear to him, the theological development of which belongs specifically to him. We are talking about the concept of Divine condescension (συγκατάβασις). The created beings closest to God - the seraphim (Isaiah 6:1,2) - cannot contemplate God in His being; only God’s condescension is available to their perception, which is also almost unbearable for them. The Greek lexeme συγκατάβασις primarily belongs to Christian writing. According to Tesaurus Linguae Graecae, the use of this word in various forms is 50% due to Chrysostom. P. Christou proposes that by συγκατάβασις we understand θεοφάνεια (“Epiphany”) δρασις όμοιόματος (“vision of the like”) 29 . Saint John gives his definition of this concept. It is noteworthy that it is this definition made by the young presbyter that is firmly included in the theological tradition of Greek authors, as indicated by the literal reproduction of Chrysostom’s definition in the Lexicon of Suda (10th century). “What is condescension?” asks John Chrysostom, “when God does not appear as He is, but shows Himself as much as the one who has to contemplate Him is able to do so, adapting the appearance of the Face to the weakness of those who contemplate” 30. In Chrysostom, the concept of condescension, well known in the previous theological tradition, takes on a new essential connotation: condescension is Divine energy, or, more precisely, God in His appearance to created beings, a phenomenon that is the only one accessible to comprehension; in other words, condescension is a manifestation of essence in energy. This understanding is confirmed by Chrysostom’s frequent use of the concept of condescension together with the concept of essence. God reveals Himself in His own descent to the perception of created beings, in other words, in His own descent (κατάβασις), or in the manifestation of Himself to His own creation. In this reading of the concept of condescension as energy, rich semantic possibilities open up: God reveals Himself as much, reveals Himself as much as He condescends to His creation, as much as we are able to perceive Him 31 . The general result of the polemical constructions of John Chrysostom can be summed up in this way: for polemics with the Arians, the most valuable content is the content of the first three homilies, which build before the listeners a visual picture of universal redemption and thereby the acquisition of complete knowledge: prophecies will cease, and tongues will be silent, and knowledge will be abolished, but love will not cease; so that with the righteousness of God through faith we may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may attain to the resurrection of the dead. Chrysostom in his polemics with the Arians is not an innovator; he does not create new methods of refutation, nor does he identify new weak points in the arguments of his opponents. In substantiating Orthodox teaching, he uses what has already been done by his great predecessors. However, in his oral sermon he manages to create a coherent and convincing refutation of anomaeism, accessible to unprepared listeners, and to offer the main antidote to this heresy and other rationalizing approaches to the mystery of the Holy Trinity. It consists in faith in the Divine existence, in the hope of gaining a share in future knowledge and in love, penetrating created being with uncreated Divine condescension. See: Codex Theodosii. XVI, 1.2 // Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains de Constantin... Thеodose II (312–438). Vol. I. Code Theodosien, livre XVI / Intr. et notes par R. Delmaire et F. Richard // Sources Chretiennes (hereinafter SC). No. 497. Paris, 2005. P. 114. Further, the Homilies against the Anomeans and the internal division into paragraphs are given according to this edition, repeated in SC No. 28 bis. Paris, 1970. Jean Chrysostome. Sur l "incomprehensibilite de Dieu. T. I (Homelies 1–5) // SC No. 28 bis. Paris, 1970 / Introduction de J. Dani-lou, texte et notes de A.-M. Malingrey. P. Christou narrows the circle of homilies of the second group, which are directly related to the Arian controversy, to three: 7–8, 11 - see: ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΥΣΟΣΤΟΜΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΑΚΑΤΑΛΗΠΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ / Εισαγωγή – κείμενον – μετάφρασις – σχόλια υπό Π. Χρήστου. Άθήναι, 1953. The point of view of Anna-Marie Malengrey seems more correct - only the 6th homilia in memory of Philogonus falls out of the general corpus of anti-Arian homilies (see: SC No. 28 bis. R. 65. Not. 1). SC No. 28 bis. P. 65. Not. 1. Right there. P. 9. Not. 1; Cr"stou P. E"sagwg" // IWANNOU TOU CRISOSTOMOU... S. 8–9. Basile de C-sar-e. Contre Eunome, suivi de Eunome. Apologie » Intr., trad. et notes de B. Sesbou- avec la collaboration pour le texte et l "introduction critiques de G. M. De Durand et de L. Doutreleau // SC Nos. 299, 305. Paris, 1982, 1983. Gregorius Nazianzenus. Adversus Eunomianos (orat. 27) // Gregor von Nazianz. Die funf theologischen Reden. Dusseldorf, 1963. S. 38–60. Gregorius Nyssenus. Contra Eunomium. Vol. 1–2 // Gregorii Nysseni Opera. Leiden, 1960. Philostorgius. Historia Ecclesiastica VIII, 12 // Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller. T. 21. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981. P. 114, Hieronymus. De viris illustribus. 120 // PL 23, 711A. Testimony of a Syrian ecclesiastical historian: Barhadbesabba. Historia Ecclesiastica 17 // Patrologia Orientalis. T. 23. Col. 315. See Vaggione R. P. Some Neglected Fragments of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Contra Eunomium // Journal of Theological Studies. T. 31. 1980. P. 403–470. Testimony of Blessed Jerome: Hieronymus. De viris illustribus 109, 120 // PL 23, 705A, 711A. In addition, according to the majority of modern researchers, it was Didymus who owned the IV and V books “Against Eunomius”, which already in the most ancient manuscripts followed the first three books that belonged to Saint Basil and were attributed to the latter, see: Clavis Patrum Graecorum. T. II. No. 2837. Cyrillus. De sancta trinitate dialogi, i-vii // Cyrille d'Alexandrie. Dialogues sur la Trinit№, 3 vols // SC No. 231, 237, 246. Paris, 1976, 1977, 1978. Dani-lou J. Introduction// Jean Chrysostome. Sur l "incomprehensibilite de Dieu. T. I (Homelies 1–5). P. 16–17. ... δ αυ παλιν εκείνος, τούτο εύρήσεις απαραλλακτως εν ημιν – Socrates. Historia ecclesiastica IV7.35–38. Basilius Magnus. Eristula 234.2 // Saint Basile. Lettres. T. 3. Paris, 1966. P. 43. ...? τὴv ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύvηv ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει. Οὐ λογισμός διδάξει, ἀλλὰ ὁ Θεὸς ἀποκαλύψει . Contra anomoeos II, 6. See Dani-lou J. Decree. op. P. 17–18. Χρήστου P. 1953 Σ῀ 86, not. 2. Τί δέ έστι συγκατάβασις; ״Οταν μη ώς εστιν ό Theod φαίνηται, άλλ' ώς ό δυνάμενος αυτόν вешріѵ οΐός τέ έστιν, ούτως εαυτόν δεικνύη, έπιμετρών τη των όρώντων άσθενείν της εψεως την έπίδειξιν. – Contra anomoeos III, 3. Cp.: Ad Theodorum lapsum 11, 54–57 – δειξις του πράγματος άκριβής (the descent was a phenomenon, not an exact indication of the being)； Adv. anom. 7 // PG 48. Col. 765: αυτός δε ό Θεός, τό δε φαινόμενον ουκ ην σαρκός άλήθεια, άλλα συγκατάβασις (angels and God Himself often appeared on earth in human form, and what appeared was not the tangible authenticity of the flesh, but condescension). Condescension is subsequently understood by Saint John as a synonym for oikonomia, the redemptive work of the Savior (Hom. contra anom. VI, VII, X), which is applied for three reasons: the human nature of Christ, the weakness of the listeners in perceiving the Divine greatness of the Savior, teaching Christians humility (Hom. X, 2).