Life of Saint John Chrysostom

DE VITA S. JOANNIS CHRYSOSTOMI A NOBIS ADORNATA.

Nothing is more conducive to an accurate account of the life of St. John Chrysostom than his own works, where countless details occur which are not mentioned by other writers. ^A Palladius also, in his historical Dialogue, provides not a few items that one would seek in vain elsewhere. To these must be added Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, as well as Photius, especially regarding those matters which pertain to the Synod at the Oak. From other sources also we can glean certain facts regarding the same subject. Making use of these authorities, Hermantius wrote his Life in the common French tongue, and he far surpassed all writers of a later age who had fashioned a Life of Chrysostom in both accuracy and diligence. But after him, that illustrious man superior to all exception, Tillemont, as he described the life of other saints with the greatest zeal and labor, so in the life of so great a teacher he neglected nothing of those things which could bring any weight to a work of this kind. But if any difficulty arises in the recounting of his deeds, he explains everything minutely in his notes placed at the end of the book, so that he might not appear to have omitted anything. I have mainly used this writer when either the words or the deeds of Chrysostom carry with them some obscurity, which certainly happens for the most part; yet I confess that I have not always embraced the opinion of so great a man: ^B in some matters I have found that he had strayed from the right path. For since I have spent much more time in reading, translating into Latin, and investigating the works of Chrysostom than he did, I discovered certain matters in which he had strayed from the correct track, either in the calculation of time or in the sequence of events; and on this account I have sometimes warned the reader, while still preserving the respect owed to such a great man.

Because in this latest collection of the Works of Chrysostom there are many things which had never before seen the light; for this reason we have also gathered not a few hitherto unknown facts pertaining to the life of so great a doctor, especially from those eleven new Homilies printed in Volume XII, which contribute much to the history of that time, namely from the latter part of the year 398 up to the middle of the following year, 399: regarding which period of time some most worthy and hitherto unknown facts are related in these homilies, which you would seek in vain among other writers. All these things, in the Life of the Doctor which we provide, you will find accurately recorded in writing, as far as we have been able.

LIFE OF S. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM,

ARCHIEPISCOPI CONSTANTINOPOLITANI,

NOW FIRST PREPARED, AND AUGMENTED WITH MANY PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN [WORKS], WHICH ARE EXCERPTED FROM TWELVE CONSTANTINOPOLITAN HOMILIES RECENTLY DISCOVERED.

John of Antioch was born to noble parents. His father was Master of the Soldiers of Syria, named Secundus; his mother was Anthusa (Pallad. Dial. p. 40). That the name of his father and mother was not only reported by George of Alexandria (Georg. Alex. p. 159), but also by Socrates (Socr. l. 6. c. 3). For which reason Canisius is rightly rejected (Canisius l. 2, p. 887), ^C who thinks our John was the son of that holy and vigorous woman Publia, who flourished under Julian the Apostate. Palladius relates that he had an elder sister, whose name he does not mention. He is also said to have had an aunt named Sabiniana, regarding whom more will be said at the year 405 (Pallad. His. Laus).

But George of Alexandria, who narrates that he was born of pagan parents, worshippers of idols, and that after John himself was baptized, both his father and mother embraced the Christian religion (Georg. Alex. p. 59. b. c.), is to be rejected. For John was baptized at 28 years of age. His father, however, died while John was still in the cradle: from the narration of his mother, it is clear that they were Christians before the birth of John. He is thought to have been born in the year 347 (De Sacerd. t. 1. col. 624, l. 23. et sqq. Cfr. t. 1. col. 601. l. 10. et sqq.). This is the opinion of Blondel, Hermant, and Tillemont. Those who say he lived only 52 years and two months must say he was born in the year 355: which would certainly fight against the true series and narrative of history; and from the notes of time which we provide below, it will be found to be in no way tenable.

His mother was twenty years old when her husband left her a widow with the tender John. But Anthusa, strengthened by the admonitions of the Apostle, although she was still young, abstained from a second marriage: she spared no effort in establishing and educating John; she neglected nothing that seemed opportune for his progress, both in liberal studies and Christian disciplines. The thing itself declared what a happy outcome this had. Yet she did not lay aside the care of her household; ^D indeed, she moderated everything in such a way that from her dowry and her own resources she might abundantly provide for the expenses of herself and her son, and keep the paternal wealth and all his goods intact for her son.

The gifts and character of John.

^A confirmed by Socrates, who continues and says: "And because of the holiness of his life, he was not very cautious regarding future matters; but because of his simplicity, he was easy of access. He also used excessive freedom of speech in his conversations. And in teaching, he was indeed very helpful for shaping the morals of his listeners; but in social gatherings, he seemed rather arrogant to those who had not known his character."

These things will perhaps seem harsher to those who admire Chrysostom’s eloquence and greatness of soul; yet we observe this variety of conduct in saints. For some, inflamed by the study of divine things, are carried more ardently toward shaping morals without respect to times and persons; others, to restrain dissolute behavior, use doctrine along with art.

He devotes himself to the art of oratory and philosophy

Nor will it seem strange to those who praise and celebrate even the extemporaneous orations of our Chrysostom if this oration, which he had polished with art and urbanity, pleased Libanius and the other orators so much. In those orations, however, which he crafts with great study, no suspicion of affectation and artificial diligence ever arises, which is the duty of the highest orator.

But those things which Chrysostom narrates in his book *to the Young Widow* (T. I, col. 601) concerning Libanius should perhaps be understood in this way. He says that his teacher, who was very superstitious and a pagan, had asked certain people whose son John was. They answered that he was the son of a certain widow. Then he asked how old the mother was, and how long she had been a widow. They replied that the mother was forty years old, and was now in the twentieth year of her widowhood. Then he exclaimed: "Alas! what kind of women there are among the Christians!" Such, continues Chrysostom, is the praise and admiration given to widowhood, not only among us, but even among the pagans.

George of Alexandria narrates that our John, flourishing in his youth, betook himself to Athens, in order ^B that he might leave nothing behind in his study of the sciences; and that he made such progress in that city that he surpassed everyone entirely, and stirred up the envy of the Athenians against himself. But this is told by that one fabricator George, whom Photius warns should be entirely disregarded, since he refers to things that are not mentioned by other writers closest to the age of Chrysostom.

He is recalled to his former piety by the youth Basil

He is baptized and ordained Lector around the year 369

Therefore, while he enjoyed the frequent company of Basil and both conversed about divine matters (De Sacerdotio lib. 1), and John was utterly withdrawn from the forum and secular ^C affairs, and frequented only Basil, and spoke with him always about divine things and the monastic life, Basil, who thought that life was not worth living without John, and who was frequently forced to be torn away from his company, proposed to John that both of them should leave their paternal homes, and take up residences in a certain private house, and live together a life similar to the monastic one. Finally, John approved of the plan; but when the matter was discovered, John’s mother, who loved her only son very much, earnestly begged him with profuse tears not to desert her, nor to postpone the company of a mother—a widow and so well-disposed—to someone else, using the words which Chrysostom himself reports, and which could have recalled the youth John, had he been less well-disposed, from his purpose. John, therefore, yielding to his mother's prayers, remained with her according to his custom.

In his mother’s house, therefore, free from secular business (for Anthusa took care of the entire family estate), John devoted himself only to divine philosophy, macerating his body with fasts, vigils, and sleeping on the ground, eliminating all base affections, and dispelling and dissipating the smoke of vain glory. And so that his tongue should not utter any evil against his neighbor, he imposed upon himself the law of perpetual silence.

^A He had placed bars, for he spoke to no one. Hence, among some, there was an opinion that he was harsh, a man who fled all human society; and when some people brought forward many such things and rumors, and he was not unaware that such a suspicion was held of him, he discovered it; yet he preferred to continue along the same path and to cultivate solitude as was his custom—perhaps having learned, while he was involved in the forum, that while enjoying the company and conversations of men, he could hardly progress without a fall on that path of virtue which he himself had embraced.

And yet he was not so sequestered from human society that he would close the entrance to all his companions and friends. For Basil, who was pursuing an equal regimen of life, he frequently admitted to conversations, as we have seen. Nor did he absolutely neglect those companions who, having once been imbued with the same disciplines as he, were embracing a secular life and applying themselves to forensic studies. ^B For he persuaded, says Socrates (Socr. l. 6, c. 3), Theodore and Maximus, his fellow-students, who, together with him, had heard the sophist Libanius, to abandon a profession which looked to nothing but gain, and instead embrace a simple and austere life. Of these, Theodore later became bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and Maximus of Seleucia in Isauria. Furthermore, Hermantius believes this Maximus was the one who was a friend and colleague of Chrysostom, and who preached in alternating turns with him, as is reported in the third volume, columns 225, 226. Chrysostom also mentions Maximus as his friend in a certain letter to Olympias (T. 3, col. 610, l. 1). He also wrote to his friend, the bishop Maximus (T. 3, col. 700). But whether the same person is mentioned three times in those places, or whether, if there are more, one of them is the person now being discussed, can only be said by guessing: for there were, in fact, many at that time by the name of Maximus.

Epistles to Theodore who had fallen.

Epistles to Theodore who had fallen.

What we have now said has been extracted from the very words of Chrysostom. Tillemont construes the matter quite differently; he thinks that the first discourse sent to Theodore was not sent to the one who later became Bishop of Mopsuestia, but to another of the same name who, likewise, after having abandoned the world, had again turned to secular affairs. We have refuted all his arguments, and that one in particular, which he himself thinks is the greatest of all, and it is of this sort: Theodore, mentioned in the second letter, had not yet completed his twentieth year; in the first, however, he said to Theodore that no more than fifty years of life remained for him, in order for him to reach extreme old age. From this, he argues that the first Theodore was forty years old at that time, thinking that "extreme old age" can only be said of a nonagenarian. But the other Theodore, who was then in his twentieth year, having added the fifty years later, would have been only a septuagenarian. I have, if I am not mistaken, excellently refuted this argument in the Monitum at the beginning of Volume 4. But according to these, I have fallen upon a place which I had not yet noticed, in which Chrysostom seems to be purposely refuting Tillemont's weapon. For in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Corinthians (T. 10, col. 35, l. 52), speaking of Socrates, he says: "And when he had reached extreme old age: for he used to say that he was seventy years old, when he departed this life." Now you see that the places brought forward by Tillemont must be explained in such a way that he speaks of the same Theodore in both epistles. In the first, he says fifty years remain for him to reach extreme old age, in the second, however, he had reached about his twentieth year: but in the cited passage, at seventy years of age, he is said to be of extreme old age. Using the same words, Chrysostom reconciles those two passages which Tillemont thought were in conflict, and proves that there is but one Theodore.

^D As for the year, however, in which these epistles were written, I do not disagree with Tillemont concerning the second, which he thinks was written in the year 369: but, contrary to what he thinks, I have proved in the same Monitum that the first was also given at about the same time. There is, however, one thing which might cause trouble. Chrysostom says…

^A in his first epistle (c. 302, 1. 42): "Now indeed sadness occupies the choir of the brethren, while pleasure and joy occupy the gathering of the unfaithful, and likewise of the young, who are more given to leisure." Tillemont thinks that by "the choir of the brethren" he means the company of monks, and from this he thinks it is proven that this Theodore is a different person from the Mopsuestian. But Chrysostom does not even say *monasterio* or *monachis* here—of whom he would undoubtedly have made mention if our man had left the monastery—but by "choir of the brethren" he seems to mean the entire choir of the faithful who live uprightly, whom he calls "brethren" more than once, and he contrasts them with the gathering of the unfaithful and of those youths who were given to leisure and sloth. Indeed, what I truly wonder at, given that he is the most accurate of all men, is that he did not notice that in the first period of the second epistle, Chrysostom says he is saddened because he had removed himself from the catalog of the brethren.

Eventually, Theodore, recalled by so many letters of Chrysostom together with Maximus (Soz. l. 8, c. 2), and undoubtedly frequenting John with Basil (Socr. l. 6, c. 3), and gathered together in one place, they pursued a true philosophy, or a life similar to the monastic. They learned the Holy Scriptures and ecclesiastical doctrine together with monastic exercises from their teachers Diodorus, who later was bishop of Tarsus, and Carterius, who together with Diodorus managed the Antiochene monasteries.

John flees the episcopal dignity and takes care that it be conferred upon Basil. This holy and select youth, therefore, applied themselves to these studies. John, indeed, was incessantly having conversations with Basil (Chrys. *de Sacerd.*) concerning the holiness of life, concerning ascetic virtues, and concerning any other matters pertaining to piety. ^B While they were occupied in these things, after Meletius had been sent into exile in the year 370, when certain episcopal sees were vacant, a rumor was spread that John and Basil were to be promoted to episcopal dignity to fill those sees. Once the matter was discovered, John was struck with fear: for he considered himself—so modest was he—far unequal to so great an office; but fearing lest he be dragged to that honor even against his will, he formed a plan to hide himself. In the midst of this, Basil, moved by the fame of this matter, approached John, his friend and companion, whom he supposed was ignorant of these things. He reveals the matter to him, and asks him what counsel should be taken, whether to obey or to flee, being prepared for either, and awaiting his friend's judgment. John, however, who, as he deemed himself unworthy of such an office, so he deemed Basil most worthy of it, both from his previous life and from such a great desire to attain virtue; thinking that he would bring the greatest harm to the Church of Christ if he were to turn one so upright, so fit for the salvation of many, away from assuming the duty, answered him that the consultation of the matter should be deferred to another time, that nothing was urgent, and that nothing should be done prematurely. Not noticing whither these things tended, Basil embraced his friend's counsel.

John used this pious fraud, and because he was not ignorant that the matter was urgent, he hid himself. Not much time having elapsed, when he who was to ordain arrived, Basil was seized and brought to be ordained bishop. And when he resisted, certain of those present gave him words, crying out that it was absurd for the one who seemed more ferocious to all (pointing to John) to have obeyed the pleasure of the Fathers with great modesty; yet for him, who was by far more prudent and modest, to act fiercely and seek vain glory. Deceived by this art, Basil was ordained bishop of Raphanea in Syria, as Baronius probably thinks. ^C

Concerning the year, however, in which these things were done, I agree with Hermantius and Tillemont, who refer the same to the year of Christ 372 or thereabouts, and think that it could not be deferred beyond the year 374. There is one thing which could shift one from such a method of calculation, which is the fact that John was then only 25, or at most 27 years of age, and Basil was of about the same age, which would seem unsuitable for assuming such a great office. But although the age at which bishops are ordained is for the most part required to be older, there are not lacking examples of those who were chosen and appointed bishops before their 25th year; and besides, Basil himself says in Chrysostom that some had called those who had ordained him into question, and those who had searched in vain to consecrate John as bishop; as they—having left so many and such great men—had snatched up youths who yesterday and the day before were wallowing in secular cares, that for a short time they might knit their brows, don dark robes, and feign a sadness of countenance, and suddenly brought them to such an honor, which they would not have hoped to attain even in their dreams: by which it is argued that John and Basil, his schoolfellow, were then quite young.

Basil, having thus been incorporated into the episcopacy, immediately approaches John, and complains gravely with him that by his fraud he had been forced to assume such a burden (Chrys. *de Sacerd.* t. 1, l. 1). ^D Then John, to clear himself, admits that it is indeed a great work, which he strives to prove he was unequal to carrying for many reasons, which he brings forward in that same place; but however great the difficulty of rightly managing the episcopacy may be, it is nevertheless necessary to choose men who would undertake that duty, and since he considered Basil most suitable for exercising this dignity, it is no wonder if he took care, as far as was lawful for him, that he himself be chosen for that office. The whole sermon is woven in the manner of a dialogue, where Chrysostom discusses the dignity, office, and duties of priests so excellently that you would find hardly any conversation on this matter equal to it anywhere.

Concerning the time when Chrysostom published these sermons, there is no single opinion among writers, nor are they to be heeded who wish that John wrote these books as they are now held at the very time the dialogue was had with Basil. For the very manner of beginning indicates some elapsed time, and the whole series carries a mark of being thought out and adorned in leisure. Socrates says that John, when he was a deacon, namely from the year 381 to the year 386, in which he was ordained presbyter, published the books *de Sacerdotio* (Socr. l. 6, c. 3). But Palladius, according to the Latin interpretation of Ambrosius Camaldulensis, [says] that John began these books in solitude

^A he is said to have declared that it happened from about the year 375 to the year 381, when he returned from solitude to the city. We would follow Palladius without hesitation if the same were read in the Greek text edited by Emericus Bigotius; but since it does not appear there in the least regarding this matter, we refrain from forming a judgment.

In the year 374, while John still remained at Antioch, he fell into a danger such as he himself narrates in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (T. 9, c. 274, n. 5). When, under the Emperor Valens, a great search for magical and bewitching books was made in Antioch, and soldiers were stationed around the city so that no one guilty of such a crime could escape, a certain man who had made and written such a book, fearing that he might be found out, threw the book into the river. But since it was known through certain indications that the book had been put together by him, he was captured by the soldiers who were demanding that he hand over the book. He could no longer do so, but, as it seems, he denied that he had made it; however, the evidence and proofs against him having increased, he paid the penalty. While the book, being unbound, floated on the surface of the river, it happened that our John, on his way with a companion to the martyry or church of the Martyrs, was traveling along the river. His companion, when he saw the book floating toward the bank, thought it was a linen cloth, and climbing down, picked it up. John, before it was known what it was, jokingly claimed that a part of the thing found belonged to him. Then, with the page unrolled, the companion found magical writings. It happened, however, that a soldier was passing by at that very moment. At this, fear seized both of them; they dared not throw the book away, lest they appear to be its authors. Finally, however, they threw it away, and with God’s help, they were snatched from danger.

The Life of the Monks in the Mountains Adjacent to Antioch

^BPerhaps struck by this event, John more ardently desired the retreat to the monasteries situated in the mountains near Antioch, which he had long ago conceived in his mind (Pall. Dial. p. 41). Nor did anything seem to him more stable than that life which was entirely devoted to divine things. And though he himself was already leading a life near his mother not unlike the monastic [way], being assiduously intent on prayer, fasts, vigils, and the reading of the Scriptures, always remaining indoors and segregated from the world and from worldly business, yet that angelic life of the monks, which he himself describes more than once, called him to the mountains. For they who had renounced all worldly things were accustomed to rise daily long before dawn and, gathered together, to pour out prayers, supplicating the Lord that they might pass through the midst of the dangers of this life unharmed, and finally come before that last tribunal without fear and damage. And then rising, they would chant the morning hours, and having spent no small amount of time in these offices, they hurried to the labor of their hands. Then some would dig the earth, others care for vegetables and legumes, others carry water, others weave baskets and haircloths and other things of this kind: nor were there wanting those who gave their effort to writing and transcribing books (T. 7, c. 643, n. 3; 651, n. 3; T. 1, c. 543, n. 3).

They spent a part of the morning hours reading the books of Holy Scripture, and from there they drew whatever pertained to the law of stricter discipline. Furthermore, all of them—both those who had given themselves to the exercise of cultivating the land and others who were performing the duty of weaving or sewing in their cells—were devoted to perpetual silence.

If, however, any seculars, moved by the fame of such a holy and austere life, came to their cells, they were no longer silent, but willingly spoke words that could entice those [visitors] to a contempt of the present life and a desire for the future blessed one. Whence it sometimes happened that those who had come only for the sake of visiting them, struck by that spectacle, embraced that same manner of life.

The day among them was divided into four parts; indeed, individual parts were terminated by the divine office; namely the Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Vespers, which were celebrated in alternate choirs by the chanting of psalms. But after the fasting [monks] had passed the whole day in prayers, labor of the hands, psalms, and sacred reading, they finally met together to take food. The entire preparation for the evening meal was bread with salt; some would add oil, but the old and the more infirm [would eat] vegetables or legumes: water was enough for drink. After the meal, having poured out prayers, they gave thanks to God, and thereafter, sitting together, they spoke words regarding matters pertaining to salvation and the heavenly life; finally, having poured out prayers, and sleeping on mats placed on the ground—with the very light food providing only the slightest sleep—they would rest for a few hours, and finally, ^C at the light warning of the superior and without noise, they would wake up, rising to repeat the previous [tasks]. The clothing was entirely of goat or camel hair, or of skins worn out by use.

By the labor of their hands, they not only provided sustenance for themselves; but since the evening meal was so slender and of the least possible expense, they bestowed whatever remained upon the poor. If any guest arrived, he was willingly received by the monks, who, having washed his feet, provided him with food they had on hand, and spoke words concerning the fleeting condition of earthly things and the happiness of celestial things, as we said above.

Our John was burning to adopt this manner of life, and in order to prepare himself for it, he even pursued certain monastic exercises at home; but the austerity of the life which we have just described deterred him from this intent. Regarding this matter, he is to be heard (Ad Demetrium de Comp. t. 1, c. 403, l. 25): "When I had lately resolved, having left the city, to withdraw to the tabernacles of the monks, I was solicitously asking and inquiring whence provisions for necessities would come, and whether it were possible that fresh and daily bread could be eaten: whether someone would compel me to use the same oil for a lamp and for food; whether someone would drive me to the miserable fare of legumes; whether someone would assign me hard work, such as digging, carrying wood, fetching water, and all other services of this kind; and to speak summarily, I was inquiring about much regarding the quiet of the body." But those obstacles which presented themselves to his mind, he, led by the love of virtue and a stricter discipline, finally overcame, and to those mountains

he ascended: neither the prayers nor the tears of his mother could avail to turn him from so salutary a purpose, but yielding to the counsel of Christ, he left his mother ^A that he might follow Him.

John spent four years in the monastery.—When he had come thither (at the beginning of the year 374 or 375), he met with a certain Syrian, an old man of most severe discipline; and for four years he imitated his more rigorous rule of life, struggling against the reefs of worldly pleasures—which he easily overcame, not so much by toil as by reason (Pallad. p. 41). Some time after he had betaken himself to the mountains for the sake of solitude, being requested by his friend Demetrius, he published his book *On Compunction*. He gave in this the first specimen of a genius born for the highest things: in it, whatever could be devised most powerfully for the purpose of persuasion is employed. After this book, he sent another *On Compunction* to Stelechius, written in a more ardent style. In the first, addressed to Demetrius, he says that he had lately resolved to approach the dwellings of the monks, and in the following pages he implies that he was already living there at that time: wherefore all were of the opinion that John had published this work shortly after he had betaken himself to the monasteries, and while he was staying there. ^B However, Tillemont, while not entirely rejecting this opinion, thinks he can wield a very strong argument against it, when he says that John speaks in such a way here that he appears to have been a presbyter at the time. But as we said in the *Admonition* to this book, and as we also warned before the book *On Virginity*, it is habitual for Chrysostom to assume the person of various individuals, namely of bishops, presbyters, and even of married men, which is proven by examples, so that it appears that nothing at all can be inferred therefrom. He openly indicates the time, therefore, when he narrates that he had lately withdrawn to the monasteries.

He writes against the opponents of the monastic life and others.

In the third book, however, he relates another history of a certain most noble youth, whose tutor was a monk, from which tutor John had learned everything. This boy's father cared little for Christian duties, but his mother was endowed with piety and was very religious. The father thought only of promoting his son to secular dignities; but the mother cared for one thing only, that he might merit the heavenly kingdom through the sanctity of life, and indeed through the exercises of the monastic life. Everything depended on the manner of his education: wherefore she persuaded her husband that he should send him to Antioch, so that there he might learn the Latin and Greek languages before he should be girt with the belt; for this girding of the belt at that time pertained to magistrates and the most noble men. Meanwhile, she summoned the solitary from the mountains, and asked him to take care of sending her son to Antioch for studies, and to be in the place of a tutor to him. He resisted and said that such a duty could not befit a monk. But she insisted so vehemently with earnest prayers that finally the monk complied. He came, therefore, with the boy to Antioch. John, however, who was then in the city and had seen him living in the monastery, inquired what the reason was for his taking up such a duty. He related the matter as above. And he so instructed the boy, and so inflamed him with the love of the monastic life, that a little later he withdrew into the desert, and there practiced the monastic life. But our John, fearing that his father, who was by nature irascible, might turn to fury and punish both the tutor and the monks severely, forced him to return home: where, having been instructed in this way by his tutor, he gave attention to the reading of the Holy Scripture, to fasts, vigils, and other monastic exercises: and since he was endowed with talent, he enticed other boys to this same sort of life. But his father did everything he could to turn him from this kind of life.

^A Yet he held so firmly to his happy beginning that nothing could pull him away from it.

About this same time, it seems Chrysostom issued that elegant little work which is entitled, *A Comparison of a King and a Monk* (T. I, c. 387). In this, he proves that he who devotes himself to philosophy—that is, to the monastic life—may truly be called a king; nay, even richer and more powerful than a king, stronger in war, more apt at obliging men and honoring them with benefits, and more blessed at his death.

*He remains shut up in a cave for two years.* — Our John spent four years living an ascetic life in the mountains and in the huts of the monks (Pallad., p. 41), spending the day and the greater part of the night in fasts, vigils, the singing of psalms, and other exercises of that sort, living on bread and water only, perhaps with the addition of herbs or legumes. Nor did he become less strict as a result of such severe discipline and way of life; rather, he emerged even more fervent, and after four years had passed, he shut himself up in a cave alone. ^B What he did there is not to be investigated, nor is it narrated by writers; however, it is certain he did nothing but tame the flesh and unite himself to God with a more fervent love. He remained shut up there for two years, and would no doubt have stayed much longer had he not been forced to return to the city from the cave and the mountains due to illness. This, it seems, happened entirely in the year 380, for the sequence of times established by us will be consistent: assuming he betook himself to the mountains and monasteries either at the turn of the year 374 or at the start of 375, and spent six years or thereabouts there, as Palladius reports.

*Annis 380, 381. On his return home, he writes to Stagirius (T. I, c. 423).* — Having returned home and suffering from bodily infirmity, he was forced to remain shut up, refreshing his spirit with the conversation of friends who came to visit him and soothing the discomforts of his illness. Shortly after his return, and indeed, if we are to trust Socrates, after he had been ordained a deacon by Meletius, he wrote books to Stagirius, who was vexed by a demon and had previously been a familiar friend to him, in the year 380 or at the beginning of 381. That this was done while he was at home, and detained by a headache and bodily weakness so that he could not go out, he himself declares at the beginning of the first book with these words: "It was necessary that we should be present with you now and share in your troubles, and in part alleviate your grief by exhorting you with words, by helping you with our deeds, and by offering all other services as far as our strength would allow; but since both the poor state of our body and the pain that has invaded our head have compelled us to remain at home, and have robbed us of the ministry of such a great service, we shall not neglect to offer you that which remains for your consolation and our own benefit, as far as our ability permits." ^C

We have cited these words at the beginning from John, so that we may answer Tillemont's objection, who says: "John says that he heard everything that was told about Stagirius; if he had been in Antioch, he would have seen it for himself, and not just learned it by hearsay from others." Whence he infers that John was then in the solitude or in the cave, not in Antioch. To this objection, John responds most aptly from the beginning as above: whence it is clear that he wrote these things while suffering from illness at home, and not while living in the cave.

Stagirius, therefore, born of a noble family and educated from his tender years in the Christian faith, was at first indeed addicted to earthly things, but soon after, having renounced his wealth and the vanities of the world, he embraced the monastic life, though his father was unwilling and reluctant. At first, however, he did not handle ascetic matters as diligently as he ought, but lazily and perfunctorily, relying on his family standing, and he would hardly admit those who offered counsel. But God, foreseeing this, lest Stagirius receive a lower reward after having made the sacrifice of such great wealth, allowed him to be seized and agitated by a demon, so that you might have seen his hands distorted, his eyes fierce, foam at his mouth, his voice horrific and incoherent, his body trembling, and a long-standing deprivation of his senses: and he was so frequently and repeatedly vexed that he sometimes came to desperate thoughts of killing himself. Hence arose immense sorrow and sadness. All ways of appeasing God were attempted, but none sufficed; the prayers of the saints were employed, nor was an end to the vexation obtained. Yet from so many trials, the result was that he who once acted so lazily now began to approach pious exercises more fervently. ^D

Now, by the account of Theophilus of Ephesus, who was a friend to both John and Stagirius, John was summoned to provide comfort during such a great calamity: as a friend, he wrote these three books, which were suitable for soothing the pain; in them, he proves by the example of the saints of both Testaments that God inflicts even heavier evils upon those most dear to Himself so that He might bestow upon them greater rewards and more splendid crowns. He says that the soul, when afflicted by calamities, clings more fervently to God and divine things: that all stains and vices are more quickly wiped away by this method: just as could be proved by the example of Stagirius himself, who, having eliminated his laziness, lethargy, and pride, now held the first rank among the more fervent athletes of Christ. And he brings forward the example of a certain Demophilus, a man very dear to him, and of Aristoxenus and others living in the xenodochium, who were suffering under dire pains with great patience. These things he pursues at length and pathetically according to his custom, and offers a remedy for soothing any sorrow to whoever reads them.

John, however, who could not visit Stagirius when he first began to write the book to him, did visit him before he finished these books, as he himself more than once hints, having been relieved by the illness. He was detained at home by sickness when he learned of Stagirius's calamity from the accounts of many others, as he himself says; and it is likely that he fell into these illnesses, the bodily ailment and the headache, while he macerated his weak body in the cave, where he spent two years, and kept his mind constantly intent upon ascetic exercises. But after he was forced to return to the city and to his own home by the strength of the illness, having not yet recovered from the sickness, he heard of these things concerning Stagirius from many who told him.

^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

He writes the book on Virginity

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

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.

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.

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.

^A 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

^A homily, which reads: *Against those who fast on the first day of the Passover.* But that in this very year those who followed the Jewish calculation for the Passover were to fast on the day of the Passover itself, even though they were Christians, is thus declared by Chrysostom, no. 5: *For behold, the first day of Unleavened Bread falls this year on the Lord’s Day, and it is entirely necessary that we fast the whole week; and when the passion has passed, and the cross has arrived, and the resurrection, we still remain fasting.* And it frequently happens that, after the cross, after the resurrection, the week not yet being completed, we observe a fast. These things are said against those who observed the fast in the Jewish manner, and who sometimes fasted on the Passover itself, namely, when the Jewish calculation assigned the Passover after the Christians' Passover. For then those Christians who observed the fast by Jewish rite would fast on the day on which other Christians were celebrating the Passover.

But according to the Paschal tables in the year 387, the Passover fell on April 25, which is the latest possible date it can occur: how, then, could those Judaizers have fasted on the Passover in that year, since the Jewish Passover can never occur after the twenty-fifth of April? Truly, this difficulty cannot overturn the most certain marks of time established by us. For whether the Antiochenes always followed the invariable rule of the Alexandrians regarding the Lord’s Passover is not known to us; and even if they did follow it, can we affirm that error never occurred in the calculation? Certainly, that Anonymous writer who published the sermons on the Passover in the name of John Chrysostom, which we have brought to light in the eighth volume (T. 8, c. 261), says that contrary views regarding the Paschal calculation existed in that very year in which he published his homily. Moreover, Gregory of Tours (see in the same place) observes more than once that this variety regarding the day of the Passover occurred in his time in different regions. Men most expert in these matters admit that error sometimes happened in such calculations, and that it has happened not many years ago, and that it is not always safe to place Paschal marks before other indicators. Indeed, the firmness of those things which we said above seems such that it is permissible to determine the Paschal calculation of that sort from our computation rather than to determine the calculation from a Paschal count that is against that computation.

Book against the Jews and Gentiles.

But that the five following homilies against the Jews were held long after the contest against them had been interrupted is indicated by Chrysostom himself at the beginning of the fourth, with these words: *Again those wretched and most miserable of mortals, the Jews, are about to fast: again it is necessary that we fortify the flock of Christ.* But the sixth homily, no. 6, declares it openly: *But why do I speak of plunderers? Surely you all know and remember, when certain wicked men and magicians among us threw down the statues of the prince, in what way not only those who had dared the crime, but as many as were seen simply present, because they seemed to agree with them, were dragged into judgment and, together with them, were seized and affected by the extreme penalty.* Here we see that catastrophe mentioned, which throughout the whole of Lent in the year 387, on the occasion of the thrown-down statues, was a spectacle at Antioch, about which there is more in its proper place. Furthermore, this sixth homily was held on the very day of the Jews' fast, as Chrysostom himself says at the end of the fourth: about ten days before the fast; the fifth in the interval, as ^D follows from the manner of beginning; the seventh, while the Jewish feast was not yet completed; the eighth, after the fast and the feast; so that it is clearly gathered from the words of Chrysostom that the five last homilies against the Jews were delivered within a space of less than twenty days.

^A Menses of September he had fulfilled. Regarding this matter, no difficulty can arise. However, whether he delivered these five sermons in the year 387, when the same fast recurred, the cause of which had led him to deliver the three previous homilies in the preceding year, while not considered equally certain, is nevertheless entirely probable. In the course of these homilies, the holy doctor says that memorials of the martyrs occur, just as they did in those former sermons of the year 386, which he himself testifies to have delivered in the month of September. And Chrysostom seems to have wished to heal completely in the following year that Judaic malady still clinging to the minds of certain Christians, to which he had applied a healing hand in the year 386; and the very beginning of the fourth homily, "Again the Jews are to fast," seems to signify the same season of the year recurring.

That which he said against the Anomoeans and against the Jews in the years 386 and 387, and indeed not once but periodically, sometimes on one topic and sometimes on another, we have judged to be recounted continuously and in a single series, rather than interrupting it by inserting other homilies of a different subject which he delivered to the people during that interval of time, lest we disturb the flow of the discourse which was of the same argument. Therefore, we must repeat those things which he treated during that intervening space of time, some of which are thought to be of no less, or rather of greater, importance.

Homily concerning the Anathema

Eustathius of Antioch, a holy and Catholic man, and therefore hateful to the Arians, had been deposed and sent into exile through their works and calumnies in or about the year 350; and in his place another Arian bishop had been substituted, and from then on, through a continuous succession, bishops of the same sect held the Antiochene see, while the Catholics meanwhile held assemblies separately with the Eustathian clergy, until the Arians ordained Meletius, whom they thought to be addicted to their heresy, as bishop. But it fell out most opportunely that he was not only not a Catholic, but was actually among the more fervent Catholics. And when they later discovered that he was a defender of the Catholic cause and hostile to the Arians, they saw to it that he was driven into exile and substituted the Arian Euzoius in his place. Then indeed was the city divided into three parts: the first was that of the Eustathians, or those who were devoted to St. Eustathius, and who rejected the communion of Meletius because he had been co-opted as bishop by the Arians; the second was that of the Meletians, namely the Catholics, who followed Meletius because he was a most holy Catholic man, even though ordained by the Arians; the third was that of the Arians, who held assemblies with Euzoius. Up to this point, however, two bishops were in Antioch, namely Meletius on the part of the Catholics, and Euzoius on the part of the Arians: for the Eustathians held their assemblies separately with the presbyter Paulinus. ^B

Wherefore Athanasius, in the Synod of Alexandria in the year 362, strove with all his might that the Eustathians might be joined to the Meletians, and that all Catholics might acknowledge one bishop, Meletius; and he saw to it that two legates, the bishops Eusebius of Vercelli and Asterius, were sent from the Alexandrian Synod for this purpose. But meanwhile, while the legates were traveling, Lucifer of Cagliari interrupted the pious plan of Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod, as he himself chose Paulinus as bishop; so that there were now three bishops of Antioch, two Catholics and one Arian. Now from this dissension of the Catholics, which persisted for quite many years, innumerable quarrels arose, insults, taunts, and curses, by which those addicted to different parties lacerated one another, with matters openly festering. Paulinus, however, admitted to the episcopate, subscribed to the Alexandrian Synod, in which Apollinarius of Laodicea, who had sent his own orator-monks there so that they might give a profession of his faith in the assembly of the Fathers—in such a way, however, that they might craftily remain silent about his errors—was admitted into communion. Paulinus, however, ordained in the year 362, ended his life in the year 388 or 389. But Apollinarius, who after the Alexandrian Synod was still spreading his errors as before, was refuted by Athanasius as a heretic.

These things had to be prefaced so that the scope and the statements of Chrysostom might be understood. The Meletian Catholics, therefore—I speak of the common people—being hostile to the Eustathians, grasped at an opportunity to utter curses, because Paulinus had subscribed to the same Alexandrian Synod to which the heresiarch Apollinarius had also subscribed, and therefore they constantly called Apollinarius the master of Paulinus. But Chrysostom, who saw with great distress that the Antiochene Church was so fissured that Catholics were rising up against Catholics so atrociously, harshly received his auditors who had dared such things: "But what do they say," he says, "those who are bold unto all malice? The heretic, they say, has become such; he has a devil dwelling in him, and he speaks against God in his wickedness, and leads many into the depth of destruction by his persuasion and vain deceit; and therefore he has been ejected by the Fathers, especially his master, who cut off a part of the Church": thus they designate either Paulinus or Apollinarius. ^C

Chrysostom reports these things as they were spoken, not very accurately, by the unrefined mob; and because, not rarely, plebeian insults of this kind and remarks sounding strange are intermixed with the oration, this homily in many places does not seem to be written with the same elegance as the others. We think this was spoken in the year 386, along with Baronius and Hermantius, and the matter seems entirely certain. Tillemont, however, from a poorly cited and understood passage of this homily, thinks it was delivered after the death of Paulinus, specifically after the year 388. See our Admonition, where his opinion is most clearly refuted, if I am not mistaken.

Sermon on the Nativity of Christ

^A he preached for the first time on the day of the Nativity of Christ (T. 2, c. 351, l. 24). For when it was not yet the tenth year, he says, since that day had become known to the Antiochenes from the West, where it had been celebrated from the beginning, having been brought to Antioch; many shunned a feast day of this kind, as if it were a new and recently introduced thing; others, however, in great number, willingly accepted it. Chrysostom, in order to quiet this dispute, delivered this homily as soon as that celebration occurred after he had been ordained priest, so that he might put an end to the strife that had arisen and prove by many arguments that the Nativity of Christ falls on the twenty-fifth of December. He says, first, that this opinion is to be considered true even from the fact that, having been proclaimed in every direction, it was accepted by all with such speed. Next, he says that the birth of Christ had been celebrated on that day from the beginning throughout the whole West, and especially at Rome. Moreover, since the census of Cyrenius, made by order of Augustus and recorded in the registers, was held by the Romans, from this source the Romans had derived the true and genuine day of Christ's birth. He also borrows another argument from the day on which Zacharias entered the temple, whom he himself considers to have been the high priest: from this ^B he draws the calculation to prove that the day of the Lord's Nativity falls on the twenty-fifth of December. We have offered more on this matter in the Admonition to T. 2, c. 547, where you may see it.

Another sermon. — There were some at Antioch who did not think correctly concerning the true faith, who interpreted this saying of Paul read in the Church (T. 3, c. 311), "Whether in pretense or in truth Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice," so perversely as to say that, as long as Christ was being proclaimed, it mattered little whether the dogmas were heretical or true. Chrysostom refutes this monstrosity of error and demonstrates by many points that this was not Paul's meaning. But he confirms this to be Paul's true sententia from the history of events: when some of Paul's enemies saw him bound in chains, they preached the true and sound faith—so as to increase the number of disciples and make that tyrant rage all the more against the man heavily laden with chains—in order to inflame Nero yet more against him and plot his destruction. For this very reason, says Chrysostom, Paul says: "Whether in pretense or in truth Christ is proclaimed, and in this I rejoice." This homily presents many things at the beginning concerning humility, and at the end concerning the usefulness and necessity of prayer. That it was delivered after the day of the Nativity of Christ in the final days of December of the year 386 is argued from the actual words of Chrysostom, as you may see in the Admonition to T. 3, c. 309, where we have shown the matter to be, if not absolutely certain, at least very probable.

Sermon on the Epiphany and others. — On the following day of the Epiphany (the year 387), as is thought to be altogether probable, he delivered a sermon on the Baptism and Epiphany of Christ (T. 2, c. 365): where, after he had exhorted the ^C people to frequent the church, he speaks of a double epiphany; namely, of that by which He appeared more to those coming from the East, and of the latter one, by which He is to come with glory and splendor at the consummation of the age. He then declares the miracle concerning the water of baptism; for when around midnight, which preceded the day of the Epiphany, individuals carried away with them some of that baptismal water, that water did not spoil, but remained incorrupt for a whole year, and indeed for two or three years. He then teaches what the distinction is between the baptism of the Jews, the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ. From here he explains how Christ fulfilled all righteousness; finally, he urges the people to approach the awesome mysteries with great reverence.

Chrysostom had begun his sermon on the Baptism of Christ thus: "You are all in joy today, but I am alone in sorrow. For when I turn my eyes to this spiritual sea and contemplate the immense riches of the Church, and then consider that, as soon as this solemnity has passed, this entire multitude will again shrink away and depart, I am tortured and suffer with pain of heart that, although the Church has brought forth so many children, she cannot enjoy them in the same way in individual gatherings, but only on feast days." And what he feared actually happened on the following day, the seventh of January (in the year 387). For when he was delivering a sermon on St. Lucian (T. 2, c. 519), he no longer saw that frequency of people present, ^D but much rarer listeners; for which reason he begins thus: "What I feared yesterday has come to pass, and has now been brought to effect; namely, when the feast has passed, the multitude has departed from us at the same time, and a smaller assembly has been formed for us." Hence it seems to be shown more clearly than light that this panegyric of St. Lucian was pronounced on the day following the Epiphany and in that same year, 387. Lucian, however, an Antiochene priest, says Chrysostom, gloriously confessed Christ's name through famine and many tortures. This happened in the year 311 or 312, in the persecution of Maximinus. The Roman Martyrology announces the martyrdom of St. Lucian on the 7th of January. The Arians falsely claimed him to be of their own party, because some of his disciples had cast themselves into the camp of the Arians: indeed, Arius himself and Eusebius of Nicomedia were premier leaders of that sect, had been disciples of Lucian, and called themselves Collucianists. But they had fallen away from the doctrine of Lucian and from the catholic faith. Yet nothing of this is reported in the panegyric of St. Lucian by Chrysostom.

At the beginning of this year 387, the holy doctor preached. Furthermore, from those homilies which he delivered to the people before Lent of the same year, we place that which is entitled On the Resurrection of the Dead, as Chrysostom himself indicates to us, who begins it thus (T. 2, c. 417): "We have already discussed before you concerning the dogmas of our faith and the glory of the Only-Begotten Son of God, closing the mouths of those who subtract glory from Him and call Him alien from His Begetter." But he commemorates here the sermons against the Anomoeans, who were intent on weakening the glory of the Only-Begotten, which he finished at the beginning of the year 387, as we proved in the Admonition to those same ones. Hence it is argued that this sermon was delivered around the beginning of the year 387, and indeed before Lent, which he spent entirely in lamenting the calamities of the Antiochenes after their statues had been overturned.

^A The subject matter of this discourse is established by the holy Doctor in his exordium. He treats of the resurrection of the dead, the truth of which he asserts in various places; for in Chrysostom’s age, countless numbers denied the resurrection of the dead. He proceeds afterward to speak of the life that must be led according to God, and of the labors that must be undertaken, once the magnitude of the reward has been weighed; he proves, by the example of Paul, that some reward for good works is bestowed even in this life.

Among the events that occurred in the time of John Chrysostom, nothing is more memorable than that sedition of the Antiochenes, by which, after the statues of the Emperor Theodosius and his wife Flaccilla had been thrown down and dragged through the city, they so exasperated Theodosius that he considered destroying the city. This was a broad subject matter for our Chrysostom to exercise his faculty of preaching. For the people of Antioch were fluctuating between hope and fear, while sudden, unexpected events brought them daily, new causes for either hoping or fearing. Chrysostom, almost always unprepared and forced to turn his pen as circumstances dictated, often delivered those admirable discourses extemporaneously (Homilies to the Antiochians, Book 2, at the beginning); at one moment to console a people in the midst of calamity, at another to strengthen the hearts broken by the magnitude of the danger; and then, especially, to lead the Antiochenes—on the occasion of looming calamities—toward correcting their vices, composing their morals, and washing away the wickedness that had kindled so great an anger in God; a pursuit which certainly turned out according to Chrysostom’s desire, as he admits in one place.

The History of the Antiochene Sedition

Discarding the narration of Theodoret and Sozomen, from which one might have thought this sedition and the discourses delivered by Chrysostom should be placed after the war against Maximus, learned men have already proven—using notes of time far more certain—that these events took place before the war against Maximus; Tillemont asserted this at greater length in note 27 to the *Life of Emperor Theodosius*. A very strong argument against that former opinion is derived from Chrysostom’s own words: for Homily XVI, no. 2, testifies that this is the second year from which he had begun to preach. He began when he was ordained presbyter, at the beginning of the year 386: therefore, these events are to be assigned to the year 387. Baronius, however, Petavius, and Henri Valois attribute these to the year 388; they base this calculation on the fact that the tenth year of Theodosius’s reign began in that year, for the celebration of which the aforementioned tribute was introduced. Furthermore, what is cited from Libanius to support that opinion is entirely intricate, and can be twisted to favor either view. Moreover, we derive a more certain proof than all these from the fact that the Emperor Theodosius was most certainly staying in Constantinople throughout the winter and Lent of the year 387; which is also the year the sedition must have occurred: ^C for at the time of the sedition he was in Constantinople; but in the following year, at this same time, Theodosius was living in Thessalonica. Indeed, the objection raised regarding the celebration of the tenth year of Theodosius, which began in the year 388, is of no consequence, since it is certain from the chronicles of Idatius and Marcellinus that he had anticipated the celebration of his tenth year of imperial rule by one year, so that he might celebrate his tenth year together with his son Arcadius, who was entering the fifth year of his reign in the year 387, just as Maximianus Herculius, while only in the eighteenth year of his reign, had celebrated his twentieth year together with Diocletian, who was in his twentieth. Nothing, therefore, can be brought against our calculation from this, as Tillemont proves most excellently.

A far graver difficulty could be opposed from the Paschal calculation of that year, 387, in which, according to the Paschal tables, Easter fell on April 25; and yet the Pasch of the Jews was celebrated in that year, as Chrysostom testifies, some days after the Christian Easter. But the claim that the Jews celebrated their Pasch after the twenty-fifth of April could never have happened. Therefore, as we have said at greater length above, we must assume that there was a variation in the Paschal calculation at Antioch in the year 387; such variations happened so frequently, as we say in the same place, that it is no wonder it happened here as well. Tillemont, however, who observed and examined a difficulty of this kind in his notes to the *Life of Chrysostom*, where he deals with the Homilies *Against the Jews*, made no mention of it in the notes to the *Life of Emperor Theodosius*, where he arranges these homilies of Chrysostom to the people of Antioch just as if Easter had fallen on the twenty-fifth of April, as the Paschal tables claim. He therefore places the first homily shortly before the sedition: the sedition itself on the twenty-sixth of Feb-

of February, ten days before Lent, which began at Antioch on the Monday of our Quinquagesima, falling that year on March 8th. The second homily, either on the Thursday or Saturday before Lent, March 6th, the eighth day after the sedition. The third on the following Sunday, March 7th or thereabout. The fourth on the Monday following, March 8th. The fifth on Tuesday, March 9th. The sixth on Wednesday, roughly, or March 10th. The seventh on Thursday, March 11th. The eighth on Friday, March 12th. The ninth on the Monday of the second week of Lent, March 15th. The tenth a few days later. The eleventh, as it was displaced, on the Monday of the fourth week of Lent, March 29th. The twelfth on the following Tuesday, March 30th. The thirteenth on the following Wednesday, March 31st. The fourteenth shortly after the one numbered as the eighteenth, which was given on the fifth Sunday of Lent, April 5th. The fifteenth on the Saturday of the second week of Lent, or March 20th. The sixteenth on the third Sunday of Lent, March 21st. The seventeenth around the end of the fourth week of Lent. The eighteenth on the fifth Sunday of Lent, April 3rd or thereabout. The nineteenth after the fourteenth, about April 11th. The twentieth on Easter Day, April 25th. The twenty-first at about the same time as the twenty-second which follows, which was given on the Friday after Passion Sunday, April 16th. Thus Tillemont attempts to restore the order of these homilies, which is so disturbed, with the greatest accuracy, to whom, as we agree in many points, we are forced to disagree in others. Furthermore, we represent here in one view the order of the homilies as he established it.

[Table omitted]

But before we discuss the individual homilies and say a few words about the order and subject matter of each, it will be useful to note, from the title of the homily which was once numbered twenty-second but is now numbered twentieth—which title, in the Notes of Fronto and in our manuscripts, teaches that this homily was delivered ten days before Easter—as also from these words before the end of the homily, "forty days have now passed," we rightly infer that Lent among the Antiochenes was accustomed to begin on the Monday after Quinquagesima, and that the whole of Lent among them was observed over seven weeks. And justly does Tillemont assign this homily to the Friday of the last week preceding the week of Lent: for that day was indeed the fortieth from the beginning of the fast and the tenth before Easter. Hence we hold it as an established fact that Lent, which was limited by various boundaries in some churches, was observed at Antioch over seven weeks. Since, however, for the reasons mentioned above, we are certain that the current Paschal tables, which place Easter of the year 387 on the twenty-fifth, were not observed at Antioch in that year at least; and since it is not known to us on what day in the year 387 the Antiochenes celebrated Easter, we shall refrain from mentioning the day of the month in our review of the homilies; but we shall only indicate, whenever it is possible, on what day of the week the said homilies were delivered.

Homilies on the Statues

Tillemont assigns the second homily to either the Thursday or Saturday before Lent: it is the case, however, that it may be said to have been delivered about these days, seven full days having passed, as Chrysostom himself says, from the sedition, days during which he says he was silent, because the Antiochenes, terrified by such immense calamity and the magnitude of the danger, were not fit to listen to sermons. Moreover, he says that these evils were sent by divine providence on account of the neglected correction of the brethren who were blaspheming. After he has elegantly described their character, he discourses at length on riches, on the use of riches, and on alms and poverty, and closes the oration.

The third homily follows the second immediately: however, we believe with Tillemont that it was delivered on the Sunday of Quinquagesima, to speak in the manner of our day. It is about the journey of Flavian, the bishop of Antioch, to Constantinople to appease the Emperor; and Chrysostom comforts the people with the hope that the matter will be well managed. He then demonstrates at length that fasting is of no value unless one abstain from vice. But after he has said a few words about avoiding detraction, he deplores the present calamity and narrates that an intolerably cruel course has been taken: "These indeed," he says, "were put to death by the sword, others by fire, some were given to the beasts, not only men, but also children. Nor did the immaturity of their age, nor the tumult of the people, nor the fact that it was certain men incited by diabolical fury who did these things, nor the fact that [the] tax...

^A was intolerable, nor poverty, nor the fact that it was a common sin, nor that they had promised never to dare such things again, nor anything else rescued them; but they were led off to the abyss without pardon, with soldiers pressing them on both sides, watching that no one might rescue them. And mothers followed, seeing their sons being dragged away at a distance, yet not daring to lament the calamity: for fear overcame affection, and dread surpassed nature. All these evils were brought upon the Antiochenes by the Prefects, or magistrates, before Theodosius had heard anything about the sedition, as Chrysostom says in the same place. He closes the oration by warning them to abstain from detraction, from enmities, and from oaths.

The fourth homily, which seems to have been delivered on the Monday after Quinquagesima, which day was the first of Lent—that sermon, I say, describes the good produced out of the calamity, and says that the Antiochenes were changed and had returned from their former base habits. In the end, he repeats those same warnings which he mentions having given in the previous one, namely, about avoiding detractions, enmities, and oaths: and he foretells that he will speak about oaths throughout this week.

The fifth homily was delivered on the following day, as he himself says, namely Tuesday. In it, Chrysostom comforts the sorrowful Antiochenes as is his custom and exhorts them to the contempt of death itself. At the end, he deals with the avoiding of oaths in section 7, and introduces a certain order of the preceding and following homilies with these words: "First, therefore, let us persuade the hearer to begin the change from the avoidance of oaths: for even if I spoke to you about this matter the day before yesterday, nevertheless I shall not cease today, nor tomorrow, nor the day after tomorrow, to give the same warning."

The sixth homily, delivered on Wednesday of the first week, imparts consolation to the afflicted and bids them hope for a good change in affairs; he says that delays were sent by God to the messengers who were about to announce the Antiochene sedition to the Emperor, and from this he brings good hope to the hearers, and bids them have confidence in obtaining pardon from Bishop Flavian. But after he has discoursed on not fearing death, he speaks against oaths as is his custom.

The seventh homily was delivered the following day, as is clear from many places and notes; for "We are passing the fifth day," says Chrysostom, "comforting your love." Moreover, this fifth day is counted starting from Sunday, so that he is speaking about the fifth day of the week. This deals with the first words of Genesis: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth"; and it is said that God is good, not only when He confers benefits, but also when He chastises, and he says as usual that oaths must be avoided.

Tillemont thinks the eighth homily was delivered the day following the seventh, that is, on Friday. But Chrysostom disagrees, as he testifies at the beginning that he spoke recently, and not yesterday, on the words, "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," which undoubtedly pertains to the seventh homily. It is therefore to be assigned to Saturday; which these words of his, immediately after the beginning, also persuade us: "The week is coming to an end for us." ^B The argument of the homily is borrowed from these words: "God walked in paradise at midday," and he says that the wicked are always fearful and timid, but the pious are full of confidence. Finally, according to his custom, he deals with the avoiding of oaths, and says that it is already the sixth day that he has been warning them about keeping such a law.

Tillemont probably assigns the ninth homily to the Monday of the second week of Lent. But no note appears on this matter by which we might conclude anything either certain or probable. This sermon was certainly held after a silence of one or more days, as Chrysostom states clearly at the beginning, contrary to what Tillemont opines, who, when he assigns the eighth to Friday and the ninth to the Monday of the following week, says in the *Life of Chrysostom*, Art. 15, that the days of Saturday and Sunday were undoubtedly marked by homilies of Chrysostom, which sermons have since been lost. He praises the Antiochene people at the beginning because the hearers, obeying his warnings, were concerned about casting off the habit of oaths. He also says many things on these words, "The heavens declare the glory of God," and proclaims God’s providence in the order and harmony of natural things: and finally he warns that they should abstain from oaths.

The tenth homily was not delivered the day after the ninth, although it is indicated that he pursues the same argument as the word "recently." Chrysostom congratulates his hearers because they obeyed his warnings. He says it is much better to hear the word than to fast. He then proves that the world cannot stand without God’s providence: and he ends finally by exhorting them to avoid oaths.

Tillemont thinks the eleventh homily was delivered after that which is inscribed as the fifteenth below, and also after the following sixteenth. He relies on this reasoning: In that homily, he says, there is a discussion of the dangers and distresses which the city of Antioch had already suffered, which seem to have occurred after the arrival of Hellebicus and Caesarius. But that arrival of Hellebicus and Caesarius is mentioned in the title of the seventeenth homily, long after the eleventh, of which we are now speaking. Supported by this argument, Tillemont thinks that not only the fifteenth, but also the sixteenth should be placed before the eleventh. But apart from the fact that all Manuscripts without exception keep the same order as the Editions: we do not know with enough accuracy all those things which happened at that time—the good hope at times, the dangers, the fears, the threats, which many in a like case are always wont ^C to occur—to conclude that anything in the order should be changed for that reason. Chrysostom said many things, and perhaps remained silent on far more. Therefore, until something more certain emerges, we think we must stand by the ancient order. In this homily, therefore, Chrysostom first gives thanks because the city had breathed again from the fear that had been sent upon it; for very many had fled, terrified by the suspicions injected: during this time of calamity and terror, Chrysostom was silent for some days, as he himself says. Tillemont assigns this homily to the Monday of the fourth week of Lent, and indeed very well, so that it might [lead] to the thirteenth homily ^D

^A It deals primarily in this homily with the wisdom of God in the constitution of man, and in its conclusion, with avoiding the taking of oaths.

Tillemont rejects the twelfth and thirteenth by the same reason mentioned above, as he does the fifteenth and sixteenth. But I do not know how he understands that statement in this twelfth homily, n. 1: "For three days past we were seeking one way of the knowledge of God, and we have brought it to an end, interpreting how the heavens declare the glory of God; and what the saying of Paul is, 'The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made': and we have demonstrated how from the creation of the world, and how through heaven and earth and sea, the Creator is glorified. But today, etc." Here Chrysostom brings forward the series of three homilies in the order in which they were delivered before the twelfth, namely the ninth, tenth, and eleventh. In the ninth, n. 2, he puts as the argument of the discourse this saying of Paul, "The invisible things of him," etc., and that of the Psalms, "The heavens declare the glory of God." In the tenth, n. 2, he declares himself to be pursuing this very same argument; in the eleventh also, n. 2, he testifies that he is insisting on the same argument. Does not Tillemont do violence to Chrysostom’s words when he wants the fifteenth and sixteenth to be inserted between the tenth and the eleventh? He himself, however, proposes this only with some hesitation in note 29 to the *Life of Emperor Theodosius*, n. 10, 11, et seqq., and admits that the order which we have established is clearly indicated by Chrysostom: but I do not know how or why he later departs from that same order. Furthermore, when Chrysostom says "three days past," it is not understood as the three last days in which he had certainly been preaching. In this twelfth homily also, which was delivered on the Tuesday of the fourth week of Lent, he insists on the same hypothesis concerning the wisdom of God in the creation of the world: afterwards, he deals with natural law, the knowledge of which God has implanted in man, and with avoiding an oath.

Chrysostom spoke the thirteenth homily the day after the twelfth. At the beginning, he gives thanks to God for the changed state of affairs, and for the removal of the fear, which had been so great that, he says, the greater part of the city, through that fear and threat, had migrated to the deserts and the mountain passes and hidden places. ^B Hence he describes pathetically how many were led to the tribunal, the horrible questioning held with whips and scourgings, others dragged off to punishment, and the mother and sister of a certain man, who was being judged inside, rolling in the dust at the vestibule. These things had happened a few days before, before he delivered the eleventh discourse. However, this homily seems entirely to have been delivered on the Wednesday of the fourth week of Lent. But having premised very many things about the Antiochene calamity, he returns to the original argument concerning the creation of man, and closes the discourse by exhorting, according to custom, that oaths be avoided.

Tillemont thinks the fourteenth should be placed after the eighteenth, moved by this reason: In the beginning, Chrysostom says, "The devil not a little disturbed the city for us yesterday, but God has comforted us again not a little." These words, he says, signify the arrival of Hellebichus and that the news is already present at Constantinople. Truly, these things are said by way of conjecture. How many suspicions and terrors do you think were injected into the Antiochenes while their minds were in suspense, and they were ignorant of how such an unfortunate matter would turn out? Regarding those terrors and rumors, how can we reason, we who undoubtedly are ignorant of the greater part of them; and if we know some, we generally understand them in such a way that we can scarcely fish out any certain knowledge from them? This homily is almost entirely about avoiding the taking of oaths.

Tillemont wants the fifteenth homily to have been delivered between the tenth and the eleventh, both for the reasons mentioned above regarding the eleventh, and because Chrysostom has it thus at the beginning: "It was necessary both today and on the previous Sabbath to move the sermon concerning fasting." Where he understands "previous," as if it were the first of the first Sabbath of Lent, though with some hesitation; but we, as does Bernard of Brescia, understand it as the "superior" or preceding one, and it is proven by examples that it is to be understood in this way: and we have already proven above that no other homily can be interposed between the tenth and the eleventh. By the occasion of the fear with which the Antiochenes were affected, he says much about the benefit of fear: and in the end, he preaches against the custom of swearing, and of demanding an oath from others.

The sixteenth was then delivered when, with some false rumor of a future massacre spread abroad, everyone was deliberating about taking flight. Tillemont attempts to move this one also from its place, and locate it between the tenth and the eleventh; which, however, as we said concerning the twelfth, cannot be admitted. Furthermore, Tillemont relies on these words of Chrysostom: the holy doctor says in n. 6, "We have passed the second week of the fast." He says therefore that only two weeks have passed, which seems not to be able to be admitted if it keeps its own place and number: therefore Tillemont thinks it should be moved from its place and placed between the tenth and the eleventh. That it cannot be replaced between the tenth and the eleventh has already been proven above. It seems that it cannot even consist in this place and number at all: ^C for if it was delivered after the second week of the fast, it preceded the thirteenth and those that follow. These things are certainly full of pitfalls: wherefore it seemed best to leave the matter in doubt. What if we say that an error was perhaps introduced into this place by a scribe, who changed the numeral letter γ (three) placed for the third into ς (six), that is, into the second? In this discourse, having premised certain things about the timidity of the Antiochenes, and about avoiding an oath, Chrysostom borrows the argument of his homily from these words of Paul: "Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ, and Timothy our brother," and demonstrates Paul to be more glorious from his chains than from the power of miracles.

The seventeenth was delivered after Hellebichus, Master of Soldiers, and Caesarius, Master of Offices, sent by the Emperor, had arrived in Antioch to inquire about the sedition. This Hellebichus, Master of Horse and Foot, is mentioned elsewhere, and was celebrated for his praise of justice and clemency: Caesarius also, called Master of Offices elsewhere, enjoyed an equal reputation for honesty. ^D

^A This homily, however, was delivered when the Antiochenes were nearly freed from their fear. We have awaited, he says (no. 2), numberless evils: that the goods of all would be plundered, theaters and their inhabitants burned, the city wiped from the face of the earth, and all its remains perished, that the plow would furrow its land. But behold, all these things remained only within expectation, and did not pass into action. Under these circumstances, he narrates how monks descended from the mountains to Antioch, in order to placate the judges, while meanwhile all the Greek philosophers fled the city; in what manner even the priests vigorously managed the cause for the sake of the people; and that the punishments finally imposed by the Emperor were light and tolerable, nor was it a matter for grief if he closed the orchestra and the baths, and stripped the city of Antioch of the dignity of a metropolis. True dignity for Antioch, he says, is that in it the disciples of Christ were first called Christians, and that the Antiochenes brought aid to the holy men of Jerusalem struggling with famine: not magnitude, but piety adorns cities. However, in the end he says that some are still lingering in prison, and others are to be sent into exile. Tillemont assigns this homily to the fourth week of Lent after Wednesday, but only by conjecture. The dignity of the metropolis, in fact, was transferred from Antioch to Laodicea, as Theodoret relates (bk. 5, ch. 19).

The eighteenth homily was spoken after the middle of the fast, as Chrysostom says at the beginning. Tillemont thinks it can be plausibly assigned to the fifth Sunday of Lent. Furthermore, it treats of the true manner of fasting, of the contempt of riches, of sorrow according to God, etc. ^B Up to this point I have followed the editions of Savile and Fronto Ducaeus in the number and order of the homilies; I even placed the nineteenth continuously, assenting to the opinion of Tillemont, who himself thought the nineteenth should be included among the Lenten ones. But later, on further reflection, I discovered it was delivered long after Easter, namely on the Sunday before the Ascension of the Lord, as is also stated in the title, namely the Sunday *tēs episōzomenēs*, which signifies the fifth Sunday after Easter, or the Sunday before the Ascension, as Leo Allatius says. But more on that subject below. Therefore, since it ought not to be numbered among the Homilies on the Statues or the Lenten ones, the nineteenth will be that which we had placed as the twentieth, and which is numbered the twenty-second in the edition of Fronto Ducaeus, and was delivered, as Chrysostom attests, ten days before Easter. But that which Fronto Ducaeus had numbered the twentieth, and which we placed as the twenty-first, will now be the twentieth, since that one delivered on the Sunday *tēs episōzomenēs*—which will be discussed in its proper place—has been removed. Furthermore, this twentieth is the last of the [Homilies] on the Statues. And so, it is now necessary to list only twenty Homilies on the Statues, because the one we placed as the nineteenth is to be transferred elsewhere, and the homily which Fronto Ducaeus had placed as the twenty-first is a catechism to be placed outside the series of the Homilies on the Statues, as we shall say in its proper place.

In the twentieth homily, which we now number the nineteenth, these words are added in the title in certain manuscripts: ^C It was spoken ten days before the holy and life-giving Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead: which agrees perfectly with that saying of Chrysostom shortly before the end of the homily: "Forty days have passed." Therefore, this sermon will have been delivered on the Friday after the Sunday which we call Passion Sunday. This day was indeed the fortieth, beginning from the Monday after Quinquagesima, which was the beginning of Lent: it was also the tenth before Easter, counting the day of Easter itself. Moreover, this homily is almost entirely against enmity and the remembrance of injuries, and at the end, according to custom, against oaths.

The twenty-first homily, which we think should be numbered the twentieth, is the last of the [Homilies] on the Statues. That it was delivered on the very day of the Resurrection is proven from those things which are said at the beginning, and after the return of Bishop Flavian. First, he praises Flavian, because while his sister was laboring under illness and in danger of death, and was begging her brother not to abandon her, he nevertheless put all things aside in order to look after his endangered flock. He narrates how he approached the Emperor and, having been brought into his sight, immediately expressed the force of his grief with tears, mourning, and silence: and then, when the Emperor was gently encouraging him, he delivered an oration, which Chrysostom reports word for word, aptly composed for placating ^D Theodosius. Impelled toward pity, Theodosius uttered these words, worthy of a Christian Prince: "What great thing will it be if we remit our anger toward men who have treated us with insults, since we ourselves are men? When the Lord of the world, descending to earth and becoming man for our sake, and crucified by those whom he had benefited, prayed to the Father for those who were crucifying him, saying: 'Forgive them, for they know not what they do.'" But when Flavian wished to celebrate Easter with the Emperor, Theodosius replied: "I know the minds of the Antiochenes are troubled, and many vestiges of the calamity remain. Go and console them. If they see their governor, they will not remember the past storm, but will wipe out the very memory of these sad events." When these things were announced to the Antiochenes, they were filled with joy, they crowned the forum, lit lamps, and placed lectisternia before their shops. This was finally the outcome of the Antiochene sedition.

Now let us come to the things that follow, which occurred after the day of Easter: in which, out of long-standing study, there are not a few things which we had previously determined according to the opinion of Tillemont, and which we must now change. The order of things which followed after the day of Easter of this year 387 is rightly understood from those things which Chrysostom narrates in the first Sermon on Anna. "For perhaps," he says, "you have forgotten them, because in the meantime we have delivered many sermons on other subjects as well." For upon the return of our Father from a long journey, it was necessary to commemorate all that had happened in the Imperial Court: and then to dispute with the Gentiles, so that those who had been recalled to a better life by the force of the calamity, and who, having abandoned the error of the Gentiles, had betaken themselves to us, we might confirm in virtue and teach into what darkness they had been liberated and into what great light of truth they had hastened. After those things, we again enjoyed the festival of the martyrs for many days:

nor would it have been appropriate for the time [to pass] for those who were dwelling in the sepulchers of the martyrs to depart bereft of the praises due the martyrs. There followed upon these things an exhortation to abstain from oaths; for seeing the whole nation of rustics entered into the city, we deemed that they should be dismissed having been instructed by us with this viaticum.

Homilies delivered after Pascha

— *Returning*, he says, *from a long pilgrimage, our Father, it was necessary to commemorate all things which had occurred in the Comitatus*. Here he undoubtedly notes the twenty-first Homily to the People of Antioch (*T. 2, c. 211*); which twenty-first [homily] we were saying must just now be numbered, in which the subject is the return of Bishop Flavian, and the reconciled grace of the Emperor Theodosius with the Antiochenes, which discourse had been held on the day of Pascha. Chrysostom continues: *And then it was necessary to dispute with the Gentiles, so that we might confirm these, moved to better repentance by the calamity, who, having deserted the error of the Gentiles, had brought themselves to us, in how great darkness they had been liberated and into what great light of truth they had hastened*. Indeed, in the days following the Paschal solemnity, he strove to confirm those Gentiles who, from the calamity brought upon the Antiochenes—as much upon Gentiles as upon Christians—because of the overturned statues, had been moved to better repentance and had approached the Christian faith; but whether he accomplished this in one or in many discourses is uncertain; but whether he gave one or many, we have lost them all. Yet Chrysostom somehow makes up for this loss, who does not repeat in a few words the things he had said to the Gentiles in this homily. The holy doctor indeed appends these things: *After those things, again for many days we enjoyed the festival of the holy ones; nor would it have been appropriate for the time [to pass] for those who were dwelling in the sepulchers of the martyrs to depart bereft of the praises due the martyrs. There followed upon these things an exhortation to abstain from oaths; for seeing the whole nation of rustics entered into the city, we deemed that they should be dismissed having been instructed by us with this viaticum*.

Furthermore, that same homily which reports on the festivals of the martyrs in the first *Homily on Anna*, also recounts similar things in the *Homily on the Sunday of the Saving*, although in a slightly different manner of narration: namely, the solemnities of the martyrs celebrated for many days, and the arrival of the rustics, to whom he preached. But here he says that he, while the feasts of the martyrs were being celebrated, remained at home detained by sickness, and was not present at the festivals of the martyrs. Whence Tillemont infers that there were two festivals of the martyrs, and each with a long series, and two arrivals of the rustics; and that in the first discourse on Anna, he speaks of those festivals of the martyrs and of the arrival of the rustics which occurred in the weeks after Pascha: but in the homily held on the *Sunday of the Saving* (τῆς ἐπισωζομένης), he discusses the feasts of the martyrs and the arrival of the rustics which happened in Lent. Not noticing that Chrysostom says in the same homily that the leader of all, namely Flavian, had led the people around during these celebrations of the martyrs that took place throughout the city; yet how could he have led the Antiochene people around for many days during the time of Lent, who had been staying at Constantinople throughout the whole time of Lent? I am surprised that Tillemont did not notice these things, nor perceived many other incongruous things that followed from that double series of festivals and the double arrival of rustics. Nor do I deny that some difficulty remains; but because we have satisfied all those things which could be objected against, at the end of the Preface to the fourth Volume, we direct the reader there, so that he may follow the history we have undertaken.

Therefore, after Pascha, Chrysostom strove to confirm in the true religion he had grasped those Gentiles who had approached the Christian faith while Theodosius was raging against the Antiochenes, who had cast down his statues, and a greater calamity was expected: then, indeed, the solemnities of the martyrs were celebrated for many days in various parts of the city, with Bishop Flavian leading the people around, while in the meantime Chrysostom, detained by sickness, remained at home, but in mind and spirit hastened with the common people to render offices to the martyrs; and finally, when the rustics arrived from the surrounding region on the Sunday before the Ascension, which is inscribed *Sunday of the Saving* (τῆς ἐπισωζομένης), he held a discourse, where after he had said not a few things about the rustics who were present, he spoke against oaths in his usual manner. Moreover, among those rustics there were certain presbyters who plowed the land and performed the other duties of rustic life, and in the manner of the apostles gained themselves food from daily labor.

Homilies on Anna

— A few days after this homily had passed, he began to preach on Anna, the mother of Samuel (*T. 4, c. 631*). Truly, he begins the first homily by saying that the memory of Lent is always to be kept with affection and with a desire for the future fast. From this, he tells how great goods arise from the fast. He speaks so of the fast of Lent, moreover, that you would believe it had ceased either yesterday or in the previous days. But afterwards, when he speaks of those things which had occurred after Lent, it is easily noticed that no small amount of time had intervened, and that many things had been accomplished: namely the disputes or colloquies with the Gentiles, which Chrysostom held in order to confirm in the faith those whom he had converted to the Christian religion at the time of the calamity: then the feasts of the martyrs which were celebrated for many days in the city of Antioch: and finally the arrival of the rustics and the exhortation made to them on the *Sunday of the Saving* (τῆς ἐπισωζομένης).

Then, he does not report with such a brief summary that discourse which he had held with those Greeks or Gentiles converted to the faith. In that series of the discourse held, he says these things, which, if not always, we find to be true at least generally: that indeed the power of free will is greater than that of nature. Finally, he says that the education of children belongs most especially to women, and he proves this by the example of Anna, the mother of Samuel, and thus he arrives at his goal and the subject of the discourse. He proclaims the virtue and praises of Anna, having borrowed the series from the Holy Scripture. Furthermore, he held this discourse either before the Ascension of this year after the fifth Sunday, or some days before Pentecost.

The second sermon on Anna [was held] a few days after the first.

^A It was delivered on those days, and indeed, as is to be believed, before Pentecost. In it, he first proves that Anna can be called both the father and mother of Samuel, and celebrates her twofold virtue, namely, constancy in prayers and vigilance of mind, to which he then adds a third, namely, tolerance of insults and gentleness, and specifies briefly that one must pray before approaching the table.

The third, which he spoke before Pentecost, begins with the tears of Anna; and he says that the shower of tears irrigates the plant of prayer, so that the fruit comes forth both faster and more abundantly. He proposes Anna as an example of how children are to be educated. Since she had dedicated Samuel to the service of the sanctuary, his sacrifice is compared to the offerings of the priests. Finally, he says that young people should be imbued with heavenly discipline.

The fourth sermon, which he delivered on Anna, is interrupted, as is gathered from those things which are said in the fifth sermon, which, with the former having been lost, is now inscribed as the fourth, no. 3: namely, that these words of the canticle of Anna had been explained in the previous sermon: *My heart is strengthened in the Lord*, etc., the interpretation of which is not contained in the one which is the third.

The fifth, which is now cited as the fourth in the title, begins from the scarcity of the audience, and because the spectacles of the circus had taken away the usual attendance, he pours forth much in his usual manner against the equestrian games, and those who deserted the church for the sake of rushing there. Concerning prayer, finally, he treats, and says that prayer should be united with affection, and that every place is opportune for praying. The fourth and fifth were said before Pentecost.

The sixth, which is now inscribed as the fifth, was held after the feast of Pentecost, as is said after the beginning. At the start, he speaks against those who frequented the church only on feast days and solemnities; then he explains what a feast day is, and speaks of Anna in his usual manner. Likewise, he argues against those who accuse divine providence, because in this life some are rich, others poor. Finally, he says that poverty is most useful, and demonstrates that it has more pleasure and security than riches have.

Other Homilies.

Continuously, as it seems, there followed these three Homilies on David and Saul (T. 4, c. 675). For the subject which he had begun in the Homily on the Debtor of Ten Thousand Talents, namely, concerning the driving away of the remembrance of injuries, he pursues strenuously in a single series within these three homilies, using the example of David, and indeed so pathetically that he drew forth the tears of the listeners, and, as can be seen, led the Antiochenes to fulfill that commandment, *Love your enemies*; just as in the past Lent he had recalled them from the oaths to which they were much accustomed.

It suddenly occurs to me that it is in no way probable that Chrysostom could have delivered the Homily on the Debtor and the three following it after that illness with which he was detained after the Pasch of the year 387, while the feasts of the martyrs were being celebrated for many days throughout the city of Antioch: 1st, because the first sermon after that infirmity in the Paschal season was that which is seen on the Sunday of the *Episozomenes*, as is said in the same place at the beginning, and the sermon on the Debtor is also a first one, but beyond doubt one after another illness. 2nd, because if the homilies on the Debtor and the three following had been delivered in the Paschal season before the Homily on the *Episozomenes* and on Anna, ^C they would undoubtedly have been mentioned in these, just as other sermons given at the time of Easter were mentioned. Otherwise, however, it is not likely that those four homilies were delivered either continuously before Pentecost or at alternate intervals with the homilies on Anna. Therefore, I believe that Chrysostom, who most frequently suffered from illness, was seized by an illness in a month unknown to us after Pentecost, and when he recovered, he delivered that first homily on the debtor of ten thousand talents, where he preached against the remembrance of injuries.

In the first homily on David, he treats of tolerance, and that it is necessary to spare one's enemies, and not to speak evil of anyone. In the second, he proves that it is not only useful to exercise virtue but also to praise those endowed with virtue, and brings no small utility; and that David erected a more magnificent trophy by sparing Saul than by striking down Goliath, and that it profited himself more than Saul.

^A In the third, when he saw many of those present who had not recently attended the assembly to witness the theatrical spectacles, he said that many become adulterers from such shows, and that wars and contentions arise from them. He adds, moreover, that David surpassed all kinds of patience with Saul; and he concludes by saying that to bear plunder patiently is no less a virtue than to dispense alms.

In the month of September of the year 387, he resumed the argument against the Jews (Vol. 1, col. 871), which had begun about the same time in the preceding year, 386. At the beginning of the fourth [homily], which is the first of these later ones, he expresses it thus: "Again those unhappy and, of all mortals, most miserable Jews are about to fast: again it is necessary that we arm the flock of Christ." Therefore, he says that he had given these admonitions ten days before the Jews were to fast, because many of his own flock, moved by a certain superstition, were fasting with the Jews. He says first that that fast of the Jews, which was performed against the will of God, was impious and wicked; and for this reason he turns them away from this Jewish fast which they had undertaken, and at the end of the assembly he urges others who were abstaining from such a Jewish fast to call their brothers away from these kinds of fasts, which were far worse even than theatrical spectacles.

He begins the fifth homily with the frequency of the audience, at which he rejoices that it is greater than usual, and he resumes his former argument more ardently, and pronounces that all Jewish rites have been utterly abrogated. He proves that the Jerusalem Temple is never to be restored, not only from Christ [himself], but also from the predictions of the prophets. He says that the laws of the Christians are to be kept forever, and all others have become obsolete. Afterwards, he speaks at greater length concerning the ruin of the Jews and treats in detail of the vengeance God took upon them. He explains the prophecies of Daniel in detail and institutes a special discourse on the weeks of Daniel. He commemorates the attempts of the Jews to restore the temple under the Emperor Hadrian, under Constantine, and finally under Julian the Apostate, who favored them; and yet everything resulted in vain for them. Finally, having said that the prophet Malachi had prefigured Christian worship, he closes the address, at least twice as long as the other homilies, ^B so that he even contracted hoarseness from the fervor and prolixity of his speaking.

Nor did he desist from preaching in this way, but on the following day, although hoarse, he took up the role of an orator and delivered the sixth homily in the presence of Bishop Flavian and a great multitude of people. And he speaks first of the destruction of the temple under Vespasian, and, exercising the office of an orator rather than an annalist, says that five hundred years had now passed since the temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed, although not more than three hundred and eighteen years had passed since that destruction. But Chrysostom is accustomed in his addresses to pay little attention to these calculations of time, as we note elsewhere. From here, truly, the holy doctor, pursuing his goal, says and proves that the death of Christ was the cause of evils for the Jews, and says that God bore the death of Christ more indignantly than the adoration of the calf. He proves again from the prophets the future rejection of the Jews. Then he demonstrates how great the dignity of the priesthood is, and proves that the priesthood among the Jews is now abrogated, and observes that the holy books do not make the synagogue holy, and he does everything possible to turn his listeners away from both the entrance to and the imitation of the synagogue.

He pursues this same argument in the seventh sermon, and proves that Jewish rites have been abrogated, that there can be no priests among the Jews, and that there is one unique sacrifice by the body of Christ; and that the Law had been abolished, not because of the sins of the Jews, but because it was imperfect. Finally, he comes to Melchizedek, whose priestly dignity he celebrates, and proves from the prophet that that priesthood is the final one, and from Paul’s words that Christ is that true priest after the order of Melchizedek. But he dwells longer on this matter, and finally closes it by exhorting his listeners to turn their brothers away from Jewish observations and to lead them back to the true path. "For this reason," he says, "we undertake so much labor; not so that we may bring back applause and noise, but so that we may lead back those who have been torn away to the path of truth."

He held the eighth [homily] after the fast of the Jews had passed, which fast he says is drunkenness. And again he urges his listeners to take care of and watch over the amendment and salvation of their brethren; he says that hands are to be extended to them not only before the sin, but even after the sin, as God did for Adam. But the sins of brothers are to be corrected, not divulged. Since, however, the Jews said they were physicians and used incantations and liga- ^C tures to cure diseases, Chrysostom rises up against those who might flee to such doctors, and says that evils are rather to be borne patiently than such cures applied, and that one should flee to God and the holy martyrs and use the sign of the cross.

Other sermons

miserable Jews are about to fast: it is necessary that we, in turn, defend the flock of Christ. For indeed, even shepherds, as long as a noxious beast is not troublesome, stretched out under a holm oak or among the people, play the pipe, letting the sheep graze freely according to their own preference; but as soon as they perceive the incursion of wolves threatening from some direction, they immediately throw away the pipe, seize their sling, and, having sent forth a missile, arm themselves with clubs and stones, and standing for their sheep, shouting with a great cry and immense howling, they often drive away the wild beast by that very clamor before it can break in. Therefore, after September of the year 387, after he had spoken those five homilies against the Jews, or perhaps after he had spoken the last, which was also held after the fast of the Jews, he spoke this homily, which, however, we have left among the Expositions on the Psalms composed at another time, following the example of those who preceded us.

In the first place, he recounts the reason why God introduced the psalms into our life, namely, to rouse more sluggish men, to refresh the soul, and to bestow other good things upon mankind. Afterwards, he says much about the way of singing psalms, and he applies some terms used for that matter which, not understanding well, many interpreters have translated incorrectly, and whose use and meaning we have explained in the Monitor with many examples of other Fathers and writers.

Catecheses ad illuminandos [Catecheses for the Illuminandi]

In the second catechesis, he explains the duties of the illuminandi or baptized: he relates the words uttered in baptism, namely, "I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomp and thy service." From this, he takes the opportunity to criticize women who were overly studious of adornment. He says that truly satanic pomp is represented by theaters, circus games, the observation of days, sorcery, and omens. He speaks also of those who used incantations and amulets, and who tied gold coins of Alexander of Macedon around their heads and feet, and had hope in the image of the idolatrous king: but he says that hope is to be had only in the cross of Christ. He brings forth many things against such insane superstitions, and he most vehemently reproves those who would use incantations, and he closes the catechesis with this baptismal statement: "I renounce thee, Satan, and thy pomp and thy service, and I join myself to thee, O Christ."

Homiliæ de Prophetiarum obscuritate [Homilies on the Obscurity of the Prophecies]

In the second, which must be counted among the longest of Chrysostom’s discourses, he brings forth the causes of this obscurity. The first cause is because, just as Moses had a veil on the mountain—and Moses is the legislator—so too the law had a veil, namely, obscurity; but the veil was not to be blamed on the legislator, nor was it to be given as a fault to the law, but it should be attributed to the infirmity of the hearers. The second cause of the obscurity of the Old Testament is because it was not written in the Greek language, but in Hebrew; and when it was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek language, it possesses the greatest difficulty. It was translated into Greek, he says, under King Ptolemy, three hundred years before the coming of Christ; but the coming of Christ restored to us in greater abundance what we had lost. He says afterwards that the prayer of the multitude has great power. To these, he adds the words of the deacon in the Liturgy, by which he exhorts the people to pray. He then says that the end of sacred Scripture is the correction of morals, and after he had said certain things against the Manichaeans, he closes by saying that the remembrance of sins is a remedy for one who sins.

Other discourses

as we have mentioned, and afterwards begins his discourse by narrating the origin of the division of languages. From there he narrates that Adam suffered shipwreck in the harbor; namely, that when he abounded in all goods, through the persuasion of the devil, he was cast out of paradise; but that God brought it about that the gain was greater than the loss, and raised our nature to the royal throne. For God is good not only when He gives, but also when He takes away. It also profited Eve that she had been deceived by the devil; for when she had given birth to a son, she said, "I have possessed a man through God," having been taught by her own experience that all goods flow from God. Afterwards he treats of the various kinds of malice, and finally of the providence of God. ^B

We have placed second the Homily on the Devil as Tempter (T. 2, c. 257), regarding which it is uncertain whether it was delivered before or after the first. Certainly, it seems sufficiently established that the one which he says, after the beginning of this, was delivered two days before, is not the one we have placed first, as is proven more fully in the Monitum. Furthermore, the title of this second one is: *Against those who object, why was the devil not removed from our midst; and that his malice does not harm us if we are attentive; and concerning repentance.* Chrysostom undertakes to prove these points, and first he praises Bishop Flavian, who was present, for his charity and extreme modesty. And afterwards he says that it is not the devil who harms man, but the extreme slothfulness of man, which corrupts both the proper use of the limbs and leads to other evils. He closes the sermon saying that there are five ways of repentance; namely, the first, the condemnation of sins; the second, if we do not remember the injuries received from our neighbor; the third, fervent and careful prayer; the fourth, almsgiving; the fifth, modesty and humility.

The following sermon on Slothfulness he testifies at the beginning was delivered two days after the second, while many from the people had gone off to theatrical games, which he vehemently attacks. After he had said that the will is the master, and that it happens by the will that the evil are mingled with the good, he asks again why the devil is left in the midst, and answers, because to those who are vigilant and attentive to themselves, he not only does no harm but is even useful—not by his own will, which is evil, but by the fortitude of those who utilize his malice as is right, as happened to Job. And he says that men alone are the authors of sin: for we are good or evil by the decision of our own will. Afterwards he says many things about Job; and he proposes his patience as an example, as it could be a consolation to all: finally he closes by saying that with the grace of the Spirit all contests are easier, and especially after the coming of Christ, when that grace is more abundant.

So far we have followed the year and mostly the day on which the sermons were delivered, sometimes with clear evidence, sometimes from mere conjecture: and thus we have reached the year 388. Nor is there any doubt that in the years 389, 390, and 391, the indefatigable orator delivered to the Antiochene people many of those which survive, which bear no mark of either year or day. ^C

Other Sermons

To these we add that we are not much moved by the admonition concerning the tumult in approaching holy communion to assign it either to the year 386 or 387. For such an admonition occurs not only in the homilies on the Nativity and the Epiphany, but also in the preceding homily on Judas the traitor, the year of which we could not assign. For what inconvenience happens if we posit that Chrysostom had need to use the same admonition for many and various years, because an equal tumult was stirred up by the people? We refer it, therefore, by a better calculation to the year 392, although the cause for doubt is not entirely removed. For as we said in the *Monitum* to the homilies and elsewhere, the Paschal tables, which were compiled in later centuries, do not always agree with ancient calculations, and they are not to be entirely trusted.

Not yet having elapsed twenty days from the Paschal Parasceve, on which he delivered the sermon on the Cemetery and the Cross (T. 2, c. 627), he delivered the Homily on the SS. Bernice and Prosdoce Virgins and on S. Domnina their mother, as

^A the very Chrysostom clearly stated at the beginning. He begins by showing that before the death of Christ, when he had not yet, having been crucified, broken the bronze gates and iron bars, men feared death exceedingly; and he brings forward as an example the most holy men under the old law, namely Abraham, Jacob, and Elijah, who manifested a great fear of death. But after the death of Christ, those who believe in him and are held by his love despise death altogether; nay, they desire it—and not only men, but also women, maidens, and virgins. Hence he weaves the history of Bernice, Prosdoce, and Domnina their mother, who, having been sought out for death for the sake of Christ, with the divine Spirit breathing upon them, cast themselves into the river.

To this homily, we add another (T. 2, c. 641), which, although it was spoken in a year not the same, but unknown to us, must nevertheless be mentioned here, because it has certain things opportune for explaining the former. Previously unknown, it was published by us for the first time. It was delivered, moreover, a few days after the Lord's Resurrection, and indeed, as is hinted at the end of the sermon, on the feast of the holy Bernice, Prosdoce, and their mother Domnina. ^B Here, however, Chrysostom does not list them by name, but indicates so clearly that it is as certain that he is speaking of them, as if they were called by their proper names. He deals, of course, with a mother and her daughters, who, for the sake of preserving their faith and chastity, having abandoned their homeland, threw themselves into the river. He mentions something singular here in passing, which does not appear in the former homily on SS. Bernice and Prosdoce; namely, that a certain tyrant wished to assault their virginal celibacy—namely, the daughters of Domnina—but that the virgins remained inaccessible: which indeed, although silenced in the former, harmonizes with those things which are said in number 7, namely that Domnina cast herself into the river with her daughters, not because she feared torments, but because she feared that someone might corrupt the virginity of her daughters: by which it is hinted that the judge or tyrant had cast eyes of desire upon the daughters of Domnina. Before this sermon on the holy women, Chrysostom places the remnants of a previous sermon, where, after it had been asked why John alone of the evangelists had spoken of the four-day-old Lazarus, having brought forward the reason, he discourses at length on Lazarus in his usual style. ^C But this sermon seems to have been pronounced extemporaneously, like many others which are of equal brevity.

Tillemont assigns the Homily on the Ascension (T. 2, c. 441) to this year, because it was spoken after the Homily on the Cemetery and the Cross, which is thought to have been delivered in the year 392: for in the beginning of the Homily on the Ascension he says: Even when we celebrated the memory of the cross, we celebrated its solemnity outside the city; and from this he argues that both were held in the same year, not noticing that Chrysostom says at the beginning of the sermon on the Cemetery and the Cross that it had been established by a law from the ancestors that this solemnity should be celebrated outside the city in a certain designated place. Therefore, assemblies were held outside the city every year on the day of Preparation: nor can anything be gathered from the words brought forward above to determine the year. But he says this feast is celebrated outside the city because the martyrs were buried in that place. Since, however, certain heretics had also been buried in the same place, and the people did not pour forth prayers at the sepulchers of the martyrs without trepidation on account of that proximity, therefore Bishop Flavian had seen to it that the true bones ^D of the martyrs were removed from there and transported to the church called the Romanesia, where the people prayed and sermons were held. From there, however, he speaks of the angels being everywhere and especially present in the churches: and he says that the deacon in the Liturgy says, "Ask for the angel of peace." Afterward, he deals with the Ascension of the Lord, and teaches how Christ, sitting at the right hand of the Father, is the mediator between God and men. He explains what difference there is between the Ascension of Christ and the ascension of Elijah, and closes the sermon with the greatest modesty and humility.

Tillemont thinks that in this same year 392, or thereabouts, Chrysostom had delivered an oration in praise of Diodorus of Tarsus (T. 3, c. 761): which mark of time we may neither impugn nor defend as entirely certain. Diodorus had already delivered an oration in which he had extolled John Chrysostom with praises. Chrysostom, however, not at all desirous of praise, returned his own praises to him, and wove a very short oration, because Diodorus was to preach again on the same day after him, as he himself clearly hints at the end of his announcement. For we have seen that it was the custom received at Antioch that two should preach on the same day in the same church. But Diodorus, the bishop of Tarsus, who had once been the teacher of John Chrysostom, was willingly admitted to that office; because the Antiochene presbyter had once exercised that task for a long time, at a time when the Arians, since they were very powerful with authority, were harassing the Catholics. Because Diodorus resisted them stoutly, he was often driven out by the Arians, and often came into danger of his life; and if not in fact, at least in purpose, he was a martyr, as Chrysostom himself says, both in that oration and in a certain fragment excerpted from Facundus of Hermiane, which is attached to it in this edition.

Chrysostom certainly delivered countless homilies at Antioch, a great part of which has come down to us. But a year can hardly be assigned to all of them. From their number are the Homilies on Genesis (T. 4, c. 21), 67 in number, which Photius says were delivered at Constantinople, while doubting, however, and not reporting it as a certain matter. But Tillemont proves by many arguments that they were most certainly spoken at Antioch, and we have confirmed this by adding very many things in the Preface to the Homilies on Genesis in the fourth volume, and in the Preface to the sermons on the Beginning of Acts in the third volume, and elsewhere.

But he could have spoken the homilies on Ozias before the Homilies on Genesis (T. 6, c. 97): it seems certain that at least the second was delivered some time before he began the homilies on Names, or on the Mutation of names. For in the second homily on Ozias, when he was dealing with the name Abram having been changed into Abraham, he said in number 5, "But I will discourse on names at another time," that is, on the mutation of names: for he sometimes calls those homilies on the Mutation of names, "on Names." In those, however, on the Mutation of names

^A he deals more than once with the name of Abram changed to Abraham. I have long since assigned the first to a time after the second, and deferred it to another occasion, and I have judged that the fourth also should be removed from the series of the others; but I believe that the second, third, fifth, and sixth should be placed consecutively. The sixth was delivered a few days before Lent, as is narrated in the same place. See the Monitum on these homilies in the sixth volume, ch. 93.

In the first, which we believe should be moved from its place, he rejoices at the frequency and gathering of the people, but complains that the auditors, while the sermon was being delivered, emitted disorderly shouts, were in a tumult, and were being carried about like those possessed, and he speaks little of the Seraphim. He rebukes those, however, who would go off to spectacles, and who thus mixed divine mysteries with demonic things.

In the second, which we believe to be the first, he brings forth many things on that passage, "I saw the Lord sitting," etc. He declares that the divine nature is incomprehensible even to the angels; and therefore he attacks the Anomoeans, who would bring forth impious sermons concerning that nature. ^B

The subject of the third homily is these words: "The heart of Oziah was elated." He says, however, that pride can arise even from the testimony of a good conscience, and that one instructed in good works is more opposed by the devil: and that pride brings as much evil to the soul as tumors do to the body.

The fourth sermon, which we believe should be moved from its place, has for its subject these words: "It came to pass in the year in which King Oziah died," etc. He says it is easier for the sun to be extinguished than for the Church of God to be destroyed. On the occasion of King Oziah, moreover, he affirms and proves that the dignity of priests is greater than that of kings.

The fifth and sixth, although delivered at a long interval of time, deal with the same subject, and treat of the pride of Oziah. From this, he moves to the power of priests, and Chrysostom teaches how a priest ought to rebuke a prince who is sinning. In the sixth, however, he speaks of the dignity of the Seraphim. In the end, he teaches how one ought to approach the holy table.

Concerning the Homilies on Genesis.

Now, indeed, it is asked in what year the sermons on Genesis were delivered (Vol. 4), which is certainly a far more difficult question. Concerning the time when they were written, that most wise man, and by far the most accurate of all, Tillemont, discourses at length, and let it not be a burden to repeat his words translated into Latin: "Regarding the year in which these homilies were delivered, we can speak only by conjecture. Chrysostom began to deliver them on the Sunday preceding the fast, so that he might, as is likely, treat that subject through Lent. For the second was said on the following day, namely, Monday, the first day of the fast; the third on Tuesday, and the fourth on the day following. And thus it is to be believed that all the rest were delivered on single days, although Chrysostom does not signify this, unless perhaps another subject occurred to be treated on some occasion. For it is certain that the people came together into the church daily, and that Chrysostom preached every day. He also continued on the same subject of Genesis on Saturday and Sunday, even though there was no fasting on those days: for the eleventh homily was delivered on one of these two days. ^C The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth homilies were delivered consecutively, each on its own day. Nor can you say that they pertain to the five days of the fast of the second week: for the tenth was said on the day of the fast, and in that week there were only five days of fasting: but the eleventh was delivered on the Saturday of that second week. If, therefore, the Homilies on Genesis were delivered in one series on individual days, which is indeed quite likely concerning at least the first six, then the sixth would have been delivered on the Friday of the first week of Lent.

In the sixth homily, Chrysostom complains that the Antiochenes, with no regard for daily exhortations or Lenten penance, had attended the circus games. These circus games had undoubtedly been celebrated on that very day; for sermons were held in the evening during Lent: whence it seems to follow that this year is either 395 or 396. For the Roman calendar assigns no games at the beginning of the month of March. The Gothic games, indeed, which were held from the fourth of February to the ninth, are not commemorated here by Chrysostom. But games are still assigned to the eleventh of February, which in the year 395 concurs with the Friday of the first week of Lent, because the Easter of that year fell on the twenty-seventh of March. Games are also noted for the last day of February, which can pertain to the year 396, in which, since Easter fell on the thirteenth of April, the twenty-ninth of February concurred with the Friday of the first week of Lent. ^D From these two years, however, we think the year 395 should be preferred, because we believe Chrysostom delivered the Homilies on Penance in the year 396. With these things thus established, those circus games of which Chrysostom complains in homily 41, which was delivered three weeks after Pentecost, that is, perhaps on Saturday, June 4, if it was truly said in the year 395; those circus games, I say, were perhaps those which are noted for the first day of that month. But we give these not as an explored and certain thing: since we are especially ignorant whether this Calendar was in use at Antioch at that time, and we do not know whether all the games exhibited circus races. The games could also have been celebrated in an unaccustomed order. Indeed, games are also noted for the twelfth day of February, just as for the eleventh; so that, when Chrysostom terrified those who had been at the circus, he would seem to have had to warn them that it would be determined on the following day whether they had obeyed his admonitions. But those who were celebrated on the twelfth day were perhaps not circus games: for the Calendar there has the note Com. XXIIII, that is, Commisura XXIV: which seems to me to be the note for circus games. That note too, Cm. XXIIII, and Cm. XII, occurs at the ninth, twenty-fifth, and twenty-seventh of February: but these days do not fall on the Friday of the first week of Lent, not even throughout the whole time during which Chrysostom was presbyter. That note Cm. is not placed at the end of February, where the year 396 is also excluded.

We are also led away by another argument from thinking that the notes of the year 396, which we assign, are certain: namely, that it is not altogether certain that the sixth homily was delivered on a Friday. For since the eleventh was undoubtedly said on the Saturday of the second week, given the thirteen preceding...

days, beginning from the Sunday before Lent, in which the first homily was held, there were most certainly three days that were either without a homily, or had homilies pertaining to another subject, or, if they were of the same subject, are certainly now lost. And yet those three days can only be placed before the fifth, or the tenth, or the eleventh, because all the others were delivered continuously and in a single series of days. Moreover, from these three, at least one must be placed between the tenth and the eleventh: for they who had been present at the tenth after dining did not choose Friday, as is to be believed, to break the fast. Thus far Tillemont: where you may observe with what labor and study he is accustomed to behave, and with what prudence he abstains from forming an absolute judgment. But against that opinion, which he embraces with hesitation and doubt, other and perhaps greater scruples can be brought forward. For that Roman calendar of Constantine the Great in the year 325, as it is stated in the title, edited and published by Petavius in his *Uranologion* (p. 112), it is uncertain whether it remained the same until the end of the fourth century: nay, it seems certain that it was changed in many respects at least: for it was entirely arranged according to the rite of the profane religion of many gods: which impious rites were finally abolished under Theodosius the Great. To this, it seems certain that those principal cities of the world, such as Antioch was, had their own rites, or at least some peculiar to themselves, as far as games and other matters were wont to be inscribed in calendars: which being posited, what can we determine from the Roman calendar concerning the Antiochene rites? But as to what is said, that the complaint of Chrysostom at the beginning of the sixth homily does not refer to the Gothic games, that is certainly said by way of guessing. For who knows whether in the Gothic games, or at least in some of them, horse racing was employed? But on the contrary, Chrysostom is entirely concerned with horse racing of this kind in the sixth homily. Finally, we have proven above that the Paschal tables, on which all these conjectures rest, are sometimes fallacious. Nor do we know so clearly whether the Antiochenes observed the Alexandrian rite regarding the celebration of Easter. Having, therefore, weighed all these things, we must admit that it is completely uncertain in what year Chrysostom delivered these sermons on Genesis at Antioch. This one thing we know without doubt, that a great part of them were delivered in Lent, and that that Lent was not the year 386, in which he had eight sermons different from these; nor the year 387, which he spent almost entirely in deploring the calamity of the Antiochenes on account of the overturned statues. It is also certain that Chrysostom had many other homilies of a different subject, having interrupted the course of the homilies on Genesis, such as in the great and holy week on Judas the Traitor, at Easter against the Drunkards, five homilies after Easter on the *Beginning of the Acts*, and four homilies on *The Changing of Names*. But thirty-two homilies in one series during Lent: if any homilies of another subject interrupted this course, they no longer exist. It will be worth the effort, however, to describe here briefly the order of those homilies during Lent, and after how much passage of time one followed another. The first sermon was delivered on the day which is called Quinquagesima among us, before the Lenten fast was entered; the second, on the following day, on which the fast began; the third and fourth on the following Tuesday and Wednesday: these were delivered continuously on single days. It is uncertain, however, whether any day intervened between the fourth and fifth homily, either devoid of a sermon or assigned to another subject of preaching. Be that as it may, the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth homilies were delivered continuously on the days succeeding each other, partly in the first, partly in the second week of Lent: the tenth also in the second week, either on Thursday or Friday: the eleventh on the Saturday of the second week: the twelfth was held after another or others, which concerned a subject different from Genesis. Between the twelfth and the thirteenth also, one or more days intervened. The fourteenth was delivered on the day following the thirteenth; the fifteenth likewise on the following day; the sixteenth on the day following that as well; the seventeenth one or more days after the sixteenth; the eighteenth followed the seventeenth with no day interposed; whether the nineteenth was held continuously is unknown; and likewise the twentieth, which was succeeded by the twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, and twenty-fourth on the following days, with no day vacant. And with a short space interposed, the twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eighth on continuous days. Whether the twenty-ninth was held on the day following the twenty-eighth is unknown. When the thirtieth had reached the great week, as Chrysostom himself says: the thirty-first and thirty-second on the days of Holy Week, which precede the Thursday of the Lord's Supper. [138b] Here Chrysostom interrupted the Homilies on Genesis for a long space of time, and on the Thursday of the Lord's Supper he spoke on Judas the Traitor, and on Friday the homily on the Cross, and on the holy day of Easter the sermon against the Drunkards and on the Resurrection; but after Easter the Homilies on the *Beginning of the Acts*: so that he only resumed the interrupted homilies on Genesis after Pentecost. For at the beginning of the thirty-third homily he says that he had interrupted that course for a long time already. After the thirty-third, the thirty-fourth was delivered on the following day, and the day after that the thirty-fifth; following this continuously was the thirty-sixth, which the thirty-seventh followed. In the triduum, the thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and fortieth were delivered continuously. After some days had been interposed, he seems to have held the forty-first. But on the two following days, the forty-second and forty-third. Afterwards, he held a sermon on the Samaritan Woman, and immediately announced the forty-fourth on Genesis, and shortly after, continuously, the 45th, 46th, 47th, and 48th, and likewise the 49th and 50th; and some days later the fifty-first: they increased the number on the two following days, the 52nd and 53rd. He issued the fifty-fourth after he had held a sermon on the Conversion of Saint Matthew; which

^A served to introduce numbers 55, 56, 57, and 58. The sermon on Legal Observances interrupted the series, after which, on the following day, he delivered the fifty-ninth. Shortly thereafter, he pronounced the 60th, 61st, and 62nd; the latter was followed, on the day after, by the sixty-third, and shortly thereafter by the sixty-fourth; then, the day after that, the sixty-fifth, and soon after the sixty-sixth—between which and the sixty-seventh it seems some interval passed. And thus were all the sermons on Genesis completed.

The style of Chrysostom in these homilies presents something new. Speaking of these homilies, Photius says ^B that one observes here the customary clarity, purity, splendor, and abundance of expression of Chrysostom, the frequency of his maxims, and the abundance of most appropriate comparisons; but that they were written in a more relaxed and humble style of discourse, and are as inferior in style to the Homilies or Commentaries on Acts as those Commentaries on Acts are inferior to the Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul and the Psalter. And in truth, these sermons, although they display great fertility and the usual felicity of Chrysostom's invention, do not seem to have been prepared with equal study or care. Here, one often notices very long periods in the text, which present parentheses one upon another so frequently that the orator, forgetting the beginning, leaves the sentence incomplete, and sometimes omits a word necessary for the arrangement. Nor let this seem strange to you, if you weigh that those periods are sometimes so extended that they can scarcely be finished on a single page. From this, you may infer that our orator, while preaching these, did not always come to the sermon so prepared and practiced, but said many things extemporaneously as they offered themselves to his mind.

But if you should seek the reason further, I would have you consider that he himself—during this Lent up to the middle of Holy Week—not only held those thirty-two previous ^C homilies, but also others mentioned repeatedly, which, at the urging of some timely occasion, interrupted the course of the Homilies on Genesis, and perhaps he said others as well which he did not mention, so that he preached almost daily, and at great length indeed. That this, especially from a man who performed the duty of preaching throughout the entire year, could not be accomplished without extemporaneous declamation, repeated at least from time to time, we must confess. In extemporaneous declamation, however, where an intellect powerful with such great invention constantly supplies new material to the orator, what wonder if he sometimes sins against grammatical rules, even if less inaccuracy occurs in syntax?

We have said that Chrysostom interrupted the course of the Homilies on Genesis (T. 2, c. 371) in order to treat of the traitor Judas on Holy Thursday. As for the homily on the traitor Judas, he had already delivered it, as is to be believed, some years before; but he revised it, changed the beginning, and added certain things so that he might deliver it on Holy Thursday—a thing which he is found to have done in other homilies as well. On the occasion of the betrayal of Judas, he says that man is not drawn to the good by necessity, and that he himself chooses and perpetrates either good or evil by his own free will. What we notice in the homily on the traitor Judas, we detect the same in the sermon on the Cross and the Thief, which was held on the day of Holy Friday; namely, that Chrysostom, having delivered it some years before, as it seems, after revising it with second thoughts and having changed the beginning in certain places, pronounced it again on the recurrence of the same day of Holy Friday. Not only is the sequence the same, but the words are for the most part as well; and the passages of Scripture are arranged in the same order in both. Which was said first and which later is not so easy to detect. However, from those things which are said in number 5 in both, some light is shed upon the matter: for in the former, the beginning of which is, "Today Christ," it is read thus: "Let us also, therefore, imitate the Lord, and pray for our enemies: for I am resuming the same exhortation. Now for the fifth day I am discoursing to you on the same subject." What is placed later, however, reads as follows: "Let us also imitate the Lord, and pray for our enemies. Of those things which I advised yesterday, I inform you again now, knowing the magnitude of the noble deed." From this, however, it seems clear that the later one is the one which was spoken on Holy Friday after the Homilies on Genesis held during Lent: for in Homilies 30, 31, and 32 on Genesis, not a word was said about prayers for enemies, and therefore in the last one Chrysostom changed the place, and he speaks of prayers for enemies only in the preceding homily on the traitor Judas. See the Notice to this homily, T. 2, c. 397.

On the day of the Resurrection of the Lord in the same year was delivered the Homily against Drunkards and on the Resurrection (T. 2, c. 417). Chrysostom mentions this sermon in his first homily (January 6) on the Beginning of Acts, which was held in the same year shortly after Easter, number 2: "Riches, therefore, are not an evil, but the illegal use of them is evil: and just as I was speaking words about drunkenness recently, I did not accuse the wine; for every creature of God is good, which is received with thanksgiving; but the bad use, etc." Which words harmonize wonderfully with this sermon, but especially with this place in the same: "Let us abstain from drunkenness: I do not say this, let us abstain from wine, but let us abstain from drunkenness. Wine does not cause drunkenness; for it is the creature of God: furthermore, the creature of God causes nothing of evil; but the evil will causes drunkenness, etc." After he has spoken, however, of the true use of fasting and against drunkenness, he says that there is no distinction of persons in the participation of the mysteries: or even that he himself would preach daily for a span of seven days. In this sermon, moreover, by the help of Manuscripts, we have mended a great gap.

Homilies on the Beginning of Acts.

second, which third, etc. Chrysostom himself clearly teaches this below in the one we designate as the third in order, for there in no. 1 it is read: "It results that, although we have already extended our exposition to the fourth day, we have not yet been able to move past one exposition, but are still occupied with it." And a little later: "Therefore, I said on the first day that the inscriptions are not to be passed over lightly, at which time I read to you the title of the Altar, and showed the wisdom of Paul...." In this the entire teaching of the previous day ended: after that, on the second day, we asked who was the author of that book, and we found, by the grace of God, Luke the Evangelist, and by many demonstrations we proved the matter placed in question. Finally, he clarifies with a few words interposed: "Therefore, on the first day we spoke of the inscription; on the second, of him who wrote the book; on the third day, we discussed with those who had arrived the beginning of the Scripture: and we showed what an 'act' is, what a 'miracle' is, and what 'conversation' is, what a 'sign' and 'wonder' and 'virtue' [are]... Today let us say what remains worth the effort of the inscription, and let us show what the name of apostle signifies."

In the first sermon, therefore, after he had rebuked those who had deserted the assembly of the Church, he teaches that the inscriptions of the sacred books are not to be passed over lightly, and he treats of the inscription of the Altar, namely "To the Unknown God," and finally addresses those who had been recently illuminated.

The second, where he discoursed on the author of the book of Acts and was demonstrating that it was Luke, we have found, but alas, miserably deformed, and commingled with spurious matter. It is indeed a homily inscribed (see the Monitum, Vol. 3, Ch. 63) *On the Assumption, or Ascension of the Lord*, and ascribed to Chrysostom; where the things related first seem unworthy of our Chrysostom. Beneath these are added other things, which are thought not to cohere with the prior parts; and although they may be of better quality, whether they should be ascribed to Chrysostom or not, I would not venture to affirm. There follows afterwards that part where, after some things are premised concerning the inscription of the book of Acts, which fit the present undertaking very well, he discusses the author of this book outstandingly, and it is proven to be Luke. Here, indeed, I recognize Chrysostom; and I do not doubt that the fifth part—which concerns the inscription of Acts, as does that which is related concerning the author of this book—pertains to that homily which Chrysostom here mentions as having been delivered by him as the second. Hence it is asked therein how many times the Lord Christ appeared from the resurrection to the Ascension. This part also I judge to be by Chrysostom: almost all the other things contained in this very long homily are either inept or unworthy of Chrysostom.

The third homily, which we identify as the second—the other having been rejected to the end—[delivered] in the *Palaea* or the old church at Antioch, is that one in which he treats of the inscription of the Acts, and also of the difference between a miracle and an act, and it is added that a life lived with virtue is more useful than signs and miracles.

The fourth, which we identify as the third for the reason mentioned above, treats of the utility of reading the Scriptures, and, so that he may explain the final word of the title *Acts of the Apostles*, he inquires what the name "apostle" signifies, and says that the dignity of the apostles is much greater than that of magistrates, nay, even of kings and emperors.

We attach the fifth, which is inscribed as the fourth; in which Chrysostom asks why the Acts are read at Pentecost: and from his very words it is argued that it is to be joined to the other four.

Homily on the Mutation of Names.

On the day following the delivery of the sermon on that text, *But Saul yet breathing out threatenings, etc.*, he delivered that sermon which is inscribed *On the Mutation of Names*. Which argument he had begun at the end of the previous homily, with this question proposed: why to Paul,