they would baptize, and furthermore to supply food and clothing to so many men who were sick, maimed, beggars, and travelers. And what may seem even more astonishing, those very rich men who constituted the tenth part of the city flowed so much with wealth that if to each one of them was joined one of the men of modest fortune, both could sustain the burden as much as the Church itself. A truly opulent city, and one to which an equal can scarcely be found: where one tenth of the citizens could each, with a man of moderate means joined to him, provide daily food and clothing for about four thousand needy people.
Chrysostom often attacks and harries the impiety of the Anomoeans throughout his homilies on Matthew, especially in those places of the Gospel which the Anomoeans usurped to defend their heresy. But, what perhaps someone might wonder at, he more often inveighs against the Manichaeans, who said that there were two principles of things, and two gods, one good and the other evil; and they repudiated the Old Testament as if it were published by that evil god. For although this heresy did not cause such great disturbances as the Anomoeans had not long before, yet they existed in a great number, and the evil was creeping more widely day by day, so that that plague was gradually spreading everywhere, and a few centuries later brought the Constantinopolitan empire into danger. Along with the Manichaeans, he sometimes also attacks the Marcionites, who championed a similar impiety regarding the two principles; he also attacks the Valentinians, but more rarely. Likewise, he does not once attack others who thought that all things were carried by chance and some fate, whom he also attacks repeatedly in his other works.
IV. On the Manuscripts and on the Savilian, Commelinian, and Morellian Editions.
Very many manuscript Codices of the homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew exist in the libraries of Gaul, Italy, and other parts of Europe, of which, if we had wished to review all the various readings and all the errors of the scribes, it is wonderful how much we would have increased the notes placed at the bottom of the page; but to no fruit, nay, even with the waste of the undertaken work. Therefore, we have used readings with discretion. And we have repaired many places in previously printed editions that were corrupted and mangled. We have also used previously printed editions, namely the Edition of Savile, and that which appeared a few years later from the workshop of Commelinus, and finally the Morellian, which was arranged according to the authority of the Commelinian. Concerning those editions, certain things must be premised and treated by us.
The Edition of Savile, issued in the year 1612, comprises only the Greek without a Latin translation, and it is most accurately arranged; it exhibits pure and unblemished Greek, so that very few errors occur in it, and it contributed not a little to the accuracy of the Latin translation. Indeed, besides the notes which Savile exhibits in the margin, he adds other notes as well at the end of the eighth volume, both his own and those of Bois and others. Among those notes, however, as we have already remarked elsewhere, the Savilian are more sagacious than the others.
In the year 1617 another Greek-Latin Edition of the homilies of Chrysostom on Matthew and on John appeared from the Commelinian workshop at Heidelberg. But those who took care to publish that edition, seem not even to have known the Savilian edition issued five years earlier; they certainly did not use it, nor did they mention it anywhere; they elicited the Greek from Palatine Mss., as is to be believed: for they did not warn from where they had taken them. In the Greek series many faults are detected. They placed the Latin translation alongside the Greeks, which had long since been placed in the Latin editions of Chrysostom; namely, for the first eight homilies the version of Anianus, an ancient interpreter of equal standing with Chrysostom, and for all the rest the Latin translation of George of Trebizond, which had already been used, as I said, in the earlier Latin editions. Moreover, this Parisian edition of Morel is held to be somewhat more corrected, and with good reason; for the Morellian edition, at least as far as concerns the Greek, was arranged according to its authority, as will be said by and by.
The Parisian edition of Claude Morel, given in the year 1636, is inferior to the Savilian and Commelinian, even though the printer himself highly commends it in his Notice. The copies, he says, which we used in the present edition were: that authentic one of the Anglican edition, never sufficiently praised, to which we have religiously adhered in correcting the Greek text, having first noted the errors in their own place, which are accurately and faithfully held at the foot of the same edition; the other was the latest Parisian edition in Latin only, reviewed by the Rev. Father Fronton du Duc, Theologian of the Society of Jesus, and reviewed, supplemented, and corrected according to the same exemplar of the Anglican edition; except that in the Homilies on the Epistles of Paul, but especially in the latest ones to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, and the one which is to the Hebrews, very many things were missing in the Latin version in almost countless places, which we have supplemented from the authority of the same Greek exemplar. Yet as to what he says, that he adhered religiously to the Anglican exemplar, or Savilian, it is wonderful how much he wanders from the truth: for he so often disagrees with it, especially in certain places and indeed quite frequently, that it is evident that he abstained from the labor of comparing these two exemplars, either altogether or at least for the most part. Moreover, the Greek of Morel accords altogether with the Commelinian Greeks, so that even all the words which are included in brackets in the Commelinian edition, which occurs commonly throughout, are similarly included in brackets in the Morellian. Furthermore, the 19th Homily is divided into two parts in the Morellian edition, so that the second part of the same constitutes the twentieth against