.—His Character.
Chrysostom was one of those rare men who combine
greatness and goodness, genius and piety, and continue to exercise
by their writings and example a happy influence upon the Christian
church. He was a man for his time and for all times. But we must
look at the spirit rather than the form of his piety, which bore
the stamp of his age.
He took Paul for his model, but had a good deal of
the practical spirit of James, and of the fervor and loveliness of
John. The Scriptures were his daily food, and he again and again
recommended their study to laymen as well as ministers. He was not
an ecclesiastical statesman, like St. Ambrose, not a profound
divine like St. Augustin, but a pure man, a practical Christian, and a king of preachers. “He carried out in his own life,” says Hase, “as far as mortal man can do it, the ideal of the priesthood which he once described in youthful enthusiasm.” He considered it the duty of every Christian to promote the spiritual welfare of his fellowmen. “Nothing can be more chilling,” he says in the 20th Homily on Acts, “than the sight of a Christian who makes no effort to save others. Neither poverty, nor humble station, nor bodily infirmity can exempt men and women from the obligation of this great duty. To hide our light under pretense of weakness is as great an insult to God as if we were to say that He could not make His sun to shine.”
It is very much to his praise that in an age of
narrow orthodoxy and doctrinal intolerance he cherished a catholic
and irenical spirit. He by no means disregarded the value of
theological soundness, and was in hearty agreement with the Nicene
creed, which triumphed over the Arians during his ministry in
Antioch; he even refused a church in Constantinople which the Arian
Goths claimed. But he took no share in the persecution of heretics, and even sheltered the Origenistic monks against the violence of Theophilus of Alexandria. He hated sin more than error, and placed charity above orthodoxy.
Like all the Nicene Fathers, he was an enthusiast
for ascetic and monastic virtue, which shows itself in seclusion
rather than in transformation of the world and the natural
ordinances of God. He retained as priest and bishop his cloister
habits of simplicity, abstemiousness and unworldliness. He presents
the most favorable aspect of that mode of life, which must be
regarded as a wholesome reaction against the hopeless corruption of
pagan society. He thought
with St. Paul that he could best serve the Lord in single life, and
no one can deny that he was unreservedly devoted to the cause of
religion.
He was not a man of affairs, and knew little of the
world. He had the harmlessness of the dove without the wisdom of
the serpent. He knew human nature better than individual men. In
this respect he resembles Neander, his best biographer. Besides, he
was irritable of temper, suspicious of his enemies, and easily
deceived and misled by such men as Serapion. He showed these
defects in his quarrel with the court and the aristocracy of
Constantinople. With a little more worldly wisdom and less ascetic
severity he might perhaps have conciliated and converted those whom
he repelled by his pulpit fulminations. Fearless denunciation of
immorality and vice in high places always commands admiration and
respect, especially in a bishop and court preacher who is exposed
to the temptations of flattery. But it is unwise to introduce
personalities into the pulpit and does more harm than good. His
relation to Eudoxia reminds one of the attitude of John Knox to
Mary Stuart. The contrast between the pure and holy zeal of the
preacher and the reformer and the ambition and vanity of a woman on
the throne is very striking and must be judged by higher rules than
those of gallantry and courtesy. But after all, the conduct of
Christ, the purest of the pure, towards Mary Magdalene and the
woman taken in adultery is far more sublime.
