conscience, and if you find something to repent of (which you will find, since you are human), draw sighs in confession, pour out tears in prayer, be anxious about that true death, about the punishment of the soul, be anxious about sin, just as David says: "For I declare my iniquity, and I will be anxious for my sin" (Ps. l. 20); and do not be terrified by the dissolution of this body, which in due time, by God's command, will be restored. See how divine judgment has embraced both, saying, "The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth" (John 5. 28). Behold security, behold the contempt of death. But what follows? "Those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation" (Ibid. v. 29). Behold the diversity of those rising. For it is necessary that all flesh rise—that is, human flesh—but the good will rise to life, the bad will rise to punishment, just as it is written: "Therefore the ungodly shall not rise in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous" (Ps. 1. 5). So that we do not rise into judgment, having put aside the sadness of death, let us take up that repentance and sadness, and let us have care for good works and a better life; and for this let the thought of this funeral and corpse be with us, so that we may know that we are mortal, and through this thought may not neglect our salvation while there is time, while it is permitted: specifically, either by bearing fruit toward the better, or by amending if we have erred in ignorance, lest, suddenly occupied by the day of death, we seek a space for repentance and cannot find it, or seek to distribute alms and make satisfaction for our faults, and that which we wish is not granted. B
9. Recapitulation of both discourses. — Therefore, brothers, with the death in common [(a)] having been shown, with the prohibition of tears having been shown, with the frailty of the ancients still having been demonstrated, and not the virtue of Christianity, with the sacrament of the Lord and the apostolic teaching concerning the resurrection having been shown, with the acts of the apostles having been commemorated, and the passions of the martyrs, with the example of David having been shown, and furthermore the deed of a gentile man, and finally, the harmful and the useful sadness having been set forth—the one that harms, the other that saves through repentance: with all these things thus shown, what else is it necessary for us to do now, brothers, than to give thanks to God the Father and say, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6. 10); Thou hast given life, Thou hast established death; Thou bringest into the world, Thou leadest out of the world, and when Thou hast led out, Thou preservest; for nothing of Thine perishes, Who hast said that not a hair of their head shall perish; for "Thou shalt take away their spirit, and they shall fail, and return to their dust" (Ps. 103. 29, 30); but "Thou shalt send forth Thy Spirit, and they shall be created, and Thou shalt renew the face of the earth" (Luc. 21. 18). These words, brothers, are worthy of the faithful, this is a saving medicine: the eye wiped by this sponge of consolation, infused with this eye-salve of reason, will not only not feel blindness from despair, but will not endure any sore eyes of sadness, but rather, looking back on all things clearly with the eyes of the heart, will say according to that most patient Job, "The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; as it seemed good to the Lord, so it has been done; blessed be the name of the Lord" (Job 1. 21) for ever and ever. Amen.
DISSERTATION ON THE FOLLOWING SYNOPSIS.
This Synopsis exists in two manuscripts, one of which is the Coislinian Library, formerly Seguerian, no. 388, the other of the Library of Leiden, formerly of Isaac Vossius. The former is entirely recent, dating from around the beginnings of typography, but was written by a skilled and not unlearned scribe, following an older model; the other also, although I have not had the opportunity to examine it with my own eyes, I think is also recent and was transcribed by a less skilled copyist. Furthermore, these two codices do not both contain the entire Synopsis such as it was adorned by the author; rather, some things are lacking in one, and others in another; and in both, the entire Synopsis of the New Testament is missing. The Coislinian at the beginning exhibits a preface composed by the author himself, and of excellent quality, which he calls the Protheory. This Protheory is entirely absent from the Leiden Codex: conversely, the Leiden codex has many things that are entirely missing in the Coislinian; namely, the Synopsis into Leviticus, the Epilogue into the Synopses of the books of Kings; the Synopses into Chronicles, Ezra, into the books of Esther, Tobit, Judith, Job, into the book of Wisdom, into Proverbs.
From these two Mss. this Synopsis proceeds, in which some things from the Old Testament are also missing; namely, the Synopsis of the Psalms, and of the five minor Prophets. Furthermore, in both codices the Synopsis is attributed to John Chrysostom: for in the titles of the Coislinian and Leiden Codices it is said to be Chrysostom's, as you will see presently. But now the question is whether it truly is Chrysostom's or not. Isaac Vossius, indeed, to whom that Codex of the Leiden Library belonged, did not think it was Chrysostom's, as William Cave testifies in his *Historia Literaria* published at Geneva in the year 1705, whose words these are, p. 215: "There exists a Greek Ms. in the Vossian Library under the name of Chrysostom, the Synopsis of the Old Testament; but the learned Vossius once confessed to me himself that it is not a genuine work of Chrysostom." But I believe that Vossius read these things perfunctorily, and perhaps formed his judgment on the basis of style: which form of style he could not have detected in such a brief narrative. But to these things, that Vossian Codex does not have that Protheory placed at the front of the Synopsis: which Protheory is indeed quite long and written by a wise man, and provides certain notes which seem to vindicate the Synopsis for Chrysostom. In the Synopsis itself also, not a few things occur which argue for Chrysostom. Nor, indeed, do I offer these arguments with the intention that without any doubt whatever...
we should assert that the Synopsis belongs to Chrysostom; for we are A not affected in the same way as some writers, who try to assert as fact those things which they pull out of the darkness, with respect to the authors they treat, in such a way that they appear to have no regard for the arguments that can be brought against them. For even if it is clear to us that these things which we bring forward are of great moment: before we make a final judgment on the matter, it has seemed best to offer our arguments to the learned reader, so that we may more safely affirm what ought to be thought, according to his judgment as well as our own.
The first argument, therefore, we borrow from these final words of the Protheoria, where the writer, listing the books of the New Testament, places as the last three the Catholic Epistles, and three out of the Catholic Epistles. Now there are seven Catholic Epistles, of which only three were received in the time of Chrysostom in the Church of Antioch, of which he was a presbyter. For although the second Epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and the Epistle of Blessed Jude the Apostle have for many centuries now been received throughout the entire Church as sacrosanct and canonical Scriptures, in the former centuries of the Church these four Epistles were not admitted as canonical in all churches: for there were some, albeit few, which did not admit them, as you may see in Sixtus of Siena in the first book at the end of the second section. But by the greatest part of the Oriental Church, and by almost the entire West, they were reckoned among the canonical books; that is, B among the divine books, canonically written, handed down, and believed, says that great herald of the Church, Athanasius, who locates the seven Catholic Epistles in their number. But the Church of Antioch, in the time of John Chrysostom, did not admit those four epistles mentioned above; indeed, tenaciously holding to its earlier position, it had not yet adopted them even in the time of the Emperor Justinian; a fact which was peculiar to the Syrians, as we shall see shortly.
That the Church of Antioch did not receive the second and third of John is clearly proven from the Homily soon to be published, which Cotelerius previously published under the name of John Chrysostom, and which we prove in the Monitum below is not by Chrysostom, but by a certain Antiochene presbyter of that age preaching before Bishop Flavian. In this Homily, then, number 6, the following things are said concerning the second and third Epistle of the Evangelist John: "That same herald, who preached these things, writes in his Epistle: but the first Epistle is among those which are received in the Church, and is not reckoned among the apocrypha: for the Fathers place the second and third outside the canon; but everyone agrees that the first Epistle is John’s." From this you see that the second and third Epistle of John were not held to be canonical at Antioch. Likewise, that the second of Peter and the Epistle of Jude the Apostle, just like the second and third of John, were not admitted by the Syrians, and thus not by the Antiochenes, is clearly taught by Cosmas the Egyptian, who was writing in the time of the Emperor Justinian. We edited this writer in the year 1706. He expresses it thus on page 292, having spoken at length regarding the Catholic Epistles and their authority: "Among the Syrians, however, no more than three are found; namely, those of James, Peter, and John: for the others are not even held C among them. Therefore, a perfect Christian should not rely on doubtful things, when those Scriptures which are placed in the canon, and are acknowledged by all, declare everything sufficiently." From this you see manifest proof that even in the time of the Emperor Justinian, no more than three of those Catholic Epistles were received among the Syrians, and thus in the Church of Antioch.
From this, therefore, it is plain that this writer, whom we are now bringing into the public view, and who admits only three Catholic or canonical Epistles, is an Antiochene; and hence there is some credibility to the conciliar title, in which it is said to be by John Chrysostom. And indeed, this holy doctor, who uses all the books of Sacred Scripture in his Homilies, never cites places from those four epistles; or at least such places have not yet been discovered in his writings: and even if they were discovered, it would not follow that that part of Scripture was considered canonical: for in those times not a few books existed in certain churches which were indeed read, but were not held to be canonical. However, I think it should be noted that in the sixth Homily of John Chrysostom on Genesis, p. 40 of our edition, there is a passage where it reads thus: "But those who sometimes cast themselves into the snares of the devil are compared by divine Scripture to dogs: For he says, 'The man who keeps turning from his sin, and returns again to the same, is like a dog returning to its vomit.'" There, in the margin, we indicated the passage 2 Peter 2, 22: but although it speaks there of a dog returned to its vomit, it is certain that this passage should not be referred to the second Epistle of Peter, but to the book of Proverbs, chap. 26, v. 11, and therefore the marginal note should be restored as follows: Prov. 26. 11 (a). Here, I would have you notice that Chrysostom, preaching here and six hundred times elsewhere, cited Scripture passages as they occurred to his memory, and in a way far different from the text of Scripture. The passage of Scripture, therefore, which Chrysostom has in mind here, is that verse of Proverbs, which he adapted, according to his custom and for his own purpose, so that it might be more suitable for the understanding of the people; and it reads thus in the LXX interpreters: "As a dog when it has returned to its own vomit, has become hateful, so a fool returning in his malice to his own sin." With this passage, the one above perfectly corresponds; but it does not fit the passage of the second Epistle of Peter equally well; for that one reads: "For it has happened to them according to the true proverb: the dog returning to its own vomit; and the sow having been washed to the mire of the mud." It is certain and explored, therefore, that Chrysostom’s passage does not look to this verse of the second of Peter, but to that of Proverbs. Although, as I said, even if Chrysostom had sometimes used the second Epistle of Peter, it would not follow from that, either by him or by the Church of AnDtioch, that it was admitted as canonical. Furthermore...
it is clear from this that the author of the Synopsis is either from Antioch or at least from Syria, and, as the title indicates, is Chrysostom; a fact which will be proven by other arguments.
Another argument is derived from the fact that among the canonical books of Scripture, which our author lists alone at the end of his Protheoria, the Apocalypse does not appear. Lest one think it was omitted by a scribal error, a marginal note A by a certain scholiast guards against this, which reads: "Note that he does not mention the Apocalypse." For the Apocalypse was not received in all churches during the ancient centuries of the Church, as Eusebius and Jerome in *De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis* relate; and Nicephorus the Patriarch, in his Catalogue which we published in the *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, p. 205, lists it among the apocrypha, as does another who will be mentioned below in a note. However, all the principal fathers—Athanasius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and the entire West—held it to be a legitimate work of the Apostle John and canonical Scripture; and finally, it has been received throughout the whole Church, both Greek and Latin, into the canon of sacred and divine books.
Yet in this Synopsis the Apocalypse is not mentioned, and, as the scholiast warns, this is not to be attributed to the fault of a copyist. Whence it is argued by the writer himself, and as it seems to follow from this, that it had not yet been received by the Church to which he belonged when these things were being written. Certainly, John Chrysostom, who is cited as the author of the work in the title, never used the Apocalypse in his homilies and other books, even though many suitable and appropriate things for the instruction of morals—a genre in which the holy doctor is most engaged—could be found in the Apocalypse, especially in the first three chapters. Whatever diligence I have applied to investigate whether anything pertaining to the Apocalypse might be found in such a great series of works, I have found nothing thus far. And yet, there were many items in his books, for example, *On the Priesthood*, which seemed to be able to contribute greatly to the matter. But from this arises another argument, whether an argument or a conjecture, by which we seem enabled to attribute this Synopsis to Chrysostom. These are the arguments which we borrow from the *Protheoria* of the Synopsis.
B Furthermore, in the Synopsis itself there are many things which prove that Chrysostom is its author. For example, shortly after the beginning of Genesis, where it is narrated that Ham revealed the nakedness of his father, and therefore both Ham and his son Chanaan were cursed, these words are read there: "But afterwards he blessed Shem and Japheth; but he cursed Chanaan, because his father Ham had revealed the father's nakedness. But that curse had its outcome in the Gabaonites; or rather, it was in appearance a curse, but in reality a prophecy." And this is a sentiment proper to Chrysostom, which I do not recall reading in other ecclesiastical writers: namely, that the curse of Chanaan was fulfilled in the Gabaonites. It is, I say, the very sentiment of the holy doctor, expressed for the most part in the same words. For thus it is written in *Isaiah*, ch. 2, v. 1, in Column 28 of this Volume VI: "That which also happened in the case of Chanaan. For we do not see C that he served his brothers, nor that the curse went astray, but that it found its fulfillment in the Gabaonites, who were sprung from Chanaan. For that which was said was a prophecy, pronounced in the form of a curse." And he says this very same thing in another way below in the *Synopsis of Joshua*: "Since the Israelites, because of the oaths given, could not attack the Gabaonites, they made them into servants themselves, woodcutters, and drawers of water. Here Noah’s prediction has its outcome, which he spoke: *Chanaan shall be a servant*: for from him were they indeed born." These things will certainly seem of no small moment to the learned reader for adjudicating the work to Chrysostom.
Another argument, and one not less weighty, is drawn from the same *Synopsis of Genesis*: "Thara the father of Abraham took his sons Abraham and Nachor and his grandson Lot, and came to Charran." This reading was certainly corrupted, and "Nachor" crept into this text against the witness of the Hebrew text, the edition of the LXX, and the Vulgate. Further, I have nowhere else found this reading except in Chrysostom, who it is certain read it thus in his own exemplar; for in Homily 31 on Genesis, col. 282 of Volume 4 of our edition, we read thus: "And Thara took Abram and Nachor his sons, and Lot the son of Arran his son." Truly, this reading is found in all copies without exception, both edited and manuscript, and in the same Homily below, col. 285, seq., the same reading is repeated twice: so that no doubt can remain that this passage was expressed in this way in the exemplar which Chrysostom used; which the author of the Synopsis also used, or Chrysostom himself, as from this and from the preceding arguments it seems to be proven.
We derive a proof no less than the preceding ones from the *Synopsis of Deuteronomy*, where it is said: "Here lies that [statement], *Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree*. Since, therefore, the curse was pronounced against those who did not keep the Law—*Cursed is everyone who does not remain in all the things written in this book*—Moses speaks of the Law, and Christ could not incur this curse: for he fulfilled the Law, and changed the curse with a curse, having been suspended on a tree." You have this same thing stated at greater length in his *Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians*, chapter 5, where he explains the matter, and sets forth at length the things which he has briefly stated here. However, I refrain from citing these for the sake of brevity. But I urge the studious reader to go to the passage itself, and at my risk he will find Chrysostom there narrating these things at greater length, and the same Chrysostom exhibiting an epitome of them in this Synopsis.
This our author Chrysostom debates everywhere with the Jews, of whom there was a great number in Antioch. That same thing is frequently observed in this D Synopsis, notwithstanding the brevity which even its very name, *Synopsis*, demands. Sometimes he also indicates places which can be used against the Jews, as in the *Synopsis of Jeremiah* thus: "And if they do evil, I will not do the good things which I have spoken of to do to them. This chapter will be useful against the Jews, when they say that the Lord promised good things to them. For since they did not believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, they themselves were the cause of their present evils for themselves." Chrysostom’s scope is in many places to prove, both to the Jews and to the Christians, that such legal precepts
were not originally intended to be observed with such great religious exactitude. He even argues that holy men in the Old Testament easily transgressed them, because he held that things pertaining to outward ritual and worship were not of such great importance and could easily be omitted. Thus, in his commentary on Isaiah, cited above—col. 19 (for the sake of brevity, I omit the Greek text)—we read: "I desire not the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of lambs, and the blood of bulls and of goats." Concerning these words, Chrysostom speaks as follows: "For because they were frequently accused of being devoid of other virtues, they put forward sacrifices as their greatest defense, as things they performed often. Rightly, therefore, both prophets—or rather, all the others—drive them away from this defense. Whence it is plain that those things were not instituted to be primary in themselves, but so that they might lead them to a correct pattern of life and other virtues." In his exposition on Psalm 43, Vol. V, col. 167 sqq., he is entirely occupied with proving this, and says that the commandment concerning the Sabbath was dissolved when the people were under arms for seven days under Joshua; for seven continuous days necessarily include a Sabbath. Chrysostom proclaims these things very often. Moreover, in the Synopsis, concerning the book of Joshua, he speaks thus clearly below: "Then Joshua circumcised the Jews with stone knives: because Israel had spent forty years in the desert, and therefore many of those warriors who had perished were uncircumcised. In their stead, God substituted their sons, whom Joshua circumcised: because they had remained uncircumcised on the way. Then he kept the Passover: and from the day that they ate unleavened bread from the produce of that land, the manna ceased. Joshua is ordered to remove his shoe, and to circle Jericho with trumpets and the ark for seven days: when this was done, the walls fell of their own accord. It is therefore manifest that even then the Sabbath began to be dissolved: from whatever point one reckons, it is necessary that the Sabbath falls within those seven days." Chrysostom therefore maintains that those commandments pertaining to outward worship—such as circumcision and the Sabbath—were not kept even by holy men with such great religious observance. In these, certainly, I can recognize none other than Chrysostom; but what if you add this to so many other arguments? Elsewhere also in this Synopsis you may find places where the writer indicates that he often engages in hand-to-hand combat with the Jews. Besides these arguments, which no one free from a prejudiced opinion would deny are very valid indeed, I have a mind to accumulate here other perhaps smaller points, which, on account of their frequency and the repeated similarity of speaking and proving, fight for Chrysostom. In the beginning of the Synopsis of Genesis, he says that the sons of God in Genesis are called those who were born from Seth, and he cites this passage of the Psalm: "I said, ye are gods." But he says the same thing in more detail in Homily 22 on Genesis, with the same passage of the Psalm cited. He says that the Hebrew language received its name from Heber here in almost the same way as in [his commentary] on Genesis, Vol. IV, col. 279. Regarding the tithes which Abraham offered to Melchizedek, he says the same things more briefly here as in the Commentary on Genesis, col. 327, 328, with the same passage of St. Paul cited. Concerning the daughters of Lot, he says the same thing here in fewer words, which he narrates at greater length in Genesis, col. 410-412. Likewise, concerning the sacrifice of Abraham, he narrates in summary the things which he explains at length in Genesis, col. 431. The allegory concerning the births of Phares and Zara he explains here in the same way as in the Commentary on Genesis, col. 534, 555. That which he says near the end of the Synopsis of Genesis, that Sichem was captured by Simeon and Levi, is the same thing he narrates in more detail in Homily 59 on Genesis, col. 516, 517. Furthermore, this reading of chapter 49, 10, which in the Synopsis states thus, "until he comes to whom it is reserved," is always rendered thus by Chrysostom; other writers, however, vary: for some read it in this exact way; but others read, "until those things come which are reserved for him." In Exodus, regarding what is said in the Synopsis, that the extended hands of Moses, which brought victory to the Israelites, were a figure of the cross, this very thing is mentioned by Chrysostom, Homily on: "Father, if it be possible," Vol. III, col. 36. A Someone will perhaps say: If this Synopsis is a genuine work of Chrysostom, why has it been mentioned by no one, that we know of? Why is there such silence about that work among all ecclesiastical writers? But there is no reason to be astonished at such great silence, when we find that not even the tenth part of Chrysostom’s works, which now exist, has been mentioned by Photius and other writers; and I am speaking of those works which are acknowledged by all scholars to be genuine. Nor is there any reason to wonder that this work has been so neglected that its greatest part has been lost—namely, parts of the Old Testament and all those that pertained to the New. B Indeed, the Greeks were accustomed to neglect writings of this kind, while they most gladly transcribed homilies, both authentic and spurious. For that both Testaments were thus reduced to a compendium by Chrysostom is taught by that *Protheoria* which only the Coislinian Codex possesses. If the Synopsis of the New Testament survived, we would undoubtedly discover many things that would attribute the entire Synopsis to John Chrysostom. For how great an amount of diligence do you suppose he exercised in treating and reducing to a compendium the Epistles of St. Paul? The part of Scripture which he both used more frequently and celebrated everywhere as a kind of primary text—if, indeed, anything can be called primary in those things which have the Holy Spirit as their first author. He certainly kept those Epistles so much in his mind and memory that he utilized them everywhere, and on any smallest occasion given, in his homilies and other works of any kind. Hence it is that in the Synopsis of the Pentateuch you see Paul often brought into the discussion, in those places of the Pentateuch, namely, which Paul had used in his Epistles. And what is most singular, in his *Protheoria*, where he reviews the books of the New Testament which he had reduced into a Synopsis, he begins with the fourteen Epistles of Paul, and places them before the four Gospels themselves and the Acts of the Apostles. C Whence perhaps someone might derive a new argument for attributing the Synopsis to Chrysostom, who more than once professes that he loves Paul vehemently, and uses the books and acts of Paul more than the other books of sacred Scripture. But as regards the style, that flowing abundance of words and similes which Chrysostom is accustomed to employ...