A A deacon is ordained in the year that was turning towards 380, or at the beginning of 381. — Socrates says, followed by Hermant and all others, with the exception of Tillemont, that John was already a deacon when he wrote to Stagirius. What if it were said that he wrote the first book to Stagirius while he remained at home detained by illness, and two others after he was restored from his sickness and ordained deacon? But these matters are full of pitfalls, nor can anything be pronounced with certainty: for these events are recounted so briefly and obscurely by Socrates and Palladius. However the matter may be, he was ordained deacon by Meletius either in the year 380 or at the beginning of 381: for at the beginning of the spring of that same year 381, Meletius betook himself to Constantinople and there ended his days.
He writes books to the Younger Widow
. Shortly after John was chosen as deacon (see the Monitum, which we have already established in its proper place, namely, in the turn of the year 380 or the beginning of 381), he issued two books to the Younger Widow, led by this occasion, which he himself explains at length. Therasius, a man conspicuous among the leaders of his own time, distinguished for his birth and means, who was expected to attain to prefectures; in addition to this, he was adorned with probity, modesty, and piety: in the flower of his age he ended his days, after having lived with his wife for only five years. To console her, John produced this book: and first he puts before our eyes the singular care God has shown for widows, for whom He proves He acts in the place of a husband. Hence he celebrates the dignity of an honest widowhood from the words of Paul, and demonstrates that one should not rejoice at the passing of the upright. Afterward, to show the instability of human life, he brings forward the example of certain distinguished men who, having been elevated to greater dignity, were taken off by a sudden and violent death. Nor does he say that Emperors are any happier than those men, but rather that the greater the fortune with which they are lifted on high, the heavier is their fall. Hence he reviews the Emperors of his own time who had perished miserably in his own age; not by mentioning names, but in veiled words, which we have explained in the Monitum. Those Emperors were nine in number, of whom only two had died a natural death: those nine are Constantine and his three sons Constantine, Constantius and Constans, Gallus, Julian, Jovian, Valentinian, and Valens. From here he passes to the Augustas and Empresses who had perished unhappily, and brings forward more obscure things, which can scarcely be squared with the history of that age: which we have explained to the best of our ability in the same Monitum. This book to the Younger Widow is followed by another book or homily, which is also inscribed to the Younger Widow. But here he does not address one widow, but all the younger widows, whom he exhorts to remain in widowhood, not because he condemns second marriages, but because they remain freer in this way, and can bind themselves more closely to their heavenly spouse, Christ.He writes the book on Virginity
. We think that John issued the very long and excellent book on Virginity, which fills more than 68 pages, at Antioch and before he was presbyter. For that he published it at Antioch is testified by himself in his nineteenth homily on the Epistle to the Corinthians with these words: "But if we have passed over those things which were to be said concerning virginity, let no one condemn us for negligence. For an entire book has been edited by us on this subject: and since we have pursued all things there as accurately and diligently as we could, we deemed it superfluous to set them forth here again." Furthermore, that place which the nineteenth homily on the 1 Corinthians as an argument proposes to itself, namely, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman, etc.," he treats and discusses perpetually in this book on Virginity; B so that it is equally certain that this book on Virginity is commemorated in that homily: as it is certain, by the testimony of Chrysostom himself and the admission of Tillemont, that the Homilies on the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians were delivered at Antioch.But the learned Tillemont thinks he has found such a great difficulty in weakening this opinion that, led by it, he decides that John was already a bishop and had published this book at Constantinople, because, forsooth, he speaks in a certain place as if he were a bishop. But we refute that objection in the Monitum to this book (Vol. 1, p. 531): where we clearly prove that he is speaking in that place in the person of Paul; and we find elsewhere that he assumes the personae of bishops, married men, and other persons in this way.
It is therefore indubitable, despite Chrysostom’s own protest, that the book on Virginity was issued at Antioch, so that it seems it could be argued from his words that it had come into the hands of many at that time. At what time, however, he wrote it, we nowhere discover; yet I think that it can probably be said that he adorned this book before he was presbyter, when he had more leisure. For after he was ordained presbyter, he performed the office of preaching most frequently, so that he had no time to compose such lengthy books. Otherwise, if the presbyter had written these things, he would have distributed the whole into homilies, as is to be believed, like the homilies on Repentance, on the Incomprehensible [God], on Lazarus, etc.
He writes a book about Saint Babylas
. To this point must be referred that book on Saint Babylas (Vol. 2, p. 527, 533), against Julian and against the Gentiles, which he wrote at Antioch and which Hermant, due to a lapse of memory, took to be a homily. Here our John gives a note of time, when he says that twenty years have already passed since the time when Julian the Apostate attempted to restore the temple at Jerusalem. That, however, was attempted by Julian in the year of Christ 362, from which it would follow that John adorned this book in the year 382. But he is accustomed not to attach these notes of his own age with such scruple, as is proved at greater length in the Monitum to this book (Vol. 2, p. 525). This one thing can seem to be said without danger of error, namely, that he wrote this book when he was a deacon, from the year 381 to the beginning of 585 and 386.The subject of the book is the history of the martyrdom of St. Babylas, bishop of Antioch, in a declamatory manner, and for the most part recounted from the rumor of the common people, overflowing with tropes: in which you might often desire the truth. For as certain...
A as I think, Babylas was slain for Christ; so it is beyond doubt that the nature and cause of his martyrdom are set forth by John from the rumor of the people rather than from the true history of events. For who, I ask, was that Christian Emperor of the Romans who, having initiated a peace with the barbarian king on the condition that the latter should hand over his son to be educated by him, immediately slaughtered the son received as a pledge of peace, and for that reason, having been barred from the entrance of the Church by the blessed Babylas, ordered the same prelate to be dragged into prison and beheaded? Certain scholiasts or librarians say that this Emperor was Numerian: than which, what could be more foolish? For to call Numerian a Christian, or a slayer of the son of some barbarian king, is equally at odds with true history. Nor is more credence to be given to certain Acts published by Bollandus on January 24th, where Numerian, a worshiper of idols, is introduced as tempting St. Babylas to his own impiety, and crowning him with the glory of martyrdom along with certain boys: accounts which surely cannot be referred to our Babylas.
It is probable, therefore, that Emperor Philip is meant here, who for the sake of seizing the empire, having caused the death of Gordian Augustus, came to Antioch after having obtained his wish through so great a crime, and approached the church at the time of Easter, intending to be a partaker of the prayers and mysteries. Upon realizing this, St. Babylas repelled the approaching Emperor, forbade him entrance to the church, and ordered him to take his place among the penitents until, having washed away and expiated his crime through repentance, he might thereafter be received into the communion of the Church. Eusebius tells us that Philip bore this repulse by the holy prelate with a grateful and modest spirit, and likewise that he took the place of the penitents; and that then, after having deposed his grave sin through confession according to the statutes of the Church, he was admitted into the Church. Under these circumstances, however, during the reign of Decius, an enemy of Christians, St. Babylas gave his neck for Christ. That which is said by Eusebius regarding the repentance and Christianity of Philip is told not as certain, but as something heard by him from others, and it is called into doubt by many. It is furthermore probable that the story we previously cited from Chrysostom originated from that history of Gordian slain by Philip; but it is so sullied and deformed in almost all its parts that it appears to be something entirely different.
Far more sound appear the things which Chrysostom recounts concerning the relics of St. Babylas transferred from the suburb of Daphne into the city of Antioch; and likewise concerning the temple of Apollo, burned by a divine bolt of lightning. For not only was Chrysostom himself an eyewitness of these things, but so were all his listeners, whom he addresses in the homily positioned before this book. For he makes mention of that prodigy both in that homily and in the book on Babylas: but in the book he pursues the matter more at length, and for the sake of ridicule refers to the monody or laments of the sophist Libanius, which occupy a great part of the book, in which Libanius deplores that stupendous event by which the temple of great Apollo had been burned by fire sent into it.
Books on the Priesthood.
He also composed the books on the Priesthood B either when he was ordained deacon, if we are to credit Socrates, or a little before he was ordained. Regarding this matter, we have already treated it above.Around this same time (T. 6, c. 305) seems to be the date of that Synopsis of the Holy Scripture, of which we have edited a large part: for it did not come down to our era in its entirety. I have proved the work to be genuine in my Diatribe, to which we refer the reader. It is easily believed, indeed, that he who was devoted to divine letters and gave constant effort to their reading and meditation would have written a Synopsis of the Scriptures. But the other arguments which we have brought forth in the Diatribe, we send to the circle of the learned to be explored and placed under the scales.
Presbyter ordained by Flavian.
Our John, therefore, having performed the office of deacon so well for several years (in the year 386), when he had already given so many proofs of extraordinary eloquence combined with piety, was ordained presbyter by Bishop Flavian (See Palladius, p. 41). He knew well that our John would be an excellent preacher of the Word, who, even though he had never given a sermon, had already given the richest first-fruits of the talent entrusted to him from his writings. But he was ordained before Lent in the year 386, as will be evident from what is to be said below. And there was no delay: after he was assumed into the priestly ministry, he was deputed by Flavian to the office of preaching: in his presence he spoke his first homily, and began with the greatest modesty and humility of soul. He calls himself a mere youth (adolescentulum) more than once, even though he was already nearly forty years of age; he calls himself a sinner, and adds that David, the heavens, the earth, all the elements, wild beasts, men, and angels are provoked to praise and celebrate God, but sinners never. From here he turns himself to the praises of Flavian, who was then present, and says that he, having been educated in a sumptuous house, now lives a harsh and squalid life for the sake of feeding his flock. Finally, he extols his predecessor Meletius with praises.After this first sermon, the most sagacious Tillemont opines that the second homily was delivered on Ozzias and on the Seraphim, though he is moved by weak reasons or conjectures, which he himself offers with hesitation. For as we said in the Monitum (T. 6, c. 93) to the Homilies on the Seraphim, this homily could not have been delivered before the year 388, as is proved in the same Monitum.
Sermons on Genesis. Year 386.
But the same Tillemont (Tillemont, p. 42) opines very well when he says that he believes the eight Sermons on Genesis, which follow the Homilies on Genesis in the fourth volume (T. 4, c. 581), were delivered at the beginning of Lent in the year 386. For Chrysostom clearly declares this when he opens the second sermon with these words: "Do you remember the questions that were recently proposed to you? For you have prompted us to such arrogance and boldness that we might attempt these questions fearlessly; indeed, it is a feat of neither arrogance nor boldness. For we do not gird ourselves for the stadium, trusting in our own strength, but committing all things to the prayers of the bishops and to yours." Here you clearly see Chrysostom girding himself for the stadium, and entering into the sermons of Lent for the first time, and soA clearly does he imply that he is just beginning a work of such magnitude that it approaches boldness: all of which certainly indicates that these Lenten sermons were his first attempt. For he did not use this method of beginning in the following year, 387, when he delivered the sermons *On the Statues* throughout the whole of Lent. Thus, these sermons, without a doubt, pertain to the year 386, in which he had been ordained a presbyter at the beginning; and he had delivered these sermons at least two years before he had the 67 homilies on Genesis, which precede them in the same Volume; where you can observe many things throughout, which are often noted in the same words in those homilies.
In these preachments, even though they are numbered among the first that Chrysostom ever delivered, you may admire not only the eloquence, the abundance in his delivery, the polished style of his vocabulary, and the felicity of his invention, which shine forth in all his other works—where we always see his style accommodated to the popular mind—but you may also observe how well prepared such a great craftsman always was for extemporaneous declamation, and how ready he was to pursue even unexpected matters with his style. You may discern this from one single example. In the fourth sermon, number 3, when, as nightfall approached, the lamps of the church were being lit, the auditors turned their eyes away from the preacher and towards the lamps. From this he immediately rebukes their negligence, and, though no doubt entirely unprepared for it, he speaks so brilliantly, just as if he had come to the task having meditated upon it—which, however, he could in no way have foreseen.
Homily on St. Meletius.
Around this time, he delivered a homily on St. Meletius, by whom he himself had been ordained lector and, later, deacon. Chrysostom himself brings forth the time in the sermon when he says: "For the fifth year has now passed since he departed to Jesus." Now, Meletius died at Constantinople, having been summoned there by the Emperor in the year 381, towards the end of the month of May. Wherefore, this homily must have been delivered after the month of May in the year 386, before the casket containing the relics of the same saint. It was not on the anniversary of his death; for Chrysostom would not have said that the fifth year had already passed. But it was perhaps on the day of the translation of his relics to Antioch, which appears to fall on the 12th of February, the day on which the Greek and Roman Martyrologies announce his feast. If this calculation stands, and if the Martyrologies accurately note the day of the translation—which, however, often happens otherwise—this sermon was delivered on February 12th of the year 387, after five years and eight and a half months. However that may be, it seems absolutely certain that this homily was pronounced either in the year 386 after the month of May, or at the beginning of the year 387. The Antiochenes, furthermore, cherished Meletius with such love and the fame of his name was so great among them that almost everyone gave the name of Meletius to their children and painted his image everywhere, and had it impressed upon rings, seals, and bowls, as Chrysostom reports.Innumerable causes and occasions for praying and rebuking offered themselves to such a great preacher: the dissolute morals of many of the Antiochenes and the unbridled license B of certain people in sinning, which we shall see him frequently attacking in the series of his homilies; the depraved doctrine of heretics of various kinds, and especially the Anomoeans, who were sailing against the Catholics every day; and also the boldness of the Jews, the enemies of Christ, whom some Christians were following in at least a certain part of their rites. And indeed, he had already for a long time taken up the purpose of attacking the Anomoeans, and he had begun to assail them in his very first homilies; but observing that they were attending his sermons and were - lending him their ears with pleasure, so that, as he says, he might not drive away the prey and might entrap their souls, he restrained his tongue from such contests for some time.
However, those sermons against the Anomoeans were begun either in the course of July of the year 386 or at the beginning of August: this calculation is found to be consistent from those things which are said concerning the first homily against the Jews in the *Monitor* (see the *Monitor* in Vol. 1, cols. 837–844) regarding those homilies against the Jews, where, from the very words of Chrysostom, it is argued that the first was delivered in the month of August of the same year, 386.
Sermons against the Anomoeans.
These sermons against the Anomoeans were not delivered in a single series and continuously; but their course was interrupted at the beginning when, as an issue arose, there had to be a dispute against the Jews. Then, afterwards, there was a struggle against the Anomoeans and against the Jews in alternating turns. But we cannot measure those turns by equal intervals.In the first sermon against the Anomoeans, therefore, after he had said, as we have seen, for what reason he had previously put off to another time the plan he had undertaken to oppose them—namely, so that he might entrap the listeners who appeared well-disposed towards him—at last, with the Anomoeans themselves encouraging him to descend into the arena, he began to assail their errors, yet with a friendly spirit, not in order to strike his adversaries, but to raise up those who were fallen.
The second homily against the Anomoeans he pronounced after an interval of many days. For many things interrupted Chrysostom from his intended course: namely, the contest held against the Jews, which was very necessary and about which—now that these things against the Anomoeans have been reviewed—we shall speak at greater length; and the arrival of certain spiritual Fathers (as he says), about whom it will be narrated in its proper place. Finally, when they had returned to their own places, the frequent commemorations of the martyrs received the holy herald; once these had been celebrated, he resumed the contest against the Anomoeans which had been interrupted.
In the third, he continues the same argument regarding the Incomprehensibility of God against his adversaries. Towards the end, however, he inveighs most harshly against the auditors because, once the sermon they so willingly listened to was finished, they would immediately withdraw themselves and not attend the sacred mysteries, which were being celebrated immediately afterwards.
In the fourth, after the customary skirmishes against the heretics, he congratulates the assembly because it had complied with his admonitions and had cast off the wicked habit of leaving before the sacred mysteries: he grieves, however, because some certain purse-cutters were disturbing the sermon, and he warns them not to carry gold or silver in their purses, C if they wish to drive away such a plague.
A In the fifth, finally, having briefly retracted those things which he had said before, he brings forth new arguments against the Anomoeans. Furthermore, in these sermons, not only the eloquence of Chrysostom shines forth, but also the force of his arguments. Nor are the responses to the objections of the heretics less to be admired, with which are sprinkled also witticisms, which in speaking are of wonderful efficacy. So that he would not stray far from the truth who would count these homilies among the most outstanding works of the holy doctor.
Sermon on St. Philogonius. T. 1. c. 747.
After the fifth, which it is likely was delivered in the month of December (A. 386. Decemb.), Chrysostom, prepared to brandish new weapons against the Anomoeans, as he himself says, on the feast day of St. Philogonius, bishop of Antioch, which fell on the twentieth of December, five days before the Nativity of the Lord, was interrupted and delivered a panegyric for him, yet he did not finish it, but left the greatest part of the eulogy to Bishop Flavian, who was to preach on the same day, and interrupted his course in the middle of the speech B so that he might exhort the people to celebrate the Nativity of Christ properly, and after he prescribed a mode of repentance and amendment for sinners, he closed the oration.He delivered the following homily regarding the Consubstantial against the Anomoeans, as he himself indicates, a few days after he had preached on the same argument, namely at the beginning of the year 387, and as far as it is permitted to conjecture, on the fifth day of January, on which day the circus games were being celebrated. For thus he begins the sermon: "Again the circus, again our assembly has been diminished."
On the following day, in order to refute the Anomoeans, who from the petition of the sons of Zebedee and from the response of Christ, *To sit on my right or left is not mine to give to you*, were seizing an opportunity for attacking, he delivered the homily which is inscribed as the eighth.
This sermon is followed by the one on the four-day-old Lazarus (T. 1. c. 779), in which the argument of the Anomoeans, taken from the history of the four-day-old Lazarus, is refuted. A certain person recently tried to cast doubt upon the legitimacy of this, who had not noted that this [sermon] on the four-day-old Lazarus is clearly commemorated in the following [one] on the prayers of Christ, because this homily in the Savilian edition was separated by a long interval from the following: but we have refuted his arguments at greater length in the Monitum to these homilies, col. 779.
The second [sermon] on the prayers of Christ was delivered continuously after the homily on Lazarus. In this, it is excellently demonstrated C that Christ’s prayers directed to the Father do not prove him to be lesser than the Father. He delivered both, however, at the beginning of the year 387, shortly after he had said the others against the Anomoeans, as he himself refers in the second, no. 2, where he says that he had just recently spoken concerning the glory of the Only-Begotten. For thus he calls the sermons on the Incomprehensible not once.
He delivered two other sermons against the Anomoeans at Constantinople (T. 1. c. 795), where that heresy was spreading, as well as at Antioch: but these will be dealt with in their proper place.
Sermons against the Jews.
As for the order of the homilies against the Jews, which was wondrously disturbed in earlier editions, God granting, and not without labor, we have restored it (T. 1. c. 837). He delivered the first homily after he had begun the struggles against the Anomoeans, and with the first sermon already delivered, upon the impending Jewish festivals, the Feast of Tabernacles, and fasts, in which certain Antiochian Christians were accustomed to participate, partly for the sake of watching, and partly even to celebrate and fast together: in order to heal this malady, he interrupted his course of struggle against the Anomoeans, and attacked the Jews and the followers of the Jews. Yet at what season of the year he began to preach these, he himself testifies shortly after the beginning of the first homily with these words: "The festivals of the miserable and wretched Jews are upon us, continuous and frequent, the trumpets, the Feast of Tabernacles, the fasts." By these, there is noted without doubt the month of Tisri, or September, on the fifteenth day of which began the Feast of Tabernacles. But in that month more feast days occurred among the Jews than in any other of the whole year, as you may see in Buxtorf, Leusden, and others. Which also Chrysostom indicates when he says "constant and frequent." That Chrysostom anticipated this frequency of solemnities by some days, both the aforementioned words declare, and those soon to be brought forward testify. Wherefore it seems he delivered the first homily in the month of August.In this homily, indeed, where he attacks those Christians who for the sake of religion would go to Jewish solemnities and houses, he brings forward a singular affair, at which he was present, and which it is not permitted to pass over. After he brought forth these words of the Gospel of John (T. 1. c. 847, 1. 27), *If you had known me, you would have known my Father also: but now you do not know me, nor the Father*, he proceeds thus: "What testimony could I bring forward more worthy of faith than this? If they do not know the Father, they have crucified the Son, they have rejected the help of the Spirit, who would not dare to affirm that that place is a haunt of demons? God is not adored there, far from it; but it is a place of idolatry thereafter; and yet some cling to them as if they were sanctuaries. And I do not say these things brought by conjectures, but taught by experience itself. For three days ago, believe me, I do not lie, I saw a certain matron, honest, noble, modest, and faithful, whom a certain impure man, a Christian by reputation (for one who dares such things, I would not call a sincere Christian), was compelling to enter the assembly of the Hebrews, and there to take an oath concerning businesses entrusted to her. But as she was imploring help, and wishing to fend off the wicked force; for she, who had been made a partaker of divine mysteries, thought it was an impiety to approach that place: I, incensed D with zeal, rose up and did not allow her to be drawn into prevarication, and I snatched her from that iniquitous abduction. Afterwards, I asked the man who had dragged her whether he was a Christian: to whom, as he confessed, I insisted gravely, reproaching his stupidity and extreme madness, and I denied that he was equal to an ass, if, claiming to adore Christ, he drug anyone to the dens of the Jews, who had crucified Him. And having prolonged the discourse, first I taught from the holy Gospel that it is entirely forbidden to swear, and to incite anyone to an oath: then, that one who is a believer and initiate—not to mention one who is not yet an initiate—in that...
A necessity of being dragged [to the synagogues of the Jews] was involved. After I had spoken for a long time and turned his mind away from the error of his opinion, I questioned him as to the reason why, having left the Church, he was drawn away to the synagogues of the Jews. He replied that many had told him that the oath which was administered there was more to be feared. At these things I groaned, and was inflamed with anger; then, on the other hand, I laughed. For when I discerned the cunning of the devil, I groaned, that he could persuade men of such things; yet when I considered the apathy of those who were being deceived, and reflected within myself how great was their folly, I laughed. And so he did not laugh, although the gravity of the matter might have taken away the ability to jest; yet that jest of his did not diminish anything from the gravity [of the situation].
He delivered the second homily ten or more days after the first, and five days before the Jewish fast was at hand, as he himself declares at the beginning: *An illicit fast of theirs is, therefore, imminent after five days; but I, ten days or more ago, held a discourse to you, that I might fortify your brethren.* But lest you doubt that this is the very one which he delivered as the second against the Jews, see how he speaks there of the first in number 3: *Have you not heard in the previous discourse how clearly it was demonstrated by speech that the very souls of the Jews, and the places where they gather, are inhabited by demons?* That fact indeed—namely, that both the souls of the Jews and their places are inhabited by demons—he proves conspicuously and at length in the first homily against the Jews, number 6: so that it is certain beyond doubt that that one is the first against the Jews, and this latter is the second, which we deplore has come down to us in an imperfect state: we certainly did everything we could to publish it sound and intact; but all our efforts were in vain.
Without delay, we have placed as the third the Homily whose title is: *Against those who fast at the first Passover*, that is, against those Christians who, when the Passover of the Jews is celebrated several days after the Passover of the Christians, fast during the Passover of the Christians, so that they might continue the fast until the Passover of the Jews. But that happened in the following year, 387, says Chrysostom, and, in order to abolish such a perverse custom, he interrupts the course of his homilies against the Anomoeans and on the glory of the Only-Begotten, as he himself declares at the beginning of the homily in these words: *Again a certain necessary and urgent business, interrupting the series of things which were recently said, draws the discourse to itself, and leads us away from the struggles undertaken with the heretics. For we indeed were prepared to speak again to your love concerning the glory of the Only-Begotten.* By these [words] he further declares that he is interrupting for the second time the course of the Homilies against the Anomoeans, which he says he did for the first time at the beginning of the first homily against the Jews. For indeed, when he had delivered his first discourse against the Anomoeans, he was forced to halt the course, not only that he might contend against the Jews, which he accomplished in two homilies, but also that he might receive the spiritual Fathers, or neighboring bishops, who had come to Antioch, and afterwards might celebrate many solemnities of the martyrs which occurred. By all these things, I say, he was interrupted from the struggle begun against the Anomoeans; so that there was no small interval of time between the first homily against the Anomoeans and the third. B Now, since he delivered the first homily against the Jews in the month of August of the year 386, as we said above; but the second at the beginning of September, ten or more days after the first, he spent a large part of September in receiving those neighboring bishops and celebrating the solemnities of the martyrs, and again, at the end of the month of September, he resumed the battle against the Anomoeans, which, either before September had fully elapsed or at the beginning of October, he pursued again, urged, as he says, by the necessity that he should hold another struggle against the Jews. But whether he delivered this third [homily] against the Jews after the second discourse against the Anomoeans, or after the third or fourth, is clearly uncertain, nor does it seem that anything certain can be established regarding this matter.
Lest we assign this third homily against the Jews too long after September, the Homily on the Birth of Christ, which he delivered in the year 386, on the twenty-fifth of December, seems to forbid it: *The time then was*, he says, *of the Feast of Tabernacles and of the fast: for those words "Humble your souls" mean this; and it was being celebrated by the Jews circa the end of the month Gorpiaeus, that is, September, which you yourselves bear witness to. At that time, we brought forth many long discourses against the Jews, accusing their untimely fast.* Therefore, as we have calculated, he delivered these three discourses against the Jews at that time. Nor yet does he say that these many long homilies were delivered in the month of September in such a way that he declared none before and none after September. For when he says, *At that time we held many long discourses against the Jews*, he denotes the time approximately, and does not restrict all those homilies to the month of September: for Chrysostom is not accustomed to mark the notes of time with such scrupulosity, as we have observed passim. But when he says, "many long discourses," he seems to indicate these three homilies, and perhaps others besides, which have perished through the injury of time: for it lacked little but that the second homily also perished, as it was found in only one codex, in great part mutilated. Indeed, it seems certain that some of those which he mentions here have perished; for at the end of the third he says: *As we have demonstrated, since many discourses have been held by me on this matter*; he would not have spoken thus if he had delivered only two discourses on this matter. But beware of thinking, with Fronto Ducaeus, that the five homilies following these words of Chrysostom are meant by "long discourses." Those discourses, to be sure, he delivered long after the Homily on the Lord’s Nativity in the year 386, from which those words were excerpted; but... and shortly, we shall make it plain with no uncertain arguments.
Against this calculus of ours, the learned V. Cl. Tillemont proposes certain doubts, namely concerning the time when the third homily was delivered. But we have responded to him appropriately, if I am not mistaken, in the *Monitor* to the Homilies against the Jews, Vol. 1, col. 837, to which we refer the reader. He raises a far more difficult question, which attacks both his own opinion and ours, C namely from the title of this third...