Andrea Sterk
Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (excerpts)
From "Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity", Harvard University Press.
John Chrysostom: The Model Monk-Bishop in Spite of Himself
First Part
Despite a certain ambivalence he expressed about both the status of monks and the qualifications of bishops, perhaps no one better exemplifies the spread and influence of the monk-bishop ideal in the generation after Basil the Great than John Chrysostom. The notion of the model bishop that John himself delineated did not precisely coincide with later developments or with the emphases of those who appealed to John as an example. Nevertheless, his own writings and the depictions of his life and ministry by later admirers served to advance a monastic model of leadership in the church.
To a great extent John's life followed the pattern of the famous monk bishops of Cappadocia. Born in Antioch to a fairly wealthy and educated family, John studied for a time under the famous rhetorician Libanius. Despite extraordinary gifts and the potential for a promising career in law or the civil service, in his late teens John abandoned pagan learning and chose instead to study the Scriptures and theology. He was baptized in 368, was singled out by Meletius of Antioch for his admirable character, and served in some capacity as an assistant to the renowned bishop for a period of approximately three years(1). Palladius, John's fifth-century biographer, says nothing about the precise nature of John's responsibilities or connection with Meletius, but a brief account of this period in Socrates' Church History offers some interesting and relevant information that is corroborated in John's own writings. The fifth-century historian does not mention the influence of Meletius at this point in John's life. Rather, he reports that when John was on the verge of entering the legal profession he was put off by "reflecting on the restless and unjust course" of those who pursue such careers. As a result, Socrates continues,he was turned to the more tranquil mode of life, which he adopted, following the example of Evagrius ... Accordingly he laid aside his legal habit, and applied his mind to the reading of the sacred scriptures, frequenting the church with great assiduity. He moreover induced Theodore and Maximus, who had been his fellow-students under Libanius the sophist, to forsake a profession whose primary object was gain, and embrace a life of greater simplicity. Of these two persons, Theodore afterwards became bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and Maximus of Seleucia in Isauria. At that time being ardent aspirants after perfection, they entered upon the ascetic life, under the guidance of Diodorus and Carterius, who then presided over a monastic institution [asketerion]. The former of these was subsequently elevated to the bishopric of Tarsus... Now John was then living on the most intimate terms with Basil, at that time constituted a deacon by Meletius, but afterwards ordained bishop(2).
I have cited this passage at some length because of its particular bearing on John's early exposure to models of asceticism and leadership. Reflecting back on this period in his " De sacerdotio", John describes his intention "to pursue the blessed life of solitaries and the true philosophy" along with his friend Basil(3). However, he also reveals that he was living at home with his mother at this time, for her entreaties dissuaded him from his plan to lodge with his fellow student and friend. On the one hand, then, the word asketerion in Socrates' account should not be understood as any kind of monastery; on the other hand, it clearly encompassed more than the necessary academic training for those aspiring to careers in the clergy(4). Nor should this period be viewed merely as a natural step for John in his pursuit of a clerical career, a socially acceptable and financially remunerative profession(5).
Though a career in the church by the end of the fourth century was a respectable alternative for educated, well-born young men, we must not overlook the distinctively ascetic component of the community of disciples gathered around Diodore and Carterius. J.N.D. Kelly has argued that the group to which John belonged resembled the characteristically Syrian bnay qyama, literally "sons of the Covenant," discussed in Chapter 1(6). These young men might live with the clergy of a local church or remain at home, but members of such brotherhoods committed themselves in a covenant to Christ and to a life of celibacy, prayer, and renunciation. They served the clergy in various pastoral and liturgical functions and therefore formed a natural pool from which local bishops might draw to fill clerical vacancies in the church. We find hints of the kind of life John's ascetic circle pursued in his letter Ad Theodorum lapsum, probably written c. 368 to entreat his young friend Theodore to return to the brotherhood he had recently abandoned for more worldly pursuits. The community was clearly committed to ascetic life as well as serious study of the Scriptures. John refers to a register or enrolment list of brothers (katalogos ton adelphon) from which Theodore has blotted out his name, and he speaks of a covenant made with Christ (pros ton Christon sunthekas katepatesas) involving prayer, celibacy and various forms of self-denial(7). Though there is no mention of a vow of any kind, several passages in the letter describe the common values and elements of the daily routine of the young men that are reminiscent of monastic life. Reminding his lapsed friend of his former manner of life, John writes:
Delicacy of food was disregarded and extravagant attire disdained, all pride was put down, and all zeal for profane wisdom was wholly transferred to the divine oracles; whole days were spent in reading, and whole nights were devoted to prayers; no mention was made of the glory of your patrimony, nor any thought taken of wealth. You knew that to clasp the knees and run to the feet of the brothers is superior to all high birth (8).
While Diodore of Tarsus is best known as a biblical scholar, particularly for his emphasis on a more literal and historical interpretation of Scripture that characterized Antiochene exegesis, he was also a noted ascetic. Indeed he was so austere in his practice of ascetic disciplines that he harmed himself physically through excessive rigor, a fact that provoked the scornful chastisement of Emperor Julian and a pattern that would be followed by John himself(9). Evidence that Diodore had been John's teacher and spiritual mentor for some time is supplied not only by Socrates but also by John himself in a speech given in Diodore's honour some years later. Preaching to his congregation in Antioch c. 392 John refers to Diodore, at that time already a bishop, as his teacher and spiritual father (10).
Reflecting on their earlier relationship while John was still serving as a deacon in Antioch, he remembers that Diodore himself used to call him the "staff of Moses," a phrase suggesting that both men, like the Cappadocians, viewed the Old Testament patriarch as a model of ecclesiastical leadership. John describes the bishop's previous praise of him, for which he now seems to be returning the favour, as a demonstration of Diodore's philoteknia. He goes on to praise his mentor's ascetic virtues and teaching of the Scriptures, comparing him with such biblical figures as Elijah and John the Baptist(11). Finally, it should be borne in mind that at the time of their early association Diodore was already celebrated as an ascetic and a biblical scholar and was an ordained priest of the church at Antioch, where he had assumed additional pastoral and administrative duties during the absences of the exiled Bishop Meletius.
Thus, although some of the details remain blurred, John seems to have passed his earliest formative years as a committed Christian in the context of a group of like-minded ascetics who were both ardent students of Scripture and highly involved in service to the church. One of the mentors of these devoted young men was a master of asceticism and a teacher of the biblical text. This same Diodore, who corresponded amiably with Basil of Caesarea (12), was closely connected with both Bishop Meletius of Antioch and his successor, Bishop Flavian. He served actively as a priest during John's youth and young adulthood and would later become bishop of Tarsus (378). Moreover, John himself, as well as each of the other three young men mentioned by Socrates as forming part of Diodore's scholarly, ascetic coterie -Theodore of Mopsuestia, Maximus of Seleucia, and Basil (most likely) of Raphanea- would all eventually rise to the Episcopal dignity.
Toward the end of this three-year period during which Chrysostom was both studying and serving as the bishop's personal assistant, Bishop Meletius ordained him lector. Before receiving any further promotions, however, the young man retreated to the neighbouring mountains to pursue a life of strict ascetic discipline under the tutelage of an aged Syrian hermit. So much we learn from Palladius, though the facts remain sketchy at best(13). Judging from some of John's own reflections on this period, his environment might best be described as semi-eremitic, for he was clearly in contact with other monks besides his elderly ascetic mentor(14). After four years in this setting, John retreated into even greater solitude, living for another two years alone in a cave. During this time his ascetic rigors so damaged his health that he was forced, according to Palladius, to return to the city Thus, after approximately six years of monastic withdrawal in the mountains and caves, John returned to Antioch, where he continued to serve the church under Bishop Meletius. In 381 he was ordained deacon, in 386 priest, and in 398 he reluctantly accepted consecration as bishop of Constantinople. His tenure in Episcopal office would be quickly overshadowed by imperial and ecclesiastical intrigues in which he was involuntarily enmeshed. Throughout his ecclesiastical career, however, Chrysostom was renowned not only as a great preacher but as also a zealous reformer and a strong advocate of the monastic life.
Before examining Chrysostom's magisterial work On the Priesthood, we would do well to consider a few earlier writings that reflect directly on his premonastic and monastic experience and that will help to illumine our consideration of his later, mature treatment of church leadership. Two of his earliest writings, " Comparison between a King and a Monk" and "Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life" deal extensively with the subject of monasticism(15). In fact their themes and emphases are so similar that despite a considerable difference in style between the two treatises, they have often been ascribed to the same period of John's career, the years immediately following his return from monastic solitude(16). In view of John's very technical use of the synkrisis, one of the progymnasmatic forms traditionally taught in schools of rhetoric, as well as his use of phrases from the speeches of Libanius, Kelly has argued that the Comparatio belongs to John's premonastic period, when he had just completed his study of rhetoric and while he was still under the influence of Diodore's ascetic school. Both works express a broader apologetic against contemporary paganism in Antioch." John defends Christian monasticism against its pagan despisers, presenting monastic life as a heavenly politeia rivalling the Hellenic ideal of the city and the benefits of Greek culture. Especially in the Comparatio, the monk rather than the pagan emperor represents the ideal of the true philosopher. John clearly views the ascetic life as the ideal for all leaders, civil as well as ecclesiastical. In "Against the Opponents", for example, he notes "even in government you will see that those who become famous are not the ones who live in wealth, luxury, and abundance, but rather those who live a life of poverty, simplicity and modesty"(18). Finally, both treatises also present monasticism as the angelic life, therefore as the Christian way of life par excellence(19). They function as protreptic works inciting Christians and pagans alike to abandon the pursuit of wealth and worldly success and to embrace the true philosophical life of the monk.
Against the Opponents is particularly relevant to our discussion of ascetic ideals and the church, for besides revealing his esteem for ascetic life, which persisted throughout his career despite certain caveats, it also gives indications of John's early association of monks with the broader Christian community. The treatise was obviously written in the context of some opposition and hostility toward monks on the part of pagans and even Christians in Antioch. In response to this antimonastic spirit Chrysostom portrays monasticism as the authentic life of all true Christians.Instead of being persecuted, monks should be the subjects of imitation, he argues. Not only are they paragons of Christian perfection against a backdrop of urban corruption, but they represent the highest ideals of Hellenic culture as well, for they embody the virtues of the noblest pagan philosophers(20). They also exemplify the true goals of Hellenic paideia. Even many great pagans despised or belittled the study of rhetoric, devoting their lives instead to "the branch of philosophy concerned with behaviour"(21). The end of paideia is to form young people in virtue, Chrysostom suggests, a goal supremely promoted by monastic training and all too often undermined by contemporary rhetorical education. Indeed a liberal arts education, so cherished by cultured Christians as well as pagans, is unnecessary and often invidious to faith. Parents should therefore entrust their children to monks for their nurture and training(22).
John does not believe the monastic life is the only means of salvation, but the type of life the monks lead is the standard for all Christians. "You deceive yourself and are greatly mistaken if you think that there is one set of requirements for the person in the world and another for the monk ... Nor do the Scriptures know anything like this, but they want everyone to live the life of monks"(23). Considering the tremendous difficulty of living virtuously in the world, the good parent dares not spare his child the aid of a monastic upbringing. Realizing, no doubt, the hardness and impracticability of such a recommendation, later in the treatise John softens this proposal by suggesting that children be so committed only for a time, with the assumption that they will eventually return to their church and community ready to serve.
This concession also reveals the close connection already present in John's thinking between monks and Christians living in the world. "Therefore, let us call them back only when they have become strong and able to render service to others," he advises. "Then you will see the benefits of philosophy when they heal people suffering with incurable diseases, when they are hailed as benefactors, patrons and saviours to all, when they live like angels among people on earth, when everyone turns to look at them." Elsewhere in the treatise he presents a similar vision of monks as patrons and advisers of emperors, comforters of those who suffer, and models for Christians living in the world(24). In fact he assumes that many would live and serve actively in the city were it not for the persecution they faced there on account of their righteousness and the threat that urban evils posed to their philosophy(25) John's convictions about the necessary involvement of monks in the life of the church are by no means limited to this early tract. He is explicit in many later homilies about the crucial roles monks have to play, upholding the church in prayer, engaging in charitable work, evangelising, serving as witnesses to God's salvation and coming kingdom and as models for all Christians(26). In fact, it is noteworthy that Chrysostom devoted no single work to monasticism as a separate institution. He treats the concerns of monastic life only with reference to the life and mission of the church as a whole.
It may be precisely because of the failure of monks to serve the broader Christian community as he envisioned that John became slightly disillusioned or at least sobered with respect to the monastic vocation. While he maintained his enthusiasm for monastic ideals throughout his life, fairly early in his ecclesiastical career he expressed disappointment about certain characteristic foibles of monks. Several passages of his treatise "De compunctione", probably composed shortly after
"Against the Opponents" and likely during John's deaconate (381-386), offer hints of his concerns(27). His criticisms centre on a disengagement from the world, or more specifically from the church, that John finds reprehensible. In particular he censures monks who decline ecclesiastical responsibility or complain about the constraints such ministry might impose: "For generally all the monks, if someone asks them to perform any [ecclesiastical] ministry, will immediately ask first of all whether they will find time for repose or whether the petitioner can secure them rest, and to and fro the word rest is bandied about. Why do you speak this way, oh man? Why do you who travel the steep path ask about rest, and you who command that one enter through the narrow gate seek the wide? What could be worse than such distortion (28) ?" He goes on to confess his own petty preoccupations when he first embarked on the monastic course, in light of the far more ponderous needs of the church and the world.
In the second book of this treatise he appeals to the examples of the apostle Paul and King David as models of the love of God and the contrition of heart that ought to characterize all Christians. While Against the Opponents lavished unmitigated praise on monks, his descriptions of biblical saints in "De compunctione" reveal a slightly tempered perspective. Isolation and solitude are no guarantee of virtue or sanctity, he suggests: only a heart inflamed with love produces such godly character. Such was the heart of Paul, who was truly "crucified to the world." While "moving about amidst cities, he was as absent from things present as we are absent from the bodies of the dead"(29). In a similar vein Chrysostom compares David explicitly with monks. Although he lived in the city and was burdened with the cares of administering the kingdom, "he maintained his yearning for Christ more ardently than those who live in solitude"(30). Solitude of purpose superseded solitude of place in John's thinking. This internalisation of the monastic ideal of withdrawal, similar to what we have seen in the writings of the Cappadocians, enabled him more easily to transfer monastic principles to the Christian community as a whole and to the ecclesiastical hierarchy in particular.
Though John's experience with monastic factions in Constantinople would moderate his praise for monks, his admiration for the monastic way of life, rightly pursued, never subsided. Even before his rise to the episcopate, however, his increasing preoccupation with life in the city as a deacon and priest in Antioch caused him to focus attention on the needs of the church in a very secular setting. Combined with the ascetic values nurtured during his training under Diodore and his monastic experience on Mt. Silpios, the context of the city, as much as the virtues of the monk shaped his model of leadership for the church. Similarly, his experience in church office came to influence his perception of monks and monasticism. In particular, he saw ever more clearly the importance of monks actively serving the Christian community and its leaders. Developing themes and concerns expressed in "De compunctione", at one point John breaks off his lofty reflections in "The Incomprehensible Nature of God" to comment on the proper relation of monks to the church, and particularly to the church hierarchy His comments reflect a growing concern about potential flaws or inadequacies of monastic life and a simultaneously strong emphasis on ecclesiastical authority, shifts in perspective that would increasingly mark his priestly and Episcopal career:
Let all monks, those who have taken possession of mountain peaks and who have crucified themselves to the world in every respect, hear these words. Let them, according to the power that is theirs, assist those in positions of leadership in the church; let them anoint those men with prayers in loving unity, being aware that if they do not assist in every way those who have been elevated by God's grace and have taken up cares of so many kinds, they have lost the total reward of their way of life and vitiated all their religious devotion(31.)
Chrysostom's fullest treatment of church office is undoubtedly his celebrated treatise "De sacerdotio", or "On the Priesthood". Written c. 390, when he had already been serving as a priest in Antioch for several years, the work purports to be an apology for his resistance to ordination some twenty years earlier(32). In the first of six books that comprise the dialogue, John recounts how he and his boyhood friend Basil had heard rumours of a plan to ordain them and agreed to act in unison if such an advance were made(33). Despite this pledge, John was convinced of his own unworthiness for the priesthood and certain of his friend's perfect suitability for the office. Thus, when the bishop came to consecrate the two young men, John fled while Basil unwillingly submitted to the yoke in the belief that his friend had done likewise. John later justified his deception by claiming that he was acting out of the highest interests of the church. Until recently most Chrysostom scholars have been highly sceptical of this mise-en-scene for the treatise, denying its historical basis. While the dialogue form of the work indeed gave John freer play with events, more recent scholarship has re-established the underlying historicity of his autobiographical allusions(34). It seems, then, that at the time of writing, John still faced some resentment about his earlier refusal of church office and wanted to defend his motivation for initially avoiding ordination.
Like the three Cappadocians, John was deeply troubled by the poor quality of ecclesiastical leadership in his day(35). He shared with Gregory Nazianzen a lofty view of church office along with a sense of his own unworthiness for this charge. But in "De sacerdotio", inspired at least in part by Gregory's Oration 2, Chrysostom's treatment of the priesthood is broader in scope(36). Both authors were motivated by the desire to justify their flight from the burden of ecclesiastical responsibility. John, however, sought also to deter the many who were overly ambitious for church office. The hurried selection and ordination of unfit leaders lay at the root of the great troubles in the church, John affirms in his treatise(37). Ecclesiastical authority itself is not bad, he declares, but rather the thirst for domination and power that has so infiltrated the clergy. Indeed bishops are often no better than civil rulers who distribute honours not according to virtues but on the basis of wealth, seniority, or prestige. As a result, men who are "evil and completely unworthy" are entrusted with the most holy and fearful things of God while those who are truly qualified are expelled from their offices (38).
Notes
1. Palladius, Dialogus de vita Iohannis Chrysostomi 5.1-15, in Anne-Marie Malingrey and Philippe Leclercq, eds., Palladios: Dialogue sur la vie de Jean Chrysostome, SC 341 (Paris: Éditions du cerf, 1988).
2. Socrates, ΗΕ 6.3.1-8, Günter Christian Hansen and Manja Sirinian, Sokrates Kirchengeschichte, GCS n.F 1(Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1995), 313-314; trans. Α.C. Zenos, Church History from A.D. 305-439, NPNF 2nd ser., 2 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Erdmans, 1979), pp. 138-139. Ιn a parallel passage Sozomen, ΗΕ 8.2, also omits mention of Meletius but includes Diodore, the asketerion, and Chrysostom's colleagues, Maximus and Theodore. The identity of the Evagrius in Socrates' account is uncertain. The Basil mentioned at the end is mistakenly identified as Basil of Caesarea by both Socrates and Sozomen. Among other things, the dating of this period (c. 368-372) makes such an association impossible, since the Cappadocian was serving as priest and then bishop in Caesarea at this time. This other Basil, Chrysostom's close friend, is very likely the future bishop of Raphanea in Syria and the addressee and rather reticent interlocutor of De sacerdotio.
3. De sacerdotio 1.2 in Anne-Marie Malingrey, ed. and trans., Jean Chrysostome: Sur le sacerdoce, SC 272 (Paris: Éditions du cerf, 1980).
4. David Hunter suggests that Diodore's school "may have provided the equivalent of seminary training" for aspiring clerics and that his relationship with Chrysostom may have been "more academic." See the introduction in David Hunter, Α Comparison between a King and a Monk / Against the Opponents of the Monastic Life: Τwο Treatises by John Chrysostom (Lewiston, Ν.Υ.: Edwin Mellen, 1988), p. 9.
5. Robert L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), pp. 6-7, suggests that John's change in career plans might well be understood in this light by contemporaries.
6. J. Ν. D. Kelly, Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995), pp. 18-20.
7. Ad Theodorum lapsum 1.4-5 in Jean Dumortier, ed., Jean Chrysostome: Α Théodore, SC 117 (Paris: Editions du cerf, 1966). John warns Theodore that for him to marry would be adultery, since he has been attached to a "heavenly bridegroom." See 3.23-33.
8. Ad Thedorum lapsum 1.48-55.
9. The text and English translation of the fragmentary letter appear as Letter 55 in The Works of the Emperor Julian, 3, trans. Wilmer Cave Wright, LCL (London, 1923), pp. 186-191. Julian attributes Diodore's ill health to the punishment of the gods rather than a sign of his ascetic or philosophic life. The passage is discussed by Α. J. Festugiere, Antioche païenne et chrétienne: Libanius, Chrysostome et les moines de Syrie (Paris: Éditions de Boccard, 1959), pp. 182-183.
10. Laus Diodori episcopi, PG 52.761-766. John twice refers to Diodore in this speech as his "father" as well as his "teacher."
11. Ibid., PG 52.761; 52.763-4.
12. See Basil, Letters 135 and 160; also his description of Diodore in Letter 244.3. Concerning their relationship and mutual influence see Robert Pouchet, "Les rapports de Basile avec Diodore," Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique 87 (1986): 243-272.
13. Palladius, Dial. 5.16-21.
14. See, for example, De compunctione 1.6, PG 47.403, where he speaks of leaving the city for "the huts of the monks" and performing tasks allotted by someone in a supervisory role. See Kelly Golden Mouth, pp. 28-35, for a reasonable approximation of John's routine during this period.
15. Comparatio regis et monachi, PG 47.387-392; and Adversus oppugnatores vitae monasticae, PG 47.319-386. Both treatises are available in English in Hunter, Τwο Treatises, pp. 69-76 and 77-176, respectively.
16. For example, Hunter, Τwο Treatises, pp. 37-39. See Kelly, Golden Mouth, p. 21, for a different argument.
17. On the significant pagan population see J. Η. W.G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).
For the substantial Jewish population see Wilken, Chrysostom and the Jews, pp. 34-65.
18. Adv. oppug. 2.5: Hunter, p. 107. The ascetic ideal as the standard for true leadership is a major theme of the brief Comparatio. See especially Comparatio 2: Hunter, pp. 70-72.
19. See Comparatio 3, and Adv oppug. 3.11, 19. On this dominant motif for monastic life in Syrian sources see Peter Βrown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), pp. 323-338.
20. See especially Adv. oppug. 2.4-5, where Chrysostom treats an assortment of classic Hellenic values and compares monks favourably with specific pagan philosophers. Hunter, Τwο Treatises, p.31; notes that Chrysostom's positive evaluation of pagan philosophers in this section of the work is unique in his writings and is related to his particular apologetic purpose here.
21. Adv. oppug. 3.11: Hunter, p. 150.
22. Much of Adv. oppug., Book 3, "Tο the Christian Parent," presents arguments supporting this practice.
23. Adv. oppug. 3.14: Hunter, pp. 156-157.
24. Adv. oppug. 3.18: Ηunteτ, p.168. See also 2.7-8. 25. Adv. oppug. 1.8.
26. On Chrysostom's understanding of the role of monks in these areas see Μ. Jean-Marie Leroux, "Monachisme et communauté chrétienne d'après saint Jean Chrysostome," in Théologie de la vie monastique: Études sur la tradition patristique, Théologie 49 (Paris: Aubier, 1961), pp. 143-190.
27. For suggestions about dating see Festugiere, Antioche paϊenne et chretienne, pp. 14-15 n. 2, and Kelly, Golden Mouth, pp. 42-43. For the text of De compunctione see PG 47.393-432.
28. De compunctione 1.6, PG 47.403. Presumably the rest mentioned here is intended for contemplation.
29. De compunctione 2.2, PG 47.412-413.
30. De compunctione 2.3, PG 47.414.
31. De incomprehensibili Dei natura 6.3, PG 48.752; passage translated in Blake Leyerle, Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives: John Chyrsostom's Attach on Spiritual Marriage (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001), p. 197. See Leyerle, pp. 196-202, for a fuller discussion of Chrysostom's praise for and criticisms of ascetics, especially in his homilies.
32. On the dating and alleged circumstances see the introduction in Anne-Marie Malingrey, ed. and trans., Jean Chrysostome: Sur le sacerdoce, SC 272 (Paris: Editions du cerf, 1980), especially pp. 10-13, 19-22.
33. De sacerdotio 1.3.
34. See Malingrey ed., Sur le sacerdoce, pp. 19-21; also Kelly Golden Mouth, pp. 27-28, who presents and responds to the major counterarguments.
35. See Α.-Μ. Malingrey "Le clergé d'Antioche vu par S. Jean Chrysostome," in Mélanges offerts a Jean Dauvillier professeur a l'Université des sciences sociales de Toulouse, (Toulouse: Centre d'histoire juridique méridionale, 1979), pp. 507-515.
36. Like Νazianzen in Oration 2, Chrysostom wrote De sacerdotio ostensibly as an apology for his flight. It was written long after the event, however, and it is much less autobiographical than Gregory's oration. For a direct comparison of the treatises see Hermann Dorries, "Erneuerung des kirchlichen Amts im vierten Jahrhundert: Die Schrift De sacerdotio des Johannes Chrysostomus und ihre Vorlage, die Oratio de fuga sua des Gregor von Nazianz," in Bernd Moeller and Gerhard Ruhbach, eds., Bleibendes im Wandel der Kirchengeschichte (Tubingen: Mohr, 1973). For a comparison with both Ambrose's De officiis and Nazianzen's Oration 2 see Rowan Greer, "Who Seeks for a Spring in the Mud? Reflections on the Ordained Ministry in the Fourth Century," in Richard John Neuhaus, ed., Theological Education and Moral Formation (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), pp. 38-54.
37. De sacerdotio 3.10, lines 22-25.
38. De sacerdotio 3.11, lines 59-62 and 82-91; for the comparison with civil rulers, 3.11, lines 8-23 and 66-71.
|
