|
The three following Homilies are closely connected in subject, and
the opening sentence of the third clearly proves that it was delivered
two days after the second; but it is impossible to say whether that
which is placed first was really delivered before the other two. It
must however have been spoken at Antioch, since Chrysostom refers at
the beginning of it to his sermons "on the obscurity of prophecies" in
which passages occur which clearly imply that he was not then a
Bishop. The second of the three homilies here translated was
delivered in the presence of a Bishop, as is clearly indicated by the
commencement, and as the third was as already mentioned delivered two
days after the second we may safely affirm that they were all spoken at
Antioch when Chrysostom was a presbyter there under the Episcopate of
Flavian.
They deal with errors against which Chrysostom throughout his life
most strenuously contended. In an age of great depravity there seem to
have been many who tried to excuse the weak resistance which they made
to evil, both in themselves, and in others, by maintaining that the
world was abandoned to the dominion of devils, or to the irresistible
course of fate. To counteract the disastrous effects of such
philosophy, which surrendered man to the current of his passions, it
was necessary to insist very boldly and resolutely on the essential
freedom of the will, on moral responsibility, and the duty of vigorous
exertion in resisting temptation. And Chrysostom did this to an
extent which some thought carried him perilously near the errors of the
Pelagian heresy. No one however has described in more forcible
language the powerful hold of sin upon human nature, and the
insufficiency of man to shake it off without the assistance of divine
grace. What he does most earnestly combat, both in the following
homilies and very many others, is the doctrine that evil was an
original integral part of our nature: he maintains that it is not a
substantial inherent force (dunamis enupostats). If evil was a part
of our nature in this sense it would be no more reprehensible than
natural appetites and affections. We do not try to alter that which is
by nature (fusei) sin therefore is not by nature, because by means of
education, laws, and punishments we do seek to alter that. Sin comes
through defect in the moral purpose (proairesis). Our first parents
fell through indolence of moral purpose (raqumia) and this is the
principal cause of sin now. They marked out a path which has been
trodden ever since: the force of will has been weakened in all their
posterity: so that though evil is not an inherent part of man's nature
yet he is readily inclined to it (oxurrephs pror kakian); and this
tendency must be perpetually counteracted by vigorous exertion, and a
bracing up of the moral purpose, with the aid of divine grace.
Profoundly convinced therefore on the one hand of a strong and
universal tendency to sin, but on the other of an essential freedom of
the will, Chrysostom sounds alternately the note of warning and
encouragement,--warning against that weakness, indolence, languor
of moral purpose which occasions a fall,--encouragement to use to the
full all the powers with which man is gifted, in reliance on God's
forbearance and love, and on His willingness to help those who do not
despair of themselves. Despair is the devil's most potent instrument
for effecting the ruin of man; for it is that which prevents him from
rising again after he has fallen. St. Paul repented, and, not
despairing, became equal to angels: Judas repenting, but
despairing, rushed into perdition.
|
|