John Chrysostom

ON ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, BISHOP OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH,

NEAR COMANA IN PONTUS,

In the year 407.

HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.

John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople and doctor of the Church, near Comana in Pontus. (S.)

J. S.

§ I. The Works of Chrysostom to be employed in the Commentary; as also the Dialogue, whose author is Palladius the bishop, another than Palladius of Helenopolis: whether both were Catholic.

The Life of the most celebrated doctor of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, The Works of Chrysostom to be employed for this Commentary: very many writers of later centuries have inserted into their ecclesiastical Annals and Histories, whose zeal and labor I shall use after our manner, namely by examining the several points according to the ancient monuments. Among these the first place is without doubt held by Chrysostom's own Works, frequently printed, and lately reprinted in thirteen volumes at Paris by the work and zeal of Bernard de Montfaucon, a monk of the Order of St. Benedict of the Congregation of St. Maur. This Greek-Latin edition, as being fuller and more convenient than the rest, I have determined so to use that I shall from time to time also consult the other Greek-Latin Paris edition which Fronton du Duc of the Society of Jesus prepared, and shall not altogether neglect the Greek edition of Henry Savile, made at Eton in England, when the ambiguity of some passage shall seem to require it. But of Chrysostom's Works the Letters will above the rest supply copious material, printed in altogether the same order and manner in du Duc and in Montfaucon, except a very few which in both are left outside the numbering.

[2] The second place among the writers who have undertaken to narrate the deeds of St. John Chrysostom and the Dialogue of Palladius on the deeds of St. John. is deserved by that Dialogue on the Life of St. Chrysostom which Ambrose the Camaldolese long ago published in Latin, and which in the year 1680 Émeric Bigot, a learned Frenchman, published more accurately in Greek and Latin under this title: The historical Dialogue of Palladius, bishop of Helenopolis, with Theodore, deacon of the Roman church, on the life and conversation of blessed John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople. This Greek-Latin edition Bernard de Montfaucon has very lately reprinted in tom. 13 of the newest edition of St. Chrysostom's Works. This twofold edition makes me judge that that Dialogue is not to be inserted in our Work even in Latin, especially since the Saint's deeds are not narrated in it in their own order, and since it contains many things pertaining less to Chrysostom, and some even useless. Nevertheless whatever is reported in that little Work about the holy Doctor I shall transfer in its own places to this Commentary. For this cause inquiry must diligently be made into the author of the Dialogue.

[3] The author of this Dialogue Bigot in his preface makes out by the authority of various writers that the author of this Dialogue is a certain bishop by name Palladius; although we shall presently see that this is not Palladius of Helenopolis, as he too acknowledges. The whole of Bigot's reasoning I transfer hither: The Dialogue on the life of John Chrysostom was held between the bishop and Theodore, deacon of the Roman Church, at Rome before many persons, and through several days. That this bishop was called Palladius and presided over the church of Helenopolis, these words of the title produce credit: Διάλογος Παλλαδίου ἐπισκόπου Ἐλενουπόλεως, the same repeated at the end of the little book. In Savile there is a list of the authors who wrote anything about John Chrysostom. Now it was excerpted at Padua from a most ancient codex of Michael Sophianus; and it is prefixed in the same Savile to the Life of St. John Chrysostom, written by a certain anonymous author who says that he composed it out of all the writers named in the said list. Among these is read Παλλάδιος ἐπίσκοπος Ἐλένουπόλεως (Palladius bishop of Helenopolis).

[4] is called a bishop Palladius by George and by Photius, George, patriarch of Alexandria, who transferred many things from this Dialogue into the Life of John Chrysostom written by him, refers all these as received from Palladius the bishop: all which same things are read written in this Dialogue. Then he subjoins George's Greek words. But, omitting the Greek, I shall subjoin only the Latin both of this George and of others, so as to consult brevity. "Some of these things," says George, "we have drawn from the Dialogue of Palladius the bishop with Theodore, deacon of the Roman Church. He lived in those times at Constantinople, and was present at all that was done. But afterwards he departed from the city and from his own bishopric, abhorring communion with those who had laid snares against the blessed John and had passed sentences against him — nay rather against their own heads — with no regard had to the canons." Photius, who read this Life of St. John composed by George, and has left us some things from it in his Bibliotheca, has this: "He reports some things from Palladius. That Palladius was a bishop, and wrote in the form of a Dialogue, beautifully and carefully, the affairs of Chrysostom." Theodore, bishop of Trimithus in the island of Cyprus (to be mentioned more at large below), has this about the author of our Dialogue: "There discourses of John, and of all that befell him, with Theodore, deacon of the great city of Rome, a certain venerable man, Palladius by name. He first dwelt many years in the desert, then was promoted to a bishopric in Bithynia, and wrote the virtues of many fathers. He himself communicated with

John, and lay hidden eleven months in an obscure little house." From these things it is permitted to gather that the bishop who is the author of this Dialogue was named Palladius by George of Alexandria and by Photius.

[5] Theodore, bishop of Trimithus, adds that he was endowed with a bishopric in Bithynia. by others also he was believed to be of Helenopolis. The title alone of the Greek codex of the Dialogue, and the little Index which stands in Savile, testify that this bishop was of Helenopolis. Further, this is to be noticed, that in the Florentine codex (and it is one of six hundred years) there is written in the margin, ἐν ἄλλοις γράφεται Ασπόνων (that is, in others it is written of Aspona), opposite the word Ελενουπόλεως; which note indicates that this same Palladius, who is called of Helenopolis, was also called by others bishop of Aspona. With these Socrates seems to agree, who in book seven, chapter 26, of the Ecclesiastical History, in the catalogue of bishops who were translated from one bishopric to another, says: "Palladius was translated from Helenopolis to Aspona"… Helenopolis is in Bithynia, but Aspona in the first Galatia under the metropolis of Ancyra. To me, however, it seems altogether probable that the author of this Dialogue purposely kept silent about his own name, and neither wrote it on the front of the Work nor inserted it into the body of the narration… The name of Palladius was afterwards added: and at length Palladius was named by some bishop of Helenopolis, by others bishop of Aspona, but by others was believed to be a bishop in Bithynia, and the same author of the eremitical History addressed to Lausus, which is commonly called the Lausiac. Thus far Bigot, who then doubts whether the author of the Dialogue should really be called Palladius, and whether he was bishop of Helenopolis, as the title sets forth.

[6] Tillemont, in tom. XI of the Monuments of the Church, in the article on Palladius of Helenopolis, art. 12, judges He seems altogether to have been Palladius a bishop: that the author of the Dialogue was really called Palladius, but that he is different from Palladius of Helenopolis, who is the author of the Lausiac History. This opinion Remi Ceillier follows in his French Work on the sacred Authors, tom. 10, in Palladius, num. 14. Each has proved his opinion by such reasonings that it seems to me altogether true and safely to be followed. Bigot's conjecture, who suspects that the name of Palladius was not written on the Dialogue by its author but added afterwards, is altogether uncertain, nor would that omission of the name suffice, even if it were certain, for repudiating the name of Palladius, since George of Alexandria and Photius assert that the Dialogue was written by Palladius a bishop. They do not add that he was bishop of Helenopolis, and therefore they cannot be convicted of error. There is therefore no reason by which we can or ought to withdraw credit from them as to the name of Palladius. Hence another conjecture occurs to me, which however is not necessary for our purpose. I suspect that from the beginning the name of Palladius the bishop was written on the Dialogue, but that the place of his bishopric was omitted. Thus the name of Palladius could become known to George and to Photius. But later writers, when they found Palladius of Helenopolis among the friends of Chrysostom, seem by a fallacious conjecture to have believed him the author of the Dialogue, and thus to have falsely appended the place of the bishopric to Palladius.

[7] but by various reasons Further, whatever be the occasion of that error, I cannot doubt that an error was made when there was attributed to Palladius of Helenopolis a little Work which is another Palladius's. For first, Palladius the author of the Dialogue was venerable with grey hairs, or an old man, when a little after Chrysostom's death, or about the year 408, he was discoursing with Theodore the deacon, whom at page 36 he thus addresses: My very grey hairs and dignity, to speak of myself, ought to suffice for you to believe that what we say is true. But Theodore at page 38 thus replies to these words: Pardon me, my good sir, and do not bring forward grey hairs to me as witnesses: for the wicked also have grown old, etc. And yet Palladius of Helenopolis in the year 408 had scarcely passed forty years. For he published the Lausiac History about the year 420, as the learned now agree. And at that time he had been born fifty-three years, as he himself says in the preliminary Letter to Lausus. And so the author of the Dialogue was of much more advanced age than the author of the Lausiac History, and consequently those two Palladii are different.

[8] it is made out that Palladius the author of the Dialogue Next, Palladius of Helenopolis came to Rome in the year 405, as is narrated in the praised Dialogue, page 26, in these words: A month having elapsed (after the coming of the other bishops), there came Palladius bishop of Helenopolis without letters, who himself also said that he had fled the fury of the magistrates, and declared all things to us more expressly, etc. After the coming of these and of others a Synod of the Western bishops was assembled, and thence legates were sent to the emperor Arcadius in the year 406 with letters of Pope Innocent, of the emperor Honorius and of others. But those legates, as is read at page 31, set out with the bishops Cyriacus, Demetrius, Palladius and Eulysius. But those legates were most ill received, and, returning with their business unaccomplished, they did not know where were the bishops Demetrius, Cyriacus, Eulysius and Palladius, just as at page 34 Theodore the deacon sets forth to our Palladius. But what Theodore did not know at Rome, our Palladius had learned before he came to Rome, and he narrates to him about each at page 194, where he affirms of Palladius that Palladius the bishop is kept in the neighborhood of the Blemmyes or Ethiopians, in a town called Syene. But that this is the one of Helenopolis his companions show, with whom he had departed from Rome, and about whose detention it is likewise there discoursed.

[9] is another than Palladius of Helenopolis. From these things it appears most clearly that Palladius of Helenopolis is another than the Palladius who in the Dialogue discourses with Theodore. For this Palladius came to Rome for the first time when Chrysostom was dead, that is, about the year 408: for at page 7, when Theodore the deacon asks: Whence do you now come to us? he answers him: From the East, of course. For now I see Rome for the first time. But that the Saint was then dead Theodore affirms at page 36 in these words: At the same time declare to us … what was the end of his life: if indeed he is dead, as we hear. And so, since Chrysostom died in the year 407, Palladius the author of the Dialogue did not come to Rome except about the year 408. This Palladius therefore came thither nearly three years after the one of Helenopolis, and after the one of Helenopolis had departed thence for almost two whole years, and at last when the one of Helenopolis was being kept in the town of Syene near Ethiopia. These things so manifestly make out that the Palladii are different that it is not necessary to observe that both our Palladius and Theodore in the Dialogue everywhere speak of Palladius of Helenopolis as of another and an absent person. And so, since in the Dialogue itself Palladius of Helenopolis is clearly distinguished from the author of the Dialogue, there must have been among Chrysostom's friends another Palladius also, a bishop.

[10] Nor ought it to seem a wonder that among the bishops favoring Chrysostom there were two Palladii, Two Palladii are to be numbered among Chrysostom's friends; just as among them we shall also find two Cyriacs; since forty bishops adhered to him, and the greater part of these is unknown. Chrysostom's letter 113, inscribed to Palladius a bishop, was perhaps given to the author of the Dialogue. For it was given to a bishop lying hid at Constantinople, as is established from these words: For since you are lying hid in secret, you have space for clinging to prayers with a contrite mind. And yet the author of the Dialogue lay hid there a very long while, as will be plain from what is presently to be said. On the contrary it is not established whether Palladius of Helenopolis remained at Constantinople after Chrysostom's expulsion. Certainly he did not remain there long, since he came to Rome in the year 405. Now Chrysostom was writing to a Palladius from whom, when he wished to lie hid there, he had received a letter, so that it is probable that this was given to the other Palladius, and that he is the author of the Dialogue. But whether that Letter was given to this Palladius, as is probable but not altogether certain, the Dialogue certainly in various places proves that Palladius its author was one of the same Saint's friends.

[11] Theodore at page 8 says to him: But I believe that you are of the company of John of Constantinople. the author of the Dialogue was frequently present with the Saint, Palladius answers: It is so, as you have said. The same at page 124, and again at page 125, affirms that he was present at the judgment in which Antoninus of Ephesus was condemned and other bishops were deposed by Chrysostom; and at page 140 he adds: Of these too the Acts are extant, which are kept among us with the subscriptions of twenty-two bishops, etc. Next, this Palladius was with Chrysostom in the year 403, when the Saint was condemned in the council at the Oak, as is clear at pages 66 and 67, where he says: We were forty bishops with John the bishop, etc. In the following year also, when Chrysostom was expelled from the city, Palladius was without doubt with him among the forty bishops mentioned generally at pages 82 and 83. The same man was at Constantinople in the year 406, when Stephen the monk, who carried the letters of the Romans to Constantinople, suffered grievous things there: for of his torments he says at page 197: Of which matter I myself was an eyewitness. Palladius therefore seems to have lain hid at Constantinople until Chrysostom's death was heard of there, and, having learned of it, to have sought Rome, where perhaps he died.

[12] But whatever be the case about his stay at Constantinople down to the Saint's death, and on his account went thereafter into exile: it is certain that Palladius went into exile from his own church on Chrysostom's account, and out of love for the peace flourishing in the Western church came to Rome, as he affirms at page 7. For at page 8 he thus speaks: As in paralyzed members the operations of the soul run back to the sounder parts of the members, so does the unhappy church of the East suffer. For its members being paralyzed, and unable, because concord has been driven out, to carry out their duties, most of us who are free and inflamed with desire for it wander as exiles from our country, we who cannot dwell without danger and tranquilly in the land that nursed us, for the love of truth — if in any way we may live among you, according to the Gospel, the few days of life that yet remain. From what has been said thus far we have it that this Palladius was present at many of Chrysostom's deeds, was joined with the Saint in friendship, was advanced in age, and was an exile from his country and his bishopric for love of the truth and for the defense of the holy Bishop. If all these things cannot win for his writings historical and historically certain credit, I know not what writer will at length be needed to produce credit; especially since he confirms his own sayings all but with an oath, and Theodore the deacon most gravely exhorted him to narrate true things, intimating also that it could easily be detected by the testimony of others if he narrated false ones.

[13] and with most weighty words he declares, Some of these I transfer hither. I ask you, says Theodore at page 8, that with God as witness you narrate to us truly those things which we eagerly desire to know one by one: being sure of this, that if you shall report to us anything beside the truth, you will have God as inquisitor and judge. You will also be convicted by us, who have received it otherwise. For not one, or two, or three, or ten, or men of any and every sort have narrated to us the things which happened at Constantinople, but many; and of these some are bishops,

others priests and of the order of monks. The same again at page 35: Be willing therefore, father, and willingly be willing, to tell us before God whence came also their hatred against John, etc. Palladius answers there: My very grey hairs and dignity, to speak of myself, ought to suffice for you to believe that what we say is true. But since you have not done this, and now twice call me to the judgment of God, hereafter at least, laying aside every pretext, lend me your ears, lest my speech run out in vain. For I know what things are written in the divine Law: God will destroy all who speak a lie. And in the apostle John: He who speaks a lie is not of God. And again in David: Because the mouth of them that speak wicked things is stopped. For truly he acts wickedly who deceives him whom he persuades: and he who believes a liar also acts wickedly, in believing easily. To these he presently adds more.

[14] that he wishes to narrate nothing but the truth. Again Theodore at page 38: If the inquiry were about a common matter and one of light moment, most sacred father, the appearance of your countenance would suffice to produce credit for your words. But since [*] inquiry is made about the truth … pardon me, my good sir, and do not bring forward grey hairs to me as witnesses, etc. These and other things about the regard to be had for truth being approved, Palladius subjoins at page 39: Whence I willingly commit myself to you, since I have found that your balance inclines to neither side. Again Palladius at page 141 calls to witness his own good faith in narrating, in these words: I shall have the same regard for truth as before. For I shall not forget the voice of the Lord saying: Of every idle word men shall render an account in the day of judgment. But I shall boldly add, and of every idle hearing. And so guard yourself the more cautiously, that if you notice that I speak anything untrue, you yield not to my grey hairs, but to the very truth of things. For what profit would accrue to me from things said today or yesterday, if I should lie: things which for ever, before the exact judgment, would be a confusion to me? And how should I bear the millstone of detraction on the crown of my mind, dragged down into the depth of gehenna on account of those who have suffered scandal from lies? Thus far Palladius, of whose sincerity it does not seem to me that doubt should be made; nor would so many things about his good faith have needed to be adduced, had it not been suspect to the most eminent Baronius; but for what cause, must now be set forth.

[15] Namely, the most eminent writer from time to time confounded the author of the Dialogue with Palladius of Helenopolis, and believed him addicted to the party of the Origenists. That Palladius of Helenopolis was infected with the errors of Origen Baronius, confounding the two Palladii, he inculcates by various reasons at the year 388, num. 103 and following; where nevertheless at num. 110 he observes that Palladius of Helenopolis and Palladius the author of the Dialogue are different, writing thus: Although this Palladius of whom we treat must be different from him who converses in that dialogue — adding also some sort of proof not necessary to us. But at the year 400, num. 61, he not obscurely confounds the author of the Dialogue with the author of the Lausiac History, and holds Palladius for an Origenist, discoursing thus: But from whom did Sozomen borrow a history of this kind? You will plainly find nearly the same things and others written by Palladius, himself long since an Origenist (namely in the Dialogue). But how much he himself favored the men of that sect, consult his Lausiac writings, where he is wholly occupied in praise of Isidore and of his fellow monks. Imbued with this opinion, Baronius frequently strives to withdraw credit from our Palladius, and, having made one man out of two, calls him in his Annals an Origenist and one lying for the sake of the Origenists.

[16] But in these matters I prefer to follow the most religious Baronius's counsel rather than his opinion. believed him an Origenist. At the year 400, num. 62, he thus prudently warns: Since therefore the whole history about the Origenist monks expelled from Egypt (as at least Theophilus of Alexandria would have it, himself suspect in this matter) is known to have been received from suspect authors; and since besides you see most holy men standing on either side, it is necessary that the discourse proceed with great caution, lest, advancing by some private affection, it decline to the right or to the left, etc. I do not doubt that a pious and learned man endeavored to do this to the best of his powers. But since error can creep in even upon a learned and diligent man, and since the question is of two friends of Chrysostom who seem to have been suspected of heresy neither by our Saint, nor by St. Innocent the Pope, neither at Constantinople nor at Rome, where both stayed long enough, I think that Baronius's reasons must altogether be examined, and that his opinion is not to be followed unless it be solidly founded. Now I shall examine the arguments — though most can be objected against the one of Helenopolis alone — in the order in which they were proposed by Baronius: for if neither should seem to be held an Origenist, so much the less will the author of the Dialogue be suspect.

[17] Baronius's first objection is that Palladius was a disciple of Evagrius Ponticus, Baronius's arguments, who is said to have followed the errors of Origen. By the familiarity of Evagrius Ponticus (he says at the year 388, num. 103, of Palladius) he was imbued with the errors of Origen; and he praises as witnesses St. Jerome and St. Epiphanius, whose words I shall adduce below. I answer meanwhile to the argument about Evagrius that I do not deny that Evagrius erred. But that he was never in his life condemned as a heretic, Tillemont abundantly proves in tom. 10, in Evagrius, art. 8, where he brings forward many things to excuse Evagrius, about which others will be able to judge. To me it seems enough for Palladius's defense that Evagrius was not accused of heresy so long as he lived, so that he did not believe that he must abstain from his familiarity. For he came to Evagrius, as to very many other solitaries, of whom several are Saints, that he might learn the exercises and virtues of the monks, not that he might be imbued with the dogmas of the faith. And so I do not see by what consequence it can be inferred from a stay of some years with Evagrius that Palladius was an Origenist. Certainly St. Chrysostom did not so reason, who promoted Palladius, on his return from Egypt, to the bishopric of Helenopolis, and used his service in grave affairs. Thus did not St. Innocent the Pope and the Roman clergy reason, since Palladius was honorably received at Rome. Thus did not that bishop of Constantinople reason who, after peace had been restored to the Church, promoted Palladius to the church of Aspona in Galatia. Wherefore that argument seems of no moment.

[18] drawn almost from conjectures Next, at num. 107, he objects Jerome's words from the preface to the Dialogue against the Pelagians: Palladius of servile wickedness endeavored to restore the same heresy (of Origen), etc. I should like to know whence the most eminent writer learned that the Palladius of whom Jerome there speaks is the one of Helenopolis, since not a few Palladii lived at that time. But whatever cause Baronius had for so judging, I can with difficulty believe that St. Jerome spoke with so great contempt as these words indicate — Palladius of servile wickedness, etc. — of a bishop who was Chrysostom's friend. Baronius adds from St. Epiphanius's Letter to John of Jerusalem these words: But beware of Palladius the Galatian, who was once dear to us and now needs the mercy of God, because he preaches and teaches the heresy of Origen, lest perchance he lead some of the people entrusted to you into the perversity of his error. Tillemont, in Palladius, art. XI, observes that that letter of St. Epiphanius was written in the year 396, and consequently shows that it is by no means probable that St. Epiphanius is speaking of Palladius of Helenopolis, who remained in Egypt from the year 388 down to 399. For who would believe that St. Epiphanius warned the bishop of Jerusalem to beware of a monk who had not been in his diocese for seven or eight years, and whose sole care then seems to have been to consult the monks and to imitate their virtues? Far more probable to me is it that this Palladius was not even known at that time to St. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis in the island of Cyprus, where Palladius seems never to have been.

[19] and those uncertain Besides, St. Isidore of Pelusium wrote very many letters to various Palladii. For some are read as given to Palladius a bishop, others to a deacon, others to a subdeacon, others to a lector of the same name, others finally to a Palladius marked by no title. Among these Palladius the deacon is reproved in book 3, letter 239, as having fallen into error and heresy. And in book 2, letter 145, to the same Palladius the deacon, I think, he thus writes: Lest, while by denial you angle for this, that you may seem by no means to have erred, you fall into another sin (for no one cures an evil by an evil, since this is reckoned to be of an incredible absurdity even among outsiders and profane persons); but rather, a medicine having been applied to the sin by repentance, bring yourself into that state that you sin no more. The same man rebukes Palladius the deacon, perhaps the same, because he desired a bishopric. But since St. Isidore had already begun to flourish before the fifth century, it appears probable that Palladius the deacon, reproved by St. Isidore, is that very Palladius whom Epiphanius and Jerome reckon among the followers of Origen. But thence I should not infer that he is also the man commemorated by St. Jerome in the Epitaph of St. Paula in these words: A certain crafty old hand, and, as he seemed to himself, learned and a smatterer, etc. Jerome relates that he proposed some questions to St. Paula in order to insinuate into her the errors of Origen, but he does not express the name.

[20] But Baronius believed that he had detected that he was no other do not seem to make out, than Palladius of Helenopolis, discoursing thus: Since he (St. Epiphanius) names no other of the Origenists but Palladius, certainly, even if others were sprinkled with the same stain, yet it appears sufficiently that no other than he undertook that office of teaching Origen's ravings. Wherefore I see that the Origenist who, as Jerome writes, tried St. Paula, was certainly none other than Palladius, then staying in Palestine. So indeed the most learned Annalist by conjecture. But that conjecture appears to me by no means probable: nor would Baronius himself, I think, have fallen upon that conjecture had he attended more to Palladius's age and to his stay in Egypt. For Palladius came into Egypt in the second consulship of the emperor Theodosius the Great, that is, in the year 388, when he was nearly twenty-one years old; and for that reason in chapter 1 he says that he came into Egypt to Isidore the priest while he was a youth. With no probability therefore can it be said that he proposed heretical questions to Paula before that time. From Egypt he withdrew in the year 399, as is clearly gathered from his letter to Lausus, and from the chronological arrangement of his whole life. Now he departed on account of illness first to Alexandria, thence into Palestine, and at last into Bithynia, where in the same year or at the beginning of the next he was ordained bishop, just as

he narrates in the Lausiac History, chapter 43, in Rosweyde's Lives of the Fathers. He could indeed then have approached St. Paula, who was staying at Bethlehem. But it is not probable that he tried the Saint with those questions which Jerome reports, both because he was sick and because he could stay only a short time in Palestine: for neither is it credible that at a first or second meeting he would have dared to propose to a pious and learned matron such things as he nowhere commemorated in his own History.

[21] Baronius objects thirdly that Palladius in the Lausiac History turned his pen against St. Jerome, that Palladius of Helenopolis was an Origenist. whom he accuses of envy. I answer that Palladius wrote few things about Jerome, and that that Saint — who had not a few detractors even among Catholics — was perhaps less known to him; but that from this it cannot certainly be inferred that he was an Origenist. Finally Baronius objects that not a few Origenists were praised by Palladius in the Lausiac History, and thence gathers that he rather put on the person of a Catholic when he dealt with St. Chrysostom, than was really a Catholic. But I do not see that from those praises which Palladius attributed to some men in some measure suspect of the errors of Origen it can certainly be inferred that he was liable to those same errors. For Palladius praises their manners and monastic exercises and virtues, not their doctrine defiled with the errors of Origen. Jerome himself not rarely praised Origen and Didymus, although he vehemently disapproves their bad doctrine. To the arguments given it might be added that Palladius was accused as an Origenist in the conventicle at the Oak, assembled against Chrysostom. But it is established that in that council charges were brought without any foundation, so that that objection also can have no force.

[22] Against the judgment of Chrysostom, of Innocent, and of all those Each Palladius seems to be held for a Catholic. who stood for Chrysostom's cause, and who seem by no means to have held Palladius suspect of the Origenian heresy, is of greater weight for thinking well of him than are the arguments adduced for staining his memory; both because these rest for the greater part only on uncertain conjectures, and because Palladius was better known to those who esteemed him highly as a Catholic than to the others who accused him, so that the authority of the former ought to prevail, even if it were established that St. Jerome is rightly numbered among Palladius's accusers. Wherefore, if our Elders from time to time followed Baronius's authority and mentioned Palladius as an Origenist, they would change their mind if they were alive. But as regards Palladius the author of the Dialogue, none of the ancients accused him of the Origenian heresy, and perhaps none even of the moderns, except by confounding him with the one of Helenopolis. It is therefore not necessary to prepare a further apology for him. This one thing it pleases us to observe, that he seems no less opposed to Chrysostom's persecutors than devoted to that Saint. Hence it could come about that, although he wished to use the best faith in writing, he sometimes readily believed what was spread abroad about the Saint's adversaries. Wherefore, if any caution is needed in Palladius's little Work, it seems chiefly to be employed in those things which he discourses in various places against Chrysostom's enemies.

* cum is redundant

§ II. Other writers of the Life and deeds of St. Chrysostom, of whose credit and authority it is discoursed.

[Socrates writes much about the Saint; but these things are not to be admitted without examination,] After Palladius, the first who wrote at fair length about the deeds of St. John Chrysostom were Socrates and Sozomen; but fewer things, though by no means to be despised, has Theodoret about him. Those three historians had indeed no part in the Saint's deeds; yet they lived at such a time and were of such an age that they could draw everything from those who had been present and had surveyed the deeds with their own eyes, and could themselves also see part of the deeds — especially Socrates, who without doubt saw and heard Chrysostom at Constantinople, since he was born and brought up there, as he says in book 5, chapter 24, and also dwelt there while he was writing. Certainly in the preface to book 6, in which he treats of Chrysostom, he notes that he will there write the events of his own age, seen by himself or heard from those who had seen them. From these things therefore Socrates's authority would seem great in what he reports about St. Chrysostom, were it not clear from his whole History that Socrates had little care for searching out the truth, and did he not in various places show himself rather unjust to the Saint, as Tillemont has rightly observed in Chrysostom, art. 1. For this cause I judge that Socrates when he speaks is not at once to be believed, but rather that it must be examined whether his assertions agree with what is reported by Palladius, whether they do not from time to time conflict with probability itself, whether he has not lent too easy ears to the calumnies of St. Chrysostom's enemies, and finally whether the several things which after his manner he committed to writing about our Saint's deeds seem true, or at any rate probable.

[24] as neither the sayings of Sozomen: from these and other contemporaries, As regards Sozomen, he was fairer to the Saint than Socrates, and is without doubt to be preferred to him for Chrysostom's deeds. Nevertheless, since Sozomen was accustomed to draw very much from Socrates, and generally to imitate him in excessive credulity, his sayings also must be called to examination and compared with the more certain writings of others. More accurate than Socrates and Sozomen is Theodoret, certainly in what he narrated about St. Chrysostom, but he commemorated fewer things and diligently studied to spare the Saint's enemies. These three historians therefore, with Palladius the author of the Dialogue, will supply the chief material for weaving the historical Commentary on the Life of Chrysostom, besides St. Chrysostom's own Works, which I have wished to read through for this end: for from them not a few things about the Saint's deeds can be drawn; from these it chiefly shines forth what his manners were, and with how great fortitude and constancy of mind he flourished in exile. Further, certain other contemporary writers, renowned for doctrine and sanctity, have made honorable mention of Chrysostom, whose words we shall adduce in their own places.

[25] Henry Savile in the Greek edition of the Works of St. John Chrysostom, tom. 8, published various Greek Lives of the Saint, some of whom are named, the Saint's deeds are to be narrated. and at page 295 recites the names of twenty writers whom an anonymous biographer, whose lucubration he there published, affirms to have gone before him as lights. Of those writers there have already been mentioned Palladius, Socrates and Theodoret. But Sozomen — which appears a wonder — is not there reckoned with the rest. But of contemporary writers there are added St. Proclus patriarch of Constantinople, in whose time his body was translated to Constantinople; St. Nilus the Great, and St. Isidore of Pelusium. These three Saints wonderfully praised Chrysostom; but they did not write his Life. There are named in the praised Savile two other contemporaries, namely Cosmas, who in Chrysostom's times was a deacon of the church of the Apostles; and St. Cyril, bishop of Alexandria. The first of these is not even known to the learned, nor is he mentioned in Photius. But most well known is St. Cyril; but the things which he narrated about St. Chrysostom are unknown (except a few words), if indeed he wrote about him, as that anonymous writer affirms. For he has in Greek, as I here render his words in Latin: After these (Socrates, Palladius and Proclus) St. Cyril of Alexandria, after that vision which he saw about him (Chrysostom). Finding his papers after many years, George, pope of Alexandria, and collecting the Works of other writers, completed a thick volume.

[26] Here we have another writer about St. Chrysostom, [The Life of the Saint published in Greek by George of Alexandria, and before that in Latin:] who was the first so to narrate his deeds as to compose a Life of the Saint more prolix than all the rest. It was published in Greek in Savile, tom. 8, from page 157 to 265. The same had already before been rendered into Latin, and so published by Godefroy Tilmann, a Carthusian monk. A compendium of this Life Photius gives in the Bibliotheca, col. 251, where he observes that the writer's style is humble and not altogether conformable to the precepts of Grammar. At the end of his compendium, col. 266, he adds that some things reported seem beyond the credit of history. But let us first inquire who that George is: which Photius confesses he does not know. And that indeed is a wonder, since he calls George bishop of Alexandria: for among the patriarchs of Alexandria after the times of St. Chrysostom down to Photius only one George is found, who in the seventh century presided over the church of Alexandria, after St. John the Almsgiver, whom he succeeded about the year 616, as may be seen with us in the Chronological History of the patriarchs of Alexandria, tom. V of June, page 68. This writer therefore was later than the Saint by two centuries.

[27] After George there is reckoned in the praised little Index St. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, who flourished in the same seventh century. others who are said to have written about Chrysostom: But if he wrote a Life or elogium of Chrysostom, it has hitherto been unknown. Perhaps St. Sophronius is praised on account of those few things which are read about Chrysostom in the Spiritual Meadow: for this was by some attributed to Sophronius. After Sophronius there follows in that little Index John Damascene. Without doubt St. John Damascene is designated, who flourished in the eighth century and wrote not a few other things: for the praised Savile at page 942 testifies that he has a Greek panegyric Oration of St. John Damascene on St. Chrysostom, and recites its beginning, as Leo Allatius also does, On the writings of the Simeons, page 87. This Oration has been published in the most recent edition of the Works of Damascene, tom. 2, page 886. But St. Damascene is too young for us to have to learn St. Chrysostom's deeds from his panegyric Oration. Next, in the said anonymous writer there follows Martyrius patriarch of Antioch. Martyrius flourished in the fifth century, and consequently was near enough to Chrysostom's times to narrate his deeds rightly; but nothing of his writings has become known. After four others already mentioned there follows Evagrius the Ascetic. Whatever Evagrius be here designated, no writings of his about Chrysostom have become known.

[28] [The little Work of Cosmas Vestitor on the bringing back of the body: the Oration of Leo the Wise:] Fourteenth in Savile is reckoned Cosmas Vestitor, by others called Cosmas Vestiarius. He wrote a panegyric on the bringing back of Chrysostom's body to the city of Constantinople. Its beginning Savile gives at page 944, and Leo Allatius at page 94. The little Work of Cosmas Vestitor I have from a Medicean manuscript of the king of France with an added Latin interpretation, and I shall praise it in the Saint's Posthumous Glory. Oudin, On ecclesiastical Writers, tom. 2, col. 400, treats of Cosmas Vestitor, whom he believes to have lived in the time of Leo the Wise, or in the ninth century. But he does not adduce certain arguments of his age. It is probable, however, that Cosmas is of nearly that age, because there is presently subjoined in the Anonymous writer's list the emperor Leo. For the emperor Leo, surnamed the Wise, composed a fairly prolix panegyric Oration on St. Chrysostom, which Savile published in Greek in tom.

8, page 267. Of it he notes the following at page 959: Leo, surnamed the Wise, the author of this little book, began to reign in the East in the year of Christ 886, and reigned about 24 years. And this book indeed might perhaps more rightly have been omitted, since it is nothing else than an abridgment of George, collected with no good judgment, and written almost barbarously.

[29] other writers about the Saint, almost unknown: After Leo is set Nicetas σκευοφύλαξ (or keeper of the sacred vessels), utterly unknown to us. Then Nicetas the Paphlagonian, who flourished in the ninth century and composed many orations on the Saints. But what he wrote about St. John Chrysostom lies hidden hitherto. Further, in the said catalogue of writers there is subjoined Eustatius Primi, and presently Basil the protothrone, whom we altogether do not know. Finally the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who flourished in the tenth century, is said to have composed an encomium of the Saint. I judge that that Oration of Constantine's was on the return of the body. Certainly Savile at page 943, and Allatius at page III, produce the beginning of the Oration which Constantine Porphyrogenitus composed on Chrysostom's body brought back to Constantinople.

[30] The anonymous Life written in the tenth century, and published in Greek: After all just mentioned there wrote an anonymous author whose little Work on the life of Chrysostom Savile published in tom. 8, page 293. Of him Savile observes this at page 963. Of this little book we have found a single copy in the Imperial library at Vienna, transcribed from a most ancient codex of Michael Sophianus by the labor of Sambucus in the year 1557 at Padua… Of the author I have nothing certain to say, except that he was later than the emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, that is, than the year of the Lord 950, as is immediately plain from the index of authors prefixed. He certainly has many things in common with the Metaphrast, I do not say in the very matter and argument of the Work (for this is necessary, since the same material is the subject of both), but even in the words. The author certainly, whoever he be, is not to be despised, richer and fuller than the Metaphrast, and certainly much more γραμματικώτερος than George. Thus far Savile, who rightly observes that that Anonymous writer wrote after Constantine Porphyrogenitus. But thence he does not rightly gather that he wrote after the year 950. For we do not know in what year Constantine wrote about St. Chrysostom. And since he was born about the year 904, he could as a young man have composed that Oration about the year 930 or 940; and consequently the anonymous writer could write a little after that, already before the year 950. Indeed, since he did not insert into his index the Metaphrast, who wrote in the tenth century under the empire of Constantine, it is probable that that Anonymous writer wrote a little before the Metaphrast, or at nearly the same time as he. Wherefore the age of that Life seems to be fixed about the middle of the tenth century.

[31] The Life of St. Chrysostom written by the Metaphrast Savile published in Greek in the fourth place, from page 373, [The Metaphrast's Life likewise published in Greek: another of Theodore, bishop of Trimithus:] observing at page 967 that he gives that Life transcribed from a royal codex at Paris, and in some measure corrected from another. Besides the Life, the Metaphrast also wrote of the translation of the body to Constantinople, which Allatius mentions at page 124, giving this beginning of it: Ἀλλὰ πῶς, etc. A manuscript copy of this we have from a Medicean codex of the king of France. Besides, Leo Allatius adds to those already mentioned certain other Lives of St. Chrysostom, namely at page 81 that of Theodore bishop of Trimithus, of which we have a manuscript copy from the Pontifical codex of Alexander VII. I cannot doubt that its author is that Theodore, bishop of the city of Trimithus in the island of Cyprus, who subscribed the sixth council held at Constantinople in the year 680, in Labbe, tom. 6, col. [ ]. He flourished therefore in the seventh century already well advanced, and wrote after George of Alexandria, and two whole centuries and a half after the Saint's death, so that his authority cannot be of great moment in these matters. He praises indeed a single writer, Palladius, and does not seem to have had George's lucubration, since he did not adopt his fables. But he himself so befouled that Life with so many and so open figments that I could not read it through without weariness, nor do I judge that it should be published.

[32] A brief compendium of the Life of St. John, in Greek and Latin, Bigot published after Palladius's Dialogue, page 229; Compendia of the Life, and other elogia: but it is of an uncertain author, nor is it free from some errors. Another writing of an uncertain Greek author on the translation of the relics of St. Chrysostom Allatius mentions at page 120, reciting this beginning, ἥκεν ἡμῖν ἡ λαμπρὰ, etc. Of this lucubration I have a manuscript copy, as it was transcribed by our Papebroch himself at Florence from a codex of the Medicean library of St. Lawrence. But in this little Work, which I shall be able to use in the course of my work, not only is the translation of the body itself treated, but various things are also set forth which happened before the translation. To these Greeks are added certain others who in the same Oration praised Basil, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom, because they have a common festivity, as we shall afterwards see. These, because they cannot profit us, I shall only briefly recount from the Greek Library of Johann Albert Fabricius, who also treats of the writers just praised, and joins to them the Greek writers of Chronicles and Histories, to be praised by us where we shall use their writings. In Fabricius, tom. 7, page 558, there are recounted those who praised Basil and Gregory and Chrysostom together: John metropolitan of Euchaita, Philotheus patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas Cabasilas, Theodore Metochites, Matthew Camariotes, and Theodore Prodromus.

[33] Latin Lives useless for our purpose: more recent writers. The praised Fabricius also recounts some Latin writers who narrated something about the deeds of St. Chrysostom. Certain others Montfaucon enumerates in tom. 13 of the Works of St. John Chrysostom. It will suffice for our purpose if I assign them where it shall be necessary to use their authority. I have at hand also two Latin Lives of St. Chrysostom, one from a manuscript codex of St. Maximin of Trier, the other from an Utrecht manuscript of St. Salvator. But they can be of no profit, since they bring forward almost nothing besides what the author of the Tripartite History scraped together from Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. Of more recent writers, Godefroy Hermant wrote the Life of Chrysostom at length and critically, whom Tillemont in tom. XI of the Monuments of the Church follows in most things. But I shall adduce Tillemont rather than Hermant, because Tillemont so alleges his authors that it can easily be perceived how certain or probable are the arguments which he adduces. After these, Bernard de Montfaucon wove the Life of St. Chrysostom in the Latin tongue in tom. 13 of the Saint's Works published by him. Him too I shall have before my eyes; nor shall I neglect Baronius, Pagi, Alexandre, and other moderns who have treated of Chrysostom's deeds.

[34] [The credit of George of Alexandria and of other writers of the middle age is suspect:] The chief authors who have treated of St. Chrysostom having just been enumerated, some things remain to be said about the credit which George of Alexandria and others who followed him deserve. Savile, who published the little Works of George, of the emperor Leo, of the Anonymous writer and of the Metaphrast, observes at page 941 that none of them used a sober style, but that the lucubrations of all of them are defiled with fabulous narrations; and this he shows at length of George, more briefly of the others, in William Cave's Historia litteraria, where Savile's Dissertation on the writers of Chrysostom's affairs is printed at page 189. No more favorable is the judgment of our Petau, book XI of the Doctrine of times, chapter 46, where he calls George most futile and most mendacious in History, and shows his various chronological errors. With these agree Hermant, Tillemont, and the rest of the historians generally who have used some criticism in writing, and most lately Montfaucon in tom. 13 in the preface, page 4, writing thus of George: He in a humble and inelegant style reports innumerable fabulous things, with the exception of those which he borrowed from Palladius and Socrates. One may also except those things which he could draw from Theodoret, Sozomen and other contemporary writers, partly known and partly unknown. And so for narrating the Saint's Life we have no other aids of great moment besides the Saint's own Works, the Dialogue of Palladius, and the writings of Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, and a very few things from some other contemporaries mentioned before.

[35] hence these are from time to time to be touched upon only briefly, Nevertheless, because it belongs to our undertaking not only to prove true things, so far as we can, but also to refute false and improbable ones, I shall at least briefly examine the assertions of George of Alexandria and of the other biographers; for many writers have narrated not a few things about Chrysostom from those Lives, and those very authors who are most opposed to George have from time to time wished to use his authority, because he also narrated many true things. George could indeed draw some things from monuments now unknown which had been passed over by Palladius and others; and for that reason not everything written by him is at once to be repudiated which is not found in Palladius or in other contemporaries. For it will certainly be a weak argument if anyone should wish to accuse George of falsehood on this ground alone, that he reports some things omitted by Palladius; since from his very Dialogue it is clear that Palladius did not undertake to narrate everything, but treated almost only of the Saint's persecution. Leo Allatius, On the writings of the Simeons, page 46, wished in some measure to defend George of Alexandria against Savile's censure, who in a few words repudiates all the miracles which are attributed to Chrysostom. Certainly what we shall adduce from St. Nilus, Chrysostom's disciple, and what Sozomen and other contemporaries narrate, sufficiently show that from time to time some things happened to Chrysostom above the natural order. I would not, however, contend that all or most of the miracles which George and other more recent writers ascribe to Chrysostom are to be admitted as true. But of these afterwards. Now let us come to the narrating of the Saint's Life, using for it almost only contemporary writers, or briefly rendering an account of those things which later biographers added.

§ III. The Saint's country, parents, and the year of his birth, to be fixed about 344.

[The Saint, born at Antioch of a noble family, his father Secundus, his mother Anthusa] Of St. Chrysostom's country and parents Palladius in the Dialogue, page 40, has this: That John was by race indeed an Antiochene, … born of parents who lived nobly in the office of master of the soldiery of Syria; brought forth to his father after a sister. Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, adds the names of the parents, writing this: John therefore was sprung from Antioch, which is a city of Cœle-Syria, his father Secundus, his mother Anthusa, of a family noble among their own people. About the nobility of the family Sozomen agrees, book 8, chapter 2. George in Savile, page 159, attributes not only the first nobility to both parents, Secundus and Anthusa, but also ample riches. To him several others subscribe. But on their authority I do not rest, as I have already noted. But Chrysostom himself in book 2 On the Priesthood sufficiently intimates that splendor of family and sufficient and ample means were not lacking to him. His words I shall give at num. 110. In the Menology of the Greeks, as it was rendered into Latin by the most eminent Sirleto, at the IX of October, St. Publia the deaconess is treated of, and she is called the mother of St. John surnamed Chrysostom. This error Baronius refutes at length at the year

362; and Hermant in the Life, chapter 2, but too liberally calls it the opinion of the modern Greeks. For, since I do not find it in the other Fasti or Histories of the Greeks, I should not dare to attribute that error so confidently to the Greeks. Whosever that error be, it lacks all foundation: for John, the son of St. Publia, was never a bishop, as may be seen in Theodoret treating of St. Publia in book 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 14.

[37] The year of St. Chrysostom's birth can with difficulty be assigned, or certainly determined, because nowhere is it found expressed among the ancient writers. he was born long before the year 354, Baronius at the year 362, num. 133, judges that the Saint was born in the year 354, because some more recent Greeks attribute to Chrysostom only fifty-two years of age and eight months. Savile in Cave, page 191, nearly assents to Baronius. This opinion is expressed in the Epitome of the Life of Chrysostom in Bigot, page 227. Nevertheless that whole chronological arrangement seems far from the truth. Indeed Chrysostom would have been at most twenty years old when he was demanded for the taking up of a bishopric, and when Basil his comrade really was made a bishop, if he had been born in the year 354: for that matter cannot probably be fixed after the year 374, as we shall see in its place. Secondly, our Saint is believed to have been made a lector by St. Meletius, and that cannot be fixed after the year 371, as I shall show at num. 57. And yet at that time he was at the least twenty-three years old. He was born therefore long before the year 354, or rather 355, as from the age assigned him the year of his birth would have to be fixed.

[38] nay, even before the year 350, as is gathered from his own passage Chrysostom himself in the little Work To a young Widow, tom. 1, page 344, in my judgment clearly intimates that he was born before the year 350, at the beginning of which the emperor Constans, son of Constantine the Great, was killed, when he thus speaks: And, to omit ancient things, of all those who have reigned in our age (and they were nine), two only (that is, Constantius and Valentinian I) closed their life by a common death. But of the rest, this one (Constans) by a tyrant (Magnentius), that one (Julian) in war, another (Jovian) by the snares of his household guards, and another (Gallus the cæsar) fell slain by that very man (Constantius) who had set the crown and the purple upon him. Presently he adds the death of Valens, the most tragic of all, as being burned. To these seven add the two living, Gratian and Theodosius, in whose time he was writing, and whose wives he affirms to live in perpetual fear; and thus we shall have nine emperors who in Chrysostom's age had lived or were living while he was writing these things, not long after the slaughter of Valens, who was killed in the year 378. From this enumeration of nine emperors it is gathered that Chrysostom was born before the year 350, that is, before the death of Constans, and after the year 340, in which Constantine the younger was cut down in the war against his brother Constans.

[39] about the nine emperors of his time, Nevertheless I know that those nine emperors are enumerated in another way by Tillemont in Note 14 on St. Chrysostom, and by Montfaucon in the preliminary Warning to the Work alleged. They will have it that all the emperors of whom Chrysostom speaks were dead while he was writing; and therefore among the nine mentioned they number Constantine the Great and his son Constantine, whom they confess to have died before the Saint's age. They contend, namely, that those words ἐπὶ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς ἡμετέρας, in our age, and literally, in our generation, or in our time, are not to be taken so strictly that it be not lawful to look back to preceding ones, and especially to the most celebrated Constantine. They add that Chrysostom used a like manner of speaking in Homily 15 on the Epistle to the Philippians, where he reports the death of the empress Fausta and of Crispus the cæsar among the things done ἐπὶ τῶν χρόνων ἡμετέρων, in our times, he says. I answer that even that passage alone, compared with the one alleged, suffices to show the falsity of Tillemont's opinion, which Montfaucon too easily followed. I allege the Greek passage with the excellent interpretation of Fronton du Duc, where in tom. XI, page 143: μάλιστα μὲν καὶ τὰ παλαιὰ ἐρῶ, πλὴν ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἔτι τῇ μνήμῃ φυλαττόμενα, ἅτε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χρόνων γενόμενα τῶν ἡμετέρων. And chiefly indeed I shall tell ancient things, which nevertheless have not yet fallen from memory, but also some which have happened in our times. This interpretation is genuine, as will be plain to one who considers, and is conformable to what he presently begins to narrate. For first he narrates the slaughter of Fausta and Crispus, and other tragedies of the house of Constantine the Great, and gradually proceeds to things done more recently in his own times, among which he reports the wretched death of the emperor Valens.

[40] Montfaucon, in tom. XI, page 317, gave an interpretation of the Greek words accommodated more to the opinion who is thus to be expounded, which he had before adopted than to the Greek diction. For he has it thus: And chiefly indeed I shall tell ancient things: which nevertheless have not yet fallen from memory, inasmuch as they happened in our times. I cannot approve this interpretation, even though the word ἅτε can elsewhere be explained as inasmuch as: for Chrysostom clearly intimates that he wishes to narrate facts of a twofold kind, when he first says that he will narrate καὶ τὰ παλαιὰ, both ancient things, and when he subjoins, ἅτε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν χρόνων, etc.; and those which have been done in our times: for otherwise he would call very recent things ancient, since he speaks even of the emperor of his own time. Receive, reader, the whole passage expressed according to the Greek words. Chiefly indeed I shall tell ancient things also, preserved nevertheless still in memory, and those also which have been done in our times. Now consider with me, reader, how certain it seems that Chrysostom in the little Work To a widow does not speak of Constantine, but only of the emperors of his own age. In the passage objected he says that he will report both ancient and recent things; and yet he begins from the deeds of Constantine, and does not touch upon older ones. But here, to the widow, he says that he will omit ancient things. Who then would believe that he speaks of Constantine?

[41] In the passage objected he speaks of Crispus the cæsar, killed at his father Constantine's order. so that to those nine emperors Who could have conduced more to Chrysostom's purpose, as he consoles a widow, than the innocent Crispus, put to death at his father's order, if he had not wished to keep within his own age? Again, in the passage objected he speaks of the empress Fausta, made away with by her husband Constantine. If therefore in the work To a widow he speaks of Constantine, why does he keep silence about Fausta's tragic death? For he narrates also the misfortunes of the empresses of his own age. Besides, Chrysostom in the passage alleged To a Widow determines nine emperors of his own time. But he could not have determined a certain number unless he strictly determined the time from which he began his enumeration. He speaks therefore strictly of the time in which he had lived: and hence he begins from the slaughter of Constans, who really was the first of them who was killed. Presently he mentions Julian, then Jovian, whom in the passage just objected also he asserts to have been made away with by poisoned drugs; then Gallus the cæsar, and finally he tells that Valens was cut down with his army. If he had wished to speak of Constantine the younger, he would not have passed over that he was killed in the war against his brother Constans, and he would have brought him forward first of all. There is also another inconvenience in Tillemont's opinion: for among the nine emperors enumerated by him three died by a common or non-violent death: Constantine, Constantius, and Valentinian. Tillemont himself confesses that he does not know whether he ought to reckon Constantius or Valentinian among those who died by a violent death: For both, he says, seemed to have died by a natural and not a violent death. This very thing we too say, and we believe that it cannot deservedly be denied. Certainly Chrysostom mentions neither among those who died by a violent death in Homily 15 on the Epistle to the Philippians, of which we have just treated.

[42] there be numbered the two living: The last inconvenience, which Tillemont himself also acknowledges in his own opinion, is this, that he cannot show that Chrysostom speaks of all those emperors, as he confesses conduces to his purpose. Hence he suspects that the Greek text must be changed, and suspects that Valentinian is perhaps reckoned among those who died in war. But Valentinian neither died in war, nor do I judge that the Greek text must be changed: and even so the Saint would have spoken of all. For he speaks of two who died a common death, of five by a violent death, and of two living, whose lot likewise he shows to be by no means enviable. Hear in what manner he describes their lot, speaking of their wives: But as to the wives of those who now reign; the one, recovering from her former calamities, has great grief mingled with her pleasure, because he who holds power (Gratian) is too young and inexperienced, and has many plotting against him on every side: but the other, unnerved with fear, leads a life more wretched than those who have been condemned to death, because her husband (Theodosius) from the time in which he took the diadem down to this present day is engaged in war and battles, etc. And so in our opinion the Saint speaks of all nine, and in such a way indeed that from his own words all are easily recognized. The whole of Tillemont's mistake lies in this, that he believed that Chrysostom speaks of nine dead men. But he says only that nine reigned in his time, and does not except the living. Of Valentinian II, who then as a boy bore only the title of emperor, he does not speak, as Tillemont admits. Let the studious reader take this digression in good part, because it makes at least for the explanation of Chrysostom's words; although otherwise so many words would not be needed to prove that St. Chrysostom was born before the year 350.

[43] The Saint's birth seems to be fixed about the year 344. Hermant, Tillemont and Pagi fix the Saint's birth about the year 347. I have no doubt that these writers come far nearer the truth than the authors praised before. Nevertheless, when I consider that our Saint was sought for a bishopric about the year 374, and that his comrade Basil was then made a bishop, I should prefer to judge that the Saint was born about 344, so that he was at least nearly thirty years old when by the counsel of prudent men he was designated bishop. That epoch appears to me the more probable the weaker are the things which can be brought forward for fixing the Saint's birth later, and the more things occur for judging that Chrysostom was more advanced in age than the writers alleged believed him. Certainly the little Works which he began to write already about the year 372 or a little after, as we shall see, show that he was already then exercised in the sacred Letters. But we shall show at num. 48 that he was nearly twenty-four years old before he began the study of the sacred Letters. And so he was probably approaching the thirtieth year of his life when he began to write his first little Works in his mother's house. Besides, the age of his mother, growing old before the Saint's withdrawal into solitude, also probably intimates

that the Saint was not born after the year 344 or 345. Finally the whole chronological arrangement, to be elucidated in its own places, will intimate that the Saint's birth seems nearer to the year 340 than to 350. But the authority of the more recent Greeks, which alone can almost be opposed to these things, is of no moment.

§ IV. The father of the Saint dies while he is yet an infant: both parents were more probably Christian: the Saint's teachers, studies, eloquence.

The Saint was scarcely born when his father died, George of Alexandria in Savile, page 159, affirms that the parents of St. Chrysostom were gentiles, but were baptized after John, whom he intimates to have been washed in the sacred font in boyhood or adolescence. The same others who followed George hand down. But these things are fictitious: for John was baptized when he had long passed the twentieth year of his age, as we shall see at num. 56. But that the Saint's father died when he was scarcely born he himself teaches in book 1 On the Priesthood, or tom. 1, page 363, where he brings in his mother speaking thus: I, my Son, she says, was able by divine providence to enjoy your father's virtue for no long time. For his death, following upon the pangs of your birth, left you an orphan and me a widow prematurely, with the added inconveniences of widowhood, which are well known only to those who have experienced them. The same Saint, writing To a young Widow, tom. 1, page 340, sufficiently intimates that his parents were Christians, in these words: For I too once, when I was younger, noticed that my teacher (Libanius or Andragathius) — and he was the most superstitious of all men — had conceived great admiration among many. For when he had asked those who sat by him, after his manner, who I was and whose son; and it was answered that I was the son of a widow woman; he asked about me the age of my mother, and the time of her widowhood.

[45] But as soon as he heard that she was forty years old, and his mother was twenty years old, both Christians. and that the twentieth year was already passing since she had lost my father, he was plainly astonished, and turning to those who were present, cried out with a clear voice: Papæ! what women there are among the Christians. Here the Saint's mother, while he was not yet baptized, is clearly asserted to be a Christian, and the same becomes most probable of his father. From the same passage we have it that Chrysostom's mother was nearly twenty years old when he was born, and when a little after his father died. In Homily XI against the Anomœans, tom. 1, page 541, he asserts that he was born in the church of Antioch, when he says that he does not love the Christians of Constantinople less than that church in which, he says, we were born, brought up and taught — in some measure intimating that he was born of Christian parents, because presently he compares not city with city but church with church; and a church consists of Christians alone.

[46] Of the Saint's genius and earlier studies Palladius has this briefly at page 40: The Saint did not leave the study of eloquence But since he was of a rather quick genius, he exercised himself in the study of letters for the ministry of the sacred Scriptures. Hence, being eighteen years old, he broke away from the sophists who catch at little words. So indeed Bigot expressed Palladius's words in Latin, and Montfaucon after him. I should not, however, wish to infer from the words adduced that John in the eighteenth year of his age sent word of dismissal to polite letters. For, as Tillemont rightly observes in Note 2, the Greek words are very ambiguous and perhaps corrupt, or to be expounded in another way. The Greek words Bigot gave thus: ἐκεῖθεν ὀκτωκαιδέκατον ἔτος ἄγων τὴν σώματος ἑλικίαν, ἀφηνίασε τοὺς σοφιστὰς τῶν λεξειδρίων. George of Alexandria in Savile, page 166, expresses the passage in this manner: ὀκτὼ καὶ δέκατον ἔτος ἄγων τῆς ἡλικίας αὐτοῦ ἀφηνίασε τοῦ σοφιστοῦ τῶν λεξυδρίων. What is intimated by these words is not altogether clear. Indeed I find neither λεξείδριον nor λεξύδριον; but λεξείδιον signifies a little word, and therefore I suspect that in both places λεξειδίων, of little words, is to be read. The verb ἀφηνιάζω is commonly expounded as I reject the reins, or I refuse the command; and it seems that τοῦ σοφιστοῦ is rather to be read, as it is in George, than τοὺς σοφιστὰς, as it is published in Palladius's Dialogue.

[47] in the eighteenth year of his age, Taken in this way the phrase signifies that Chrysostom in the eighteenth year of his age would no longer be ruled by teachers of a lower sort, who attend only to the construction of words or to elegance of diction: nor can anything besides be inferred from that passage, in whatever way at last it be understood. I know indeed that in the epitome in Bigot, page 227, this is read: Being eighteen years old he withdrew from the rhetor Libanius, and is baptized by Meletius archbishop of Antioch and ordained a lector. I know also that the emperor Leo in Savile, page 270, nay and George after the words of his alleged, so speak of St. John that they seem to have believed that in the eighteenth year of his age he withdrew from the study of eloquence and of profane philosophy, and then began to come to Meletius. I confess too that Palladius's words can be so explained, and that from them others were probably led into that opinion. But whatever be the case about Palladius's mind — whether he was of that opinion or only seemed so to think because with excessive brevity he touched on the Saint's profane studies — that opinion does not appear even probable, or rather it is certainly false. For from the words given at nums. 44 and 45 it clearly follows that the Saint was in the school of a Greek teacher (whether this was Libanius the rhetor, as is probable, because he was most superstitious, or perhaps Andragathius the philosopher) when his mother was in the twentieth year, in Greek twenty years, a widow; and consequently when he himself already had, or had passed, twenty years: for after the Saint's birth his father died, and perhaps that death did not so quickly follow but that some months or a whole year intervened.

[48] but probably about the twenty-fourth year. Besides, if we consider that John at twenty years old was so unknown to his superstitious teacher that he asked who he was and whose son, hence we shall easily gather that he was nearly twenty years old when he gave himself to him to be taught. Nevertheless it is probable that the Saint was for several years under the discipline of the chief teachers of eloquence and philosophy, Libanius and Andragathius: for neither is so great learning nor so great eloquence, as is perceived even in Chrysostom's first little Works, gathered in a short time; nor did Chrysostom afterwards learn the liberal arts and the most exact precepts of dialectic and eloquence, after he had given himself wholly to the sacred Letters. And so if we consider for how long a time those most celebrated fathers Basil and Nazianzen continued the study of eloquence, we shall not judge that Chrysostom, in no way inferior to them, whether we regard the elegance and perspicuity of his speech, or his most exact dialectic in discoursing, ascended in a few years, and those in adolescence, to so great a summit of eloquence that perhaps he never had a superior in the art of speaking. Wherefore, whatever others have believed about the Saint's age, I rather judge that Chrysostom gave his labor to the liberal arts under Libanius and Andragathius down to at least the twenty-fourth year of his age, and to nearly the year of Christ 368, and that then at last he began to adhere to Meletius and to begin the study of the sacred Letters: for I find nothing that opposes this chronological arrangement, except the Greek writers of the middle age, who formed their chronology without judgment, and some more recent writers who easily consented to their sayings.

[49] Of our Saint's teachers already praised Socrates thus speaks in book 6, chapter 3: The Saint had as teachers of eloquence Libanius and Andragathius: In Rhetoric he had as teacher Libanius the sophist, but in philosophy Andragathius. Sozomen agrees in book 8, chapter 2, in these words: For since he was of an excellent disposition, he had as teachers in the art of Rhetoric Libanius, but in philosophy Andragathius. Of these Libanius was most well known, and long taught at Antioch, and at that time held the chief place among the professors, on the testimony of Theodoret, book 3 of the History, chapter 23; but at the same time he was impious and most addicted to gentile superstition. But Andragathius has not become known from elsewhere. Further, how much Libanius made of John's eloquence the praised Sozomen declares, writing thus of the Saint: There was at Antioch on the Orontes a certain priest, by name John, born of a noble family, upright in life, an excellent artificer of speaking and persuading, and the most eminent of all the orators of his time, as Libanius the Syrian sophist testified. For when he was about to die, and his friends asked who should succeed in his place: John, he said, if the Christians had not stolen him away. This Libanius said when Chrysostom had been a priest for some years, and had made his eloquence Christian and sacred: for, as Tillemont shows in tom. 4 of the Emperors, in Julian, art. 36, Libanius lived at least down to the year 390. The force of truth alone therefore drove a superstitious man to commend so greatly the Saint's eloquence.

[50] This he had long before praised, when Chrysostom, having gone out of his school, the former celebrated the Saint's eloquence had not yet embraced any certain institute of life. A witness of this praise beyond all exception is St. Isidore of Pelusium in book 2 of the Letters, letter 42, to Ophelius, where he recites, inserted in his own, Libanius's letter to John. The whole letter of the Pelusiot I transfer hither: That — I will not say another (for that could perhaps seem a small thing to most), but even Libanius himself, who is renowned and celebrated among all for the name of eloquence — admired even to astonishment the tongue of that illustrious man John, and the beauty of his sentences, and the density of his arguments, is proved by that Letter, in which he not only calls him blessed who is endowed with so great a faculty of speaking, but also those whose praises he had celebrated in his oration — and those emperors — because they had obtained such a herald of their praises. And of this Letter this is the copy.

[51] Libanius to John, greeting. When I had received your beautiful and elegant oration, with elogia, I read it to certain men who are themselves also craftsmen and architects of orations. Of whom there was none who did not leap and utter a shout, and do all those things which men struck and astonished with admiration are wont to do. I therefore was affected with pleasure on this account, that to your forensic work, in which you give a specimen of your art, you add also the demonstrative kind of speaking. And I count both you blessed, who can praise in this manner, and likewise those who have obtained such a herald of their praises, that is, both the father who gave the empire and the sons who received it. And this indeed Libanius wrote. But Plutarch judges that perspicuity and ease are genuine Atticism. For thus, says he, the orators spoke. But Gorgias of Leontini first brought this disease into forensic orations, as one who embraced the sublime and figurative kind of speaking, and undermined perspicuity. This disease, moreover, says he, touched even the admirable Plato. Wherefore, if in this matter credit is to be given to Plutarch

(as it is to be given, is added in the Greek), the illustrious and celebrated John surpasses all, as one who both showed himself Attic in his words and employed such perspicuity as I know not whether any other man did. Thus far St. Isidore of Pelusium, who without doubt speaks of our Saint. Nevertheless there lies hidden here some difficulty, on account of which Valois in his Annotations on Socrates, page 75, judges that Libanius's letter was not given to St. Chrysostom.

[52] not however before Julian: the Saint did not study at Athens. For, since that oration seems to have been delivered about the year 368, when Chrysostom was engaged in the forum and the courts, it does not sufficiently appear what emperors were treated of. For Valentinian indeed, who then reigned, had associated with himself in the empire his brother Valens and his son Gratian, but not sons. Tillemont in Note 3 probably suspects that the Saint celebrated in his oration emperors long dead, namely Constantine and his sons. More probable, however, it seems to me that those praised by Chrysostom were Valentinian, Valens and Gratian, and that Valens and Gratian are called sons, because Valens is said to have obeyed Valentinian, from whom he had received the empire, after the manner of a son. That oration could have been delivered on the occasion of Gratian's being taken into the empire in the year 367. However it be, the authority of St. Isidore suffices for us to believe that Libanius's letter was given to Chrysostom. But the authority of the Anonymous writer in Savile cannot suffice for us to admit as true what he asserts at page 296, namely that Libanius said to the emperor Julian that there was found among the Greeks no one who surpassed John in eloquence. For since Julian the apostate was killed in the year 363, Chrysostom had not yet reached his twentieth year when Libanius last spoke with Julian; and the Saint at that time seems to have been little known to him, as is gathered from what was said at num. 44. He does not therefore seem to have spoken with Julian of so great an eloquence in the holy Youth. But far more openly fabulous is the long history which George of Alexandria wove at page 161 and following, and which three other biographers in Savile adopted, about Chrysostom's studies at Athens and his most celebrated disputation there with Anthemius. For from the most ancient monuments it is abundantly clear that the Saint did not give his labor to eloquence at Athens, and most probably was never there.

§ V. The Saint's friendship with Basil, his familiarity with St. Meletius, by whom he is instructed and baptized: ordained lector perhaps by him, perhaps by another: the Saint's danger.

The Saint's great friendship with Basil, Among the friends of St. Chrysostom, both in the time of his studies and after the studies of the liberal arts were finished, there stood out a certain Basil, otherwise little known, with whom he deliberated about the leading of a common and solitary life. Of that friendship the Saint in book 1 On the Priesthood, tom. 1, page 362, writes thus: To me indeed there were very many friends, and those genuine and true, who both well understood the laws of friendship and diligently observed them. But one of these very many, who far surpassed all the rest in friendship, strove to leave them as far behind as they left those who were but moderately affected toward me. He was of the number of those who clung perpetually to my side. For we gave our labor to the same disciplines and to the same teachers: there was one study of both of us about letters, one solicitude, an equal desire born of the same things. For not only when we frequented our teachers, but also when, having gone forth thence, we had to take counsel what more excellent kind of life we should embrace, then too the same agreement appeared. There were other things also which kept this concord firm and unshaken. For neither could one exalt himself against the other on account of the greatness of his country: neither had I the highest riches, nor was he pressed by [not] utmost poverty; nay, the parity of our purpose emulated even the measure of our means. Equal was the condition of our family, and all things concurred with our judgment. Thus far Chrysostom. But I would have the studious reader notice that that not which I have added enclosed in brackets must necessarily be added, lest Basil should seem to have been poor. The Greek οὔτε, neither, is so prefixed to both members that it denies both excessive riches in Chrysostom and utmost poverty in Basil: and this is clear from the words immediately following.

[54] Further, although so great was the agreement of those friends to whom, when he exhorts him to the monastic life, he does not at once yield, so long as they were only deliberating and neither chose any institute of life, yet they did not at once consent in the same kind of life, as Chrysostom explains, proceeding thus: But when it was near that that blessed man should embrace the life of monks and true philosophy, the balance was no longer even; but his scale, as being lighter, was borne aloft; while I, ensnared by the desires of the world, weighed down my scale, laden with youthful thoughts. Here at last the friendship indeed remained firm as before, but our intercourse was broken off: for those could not be together who were not held by the same pursuits… For he who clung to the courts and the forum, and followed after the delights of the stage, could not often be with him who, given to books, never came into the forum. From these words we have it that St. Chrysostom, after he had gone out from the schools, did not at once give himself wholly to sacred studies, but for some months at least, and perhaps for a year or two, was engaged in the forum, that he might learn to plead causes, or even pleaded them. At that time, I think, he delivered that oration in praise of the emperors which Libanius so greatly praised, as was said at nums. 50 and 51.

[55] but after pleading causes for a while in the forum, Hence Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, has this of the Saint: And when he was now preparing to plead causes, considering how laborious and how unjust was the manner of living of those who are engaged in the forum, he preferred to follow a more tranquil life. Which indeed he did after the example of Evagrius, who, taught under the same teachers as he, had long since betaken himself to a quiet manner of living. Straightway therefore, having changed his habit and his gait, he applied his mind to the reading of the sacred Letters, and frequently hastened to the church for prayer's sake. Sozomen in book 8, chapter 2, says the same more briefly in these words: Further, when it was believed that he would plead causes and follow that kind of life, he himself determined to give himself to the sacred Scriptures and to philosophize according to the laws of the Church. Tillemont in Note 4 asks whose example, of what Evagrius, Chrysostom is said to have followed, and finds none whom he could follow in this matter. I suspect that Evagrius crept in for Basil, whose example the Saint followed, in Socrates, either by a slip of memory or by the fault of the transcribers. Certainly no Evagrius has become known whom Chrysostom followed. But he himself openly professes that he afterwards followed Basil's manner of life.

[56] [he again deals frequently with Basil, and with St. Meletius, by whom he is baptized,] Having therefore left the courts, he again contracted a greater familiarity with Basil, and not only with Basil, but also frequently with St. Meletius patriarch of Antioch. Palladius in the Dialogue, page 40, thus speaks of these things: But when he was of manly mind, he was seized with love of the sacred Letters. There presided at that time over the church of Antioch the blessed confessor Meletius, an Armenian by race, who, noticing that Youth's happy genius, and captivated by the beauty of his mind, permitted him to be assiduously with him, foreseeing by a prophetic light that Youth's success. In these meetings Meletius without doubt instructed John accurately in the dogmas of the faith and in the knowledge of sacred Scripture. At that time also he was washed in the sacred waters, and thereafter ordained lector. The Latin text in Bigot is as follows: But when he had stayed assiduously with him three years, being initiated by him in the sacred laver, he is promoted lector. These words leave it obscure how long after his baptism the Saint was ordained lector. But the Greek seems to intimate that he was promoted to the office of lector nearly three years after receiving baptism. I bring forward the words: ὡς δὲ παρήδρευσε μυσταγωγηθεὶς τὴν τοῦ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίαν ἀμφὶ τὰ τρία ἔτη, προάγεται ἀναγνώστης. Literally these are thus expressed in Latin: But when he had sat by [*] him, being initiated by the regeneration of the laver, about three years, he is promoted lector. I judge that nearly a triennium is set between the baptism and the office of lector; and thence it is probable that the Saint was baptized at the beginning of his intercourse with Meletius about the year 369, but made lector in the year 371 or later. But it is not clearly said that he was ordained lector by Meletius: nor is there wanting some sort of reason for doubting.

[57] thereafter he is ordained lector: Certainly Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, asserts that our John was ordained lector by Zeno the bishop, writing thus: Zeno the bishop, returning from Jerusalem, appointed him lector of the church of Antioch. The same have George of Alexandria, the emperor Leo, and other more recent writers. But Marcellinus in the Chronicle at the year 398 writes things contrary to them. John, he says, born at Antioch, and there ordained lector of the church by Meletius, bishop of that same city and a confessor, ascended through the several grades of office. Socrates is followed by Baronius at the year 382, num. 72, and he thinks that Chrysostom was ordained lector by Zeno bishop of Tyre, or by Zeno bishop of Majuma. But Hermant attributes the ordination to Meletius, and Tillemont following him in Note 13 charges Socrates with error for two reasons, of which neither is legitimate. We know, he says, from Palladius that he was ordained lector by Meletius his own bishop according to the canons. I cannot, however, find that Palladius says this. Certainly where a little after he says that he was ordained deacon, he clearly adds that this was done by Meletius; but here he is silent about the ordainer, and does not assert that he was ordained by the same man with whom he had been assiduous for three years. As regards the canons, if the Saint was ordained by Zeno bishop of Tyre, who then sat, and who held a metropolitan see in the patriarchate of Antioch, nothing was done against the canons, since it doubtless happened when Meletius was in exile. Wherefore the matter seems to me in some measure doubtful: and I only note that he was not ordained after the beginning of the year 372, if he was ordained by Meletius; nor before the year 372, if Zeno ordained him.

[58] Further, although Chrysostom frequently came to St. Meletius before his exile, and again he is urged by Basil to the common life. he was no less frequently at that time with his friend Basil, as he himself testifies in book 1 On the Priesthood after the words alleged above. But, he says, when I too had lifted my head a little from the waves of this life, he laid hold of me with both hands: yet not even so could we retain our former equality. For since he had gone before us in time and had shown an ardent zeal, he was again borne higher, being greatly lifted on high. Nevertheless, since he was good and made much of our friendship, withdrawing himself from the company of all the rest, he was with us at all times, which he had before desired, but, as I said, had been prevented by our sloth. Wherefore, when, having been repulsed before, he had received us into the same fellowship of life, the desire which he had long been in travail with he straightway brought forth, and not the least

part even of a day did he suffer us to be away from him, but assiduously exhorted that each of us, leaving his own home, should inhabit a common dwelling; and this being obtained, the matter was now in hand. Basil had persuaded Chrysostom to consent to a common habitation (as it is said more clearly in the Greek); but the Saint's mother opposed, who was unwilling that her Son should be separated from her, and who procured for him all conveniences for living piously at home. Of these things more below.

[59] Meanwhile let us see into what danger the holy Youth fell, The Saint without fault falls into danger; that from it we may learn how sincere were the thanks he gave for the several favors of the divine mercy. The fact the Saint himself narrates in Homily 38 on the Acts of the Apostles, when he was already a Bishop, and thus speaks: A suspicion of usurpers was stirred in our city while I was still a youth. And when all the soldiers had been posted outside around the city, they were by chance searching for books of conjuring tricks and magical books. And he who had written the book cast it unbound into the river, and was taken. And when it was demanded of him, he could not give it; but he was led bound through the city: and the indications and proofs being increased, he paid the penalty. Then I, when I wished to go to a martyrium [*], was passing through the gardens beside the river with a certain other man, who, when he saw the book floating, at first thought that he saw a linen cloth, and going down took it up. But when he came near, he saw that it was a book, and going down he took it. But I contended, as about a thing found in common, and laughed. But let us see, said he, what it is: and having turned back part of the page, he found magical things written. Now it happened at the same time that a soldier passed by. Hereupon my companion, having hidden it, went away, and was wasting with fear. For who would have believed that we had taken it up out of the river, when even all who were not suspected were being detained? We did not dare to throw it away, lest we should be seen; by an equal fear we were prevented from separating. With God's help, however, we cast it away, and were snatched from the utmost dangers. Thus far the Saint, who subjoins a useful admonition, that if anyone fall, if not into like dangers, yet into others, he should always preserve the memory of them… This, he says, wins for us a great friendship with God.

[60] The time of that danger is variously assigned, Hermant reports that danger of the Saint's in book 1, chapter 8, and believes that it happened in the year 370. But Tillemont in art. 6 binds the same fact to the year 374. Each, however, affirms without doubt that that danger of the Saint's happened when some men by the magical art had inquired into the name of the emperor who was to succeed Valens. But the one binds it to the year 370, the other to the year 374. I judge that that danger of Valens fell in the year 372: but I do not know whether it is clear enough that that occasion is designated by Chrysostom, although Baronius also believed that no other is intimated, and likewise reports the fact at the year 370. Nay, I rather judge that Chrysostom does not intimate that time in which Theodore the notary, deceived by magical tricks, was aspiring to the tyranny. For Chrysostom mentions a magician seized on account of magical writings; but when the name of the future emperor had been sought by magical arts, several were taken, not on account of a magical book written, but because they had inquired into the future emperor, or were conspiring with Theodore against Valens. Secondly, the emperor Valens was present at Antioch when the machinations of the magicians and of Theodore were detected. But Chrysostom does not intimate even by the least word that Valens was at Antioch at the time of which he speaks. Thirdly, Chrysostom narrates that one magician was led about through the city and afterwards punished. But the history of Theodore, which is narrated by Ammianus in book 29, chapters 1 and 2, is of far greater moment, and very many on that occasion were tortured and punished with death.

[61] but without a suitable foundation, Besides, all that Chrysostom says could have happened in each of the years in which Valens reigned with his brother Valentinian before the time in which Theodore aspired to the empire. For Ammianus confesses that Valens's safety had both before been often plunged into extremity by secret conspiracies, and was so then. The same writer in book 26, chapter 4, asserts that the sickness with which Valentinian and Valens lay down together at the beginning of their reign was attributed by many to clandestine tricks, and that the friends of Julian the apostate — among whom were not a few magicians — were brought into suspicion. Besides this, Procopius, who in the year 365 seized the tyranny, on Ammianus's testimony, book 25, chapter 9, when Julian's body had been buried, immediately departed, and could nowhere be found though sought with vast zeal, save that much later he was seen at Constantinople suddenly clothed in purple, namely in the year 365. Not long before this tyranny of Procopius a law was given against the nocturnal assemblies of magicians, noted on the V of the Ides of September of the year 364. In the same year were seized Priscus and Maximus, gentile philosophers, as suspected of magic.

[62] And so, since Chrysostom says that that danger befell when there was a suspicion of usurpers, and when magical books were being sought; and since these things agree equally with the year 364 or 365 so that it is uncertain. as with that most grievous calamity of the magicians which Tillemont fixes in the year 374, I establish nothing certain about the year in which the Saint fell into that danger. Nevertheless I rather judge that the matter happened in the earlier years of Valens, when Chrysostom counted about twenty years of age, than later. For a suspicion of magic could less have fallen upon the Saint when he was already a lector than when he was not baptized. From these things I further infer that from the history alleged there is no foundation for a lesser age of Chrysostom, and that the argument which Tillemont takes from it in Note 1 is of no moment. The Saint was at that time μειράκιον, a youth, which agrees excellently with the age of twenty years, and which Tillemont believes can also be reconciled with the age of twenty-six or twenty-seven years. This indeed I can admit. But I shall not easily admit that the Saint so feared to become suspect of magic after he had been ordained lector and had been sought for a bishopric. For then his manners were sufficiently known to the Christians, who would easily have driven off such a suspicion. And so this history has in some measure been reported out of order, as also the office of lector, neither of which can be fixed to any certain year. But now let us see what the Saint's manners were after his Baptism.

* elsewhere he was assiduous

* that is, a church of the martyrs

§ VI. The manners of the holy Youth after his baptism: his sacred studies under Diodore and Carterius: he draws Theodore and Maximus to the monastic life.

The Saint's modesty, moderation and gentleness, In the Spiritual Meadow, chapter 191, in Rosweyde, page 92, this elogium of our Saint is read: They used to say of St. John, archbishop of Constantinople, who justly and most worthily was surnamed Chrysostom for the purity of his doctrine and the splendor of his most beautiful eloquence, that from the time he had received the saving baptism he never at all swore, nor compelled anyone to swear, nor lied, nor ever cursed anyone, nor spoke scurrilous things, nor admitted jests. With these Palladius agrees in the Dialogue, page 183, where he refutes the calumnies of certain persons who called John abusive, in these words: But you cannot prove to me that John, from the time he was baptized, either swore, or adjured anyone, or cursed, or lied, or imprecated, or endured buffoonery. More things Palladius then adds, to show that the Saint was not accustomed to offer insult to anyone; but these properly regard his more advanced age. Later biographers in Savile narrate like things of Chrysostom as a youth.

[64] But hither pertains what Socrates, too credulous of vain rumors, acknowledged humbly by himself also. wrote in book 6, chapter 3, in this manner: But he was, as they report, on account of his excessive zeal for temperance, somewhat harsh; and, as a certain man said who had lived familiarly with him from his earliest age, more given to anger than to modesty. No one is ignorant how frequently it happens that the same deeds are praised by some and blamed by others, according to the affection of the persons and the diversity of opinions. Hence neither St. Paul, nor the rest of the Apostles, nor Christ the Lord himself, who did all things well, was free from the tongues of calumniators. We cannot therefore wonder that our Saint was likewise exposed to the gibes of men, especially since he had so many and so powerful enemies. But Chrysostom himself in book 3 On the Priesthood, page 390, openly confesses that as a young man he was not liable to wrathfulness. For, after he had said many things about the evils arising from wrathfulness, Basil thus addresses him: But I will no longer endure you thus dissembling. For who is ignorant how far you are removed from this disease? Then Chrysostom does not deny that this is true; but humbly attributes his mastery over anger to his quiet and solitary life.

[65] Nevertheless greatness of mind joined with candor perhaps caused, Again in book 6, page 431, he speaks of anger from time to time rising up out of the memory of wicked men and deeds, but immediately adds that he restrains it. The words I shall give afterwards. Now I only observe that Chrysostom, out of his modesty, adds in both places that he fears he could not bridle his anger if he were tossed by those waves to which the life of bishops is exposed. Who then would believe that the holy Youth was given to wrathfulness, when in a Work where he candidly opens his own defects he confesses that he restrained anger, and describes its evils at length, and so feared anger that he alleges that fear among his reasons for refusing a bishopric? He knows not how to distinguish between the frank and free candor of a lofty mind and the base affection of wrathfulness, who should dare to call a Youth such as Chrysostom was given to wrathfulness. John was assuredly of a great and noble mind, and already as a Youth had learned to estimate heavenly and human goods, as is clear from the first little Work to Theodore the lapsed. He had learned so to despise all worldly things in comparison with heavenly ones that he held gold and silver for mud, honors and glory for smoke, pleasures and delights for a dream, and finally all perishable goods for an image of goods and an empty shadow.

[66] that he seemed to the lovers of the world more arrogant and more wrathful. By that magnanimity joined with candor of mind it came about, I judge, that he seemed too fierce even to those who desired to draw him to a bishopric. From the same cause probably came what Socrates says in book 6, chapter 3: But in meetings he seemed rather arrogant to those who were ignorant of his manners. For if, on the Apostle's testimony, 1 Cor. 2, The animal man perceives not the things that are of the Spirit of God: for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand — who will wonder that Chrysostom, with so great a contempt of earthly things, could seem rather arrogant to those who made much of riches, of honors, of glory, and who delighted in the greatness of their condition no less than boys love and admire their rattles? Such men do not know how great is the force of divine love. They judge that worldly

happiness and splendor, to which they have fastened their little souls, cannot seriously be despised. Hence they easily suspect and rashly believe that generous despisers of the world are filled with pride and vainglory rather than with divine love, and that glory is despised by them only in appearance, that they may draw men into admiration and obtain a greater glory. Such indeed were many of the gentile philosophers. Such have from time to time been found among Christians also. But by no means such was Chrysostom ever, whom through the whole course of his life we shall see like himself; namely not arrogant, but free in speaking; not wrathful, but animated with a fervid zeal against sins; not proud, but a most sincere despiser of all worldly things.

[67] Of these manners was John when after his baptism he continued to come frequently to St. Meletius. He is imbued with the sacred Letters by Meletius, until he, after two exiles, But to this intercourse an end was put by the exile into which that holy prelate was sent by the emperor Valens. But writers do not agree about the time which gave beginning to Meletius's third exile. He had first been banished by Constantius, then recalled by Julian. But again he was compelled by Julian to go into exile, and was restored to his church by Jovian, as is reported with us in tom. 2 of February at the day XII, in Meletius, §§2, 3 and 5. Tillemont indeed, in tom. 8, Note 8 on Meletius, does not acquiesce in our Bolland's opinion about the time of the second exile, and prefers to say that he was banished in the year 365 by Valens, and by the same recalled in the year 367. But how improbable that opinion is the studious reader will understand from a brief observation. Valens began to persecute the Catholics after receiving baptism. And yet he received baptism in the year 367 from Eudoxius the Arian, who stirred him up against the Catholics, as Tillemont himself writes in tom. 5 of the Emperors, in Valens, art. 7. With what probability then is he believed to have banished Meletius in the year 365, when he was not yet hostile to the Catholics? And with what appearance of truth is he said to have recalled him from exile in the year 367, in which he began to persecute the Catholics? The reasons of so improbable an opinion our Bosch refuted before tom. V of July, in the Patriarchs of Antioch, page 55.

[68] That Meletius's third exile happened when Valens came to Antioch for the first time was banished a third time about the beginning of the year 372: Bolland judges in §6. But Tillemont in Note 10 on Meletius shows from the letters of St. Basil that he was banished into exile before Easter of the year 372. Indeed Basil's letter 89 of the new edition, elsewhere 273, is placed as written before Easter of the year 372, and intimates that Meletius was then in exile, since Basil says that Meletius is to be more accurately informed about the affairs of the Easterns by the bearer of that letter: for Meletius would not have needed to be informed about the affairs of the Easterns if he had been at Antioch. On the contrary in Letter 68, formerly 77, of Basil to Meletius nothing is read from which it could be gathered that Meletius was then in exile. And so from the letters praised Meletius's third exile seems to be fixed toward the end of the year 371 or the beginning of 372. But that epoch agrees excellently with Valens's coming to the city of Antioch. For I altogether judge that this coming is to be fixed toward the end of the year 371, or toward the beginning of the year 372. Pagi at the year 372, num. 6, contends that he did not arrive there before the beginning of the year 372; but the arguments which he brings forward do not make out that Valens came to Antioch after the end of the year 371. But the matter is of small moment, since the praised Pagi says: And so at the beginning of the current year (372) Valens entered Antioch.

[69] From these things we have the time in which St. Chrysostom, Meletius having been driven into exile, then he had Carterius and Diodore as teachers, began to go to other teachers of sacred doctrine. Of these Sozomen in book 2, chapter 2, thus speaks: Further, of this philosophy (namely the Christian, and of sacred Scripture) he had as teachers those who at that time presided over the noble monasteries there, namely Carterius and Diodore, who was also bishop of the church of Tarsus, and left, as I have heard, many books written for posterity, and expounded the sacred volumes according to the letter, allegories being repudiated. Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, attributes the same teachers to Chrysostom and his companions in these words: But at that time, striving with the highest zeal toward the summit of virtue, they learned the monastic life under Diodore and Carterius, who then presided over monasteries. But afterwards Diodore, promoted to the bishopric of Tarsus, wrote many books, seeking only the simple and obvious sense of the Scriptures, but shunning their allegorical interpretation. Of these teachers of the Saint, Diodore is very well known, but Carterius less known. Of each I shall say a few things.

[70] of whom some things are recorded: St. Jerome in the Catalogue of ecclesiastical writers praises Diodore with this elogium: Diodore, bishop of Tarsus, was more renowned while he was a priest at Antioch. There are extant his Commentaries on the Apostle, and many other things pertaining rather to the character of Eusebius of Emesa: whose sense, though he followed it, he could not imitate his eloquence, on account of his ignorance of secular letters. Diodore Chrysostom himself celebrated in an elegant oration, calling him father, and praising the austerity of his life and the contests which he sustained for the church of Antioch while holy Meletius was in exile. That may be seen in Bigot after Palladius's Dialogue, and in the newest edition of Chrysostom's Works, tom. 3, page 745. Another fragment of Chrysostom follows there at page 750, in which Diodore is wonderfully praised, because he had preserved the church of Antioch while Meletius was in exile. The same man was a friend of St. Basil and of other Saints, and was much praised so long as he lived, and after his death, until there arose the heresy of Nestorius, whose defenders sought a support in Diodore's Writings, and on that occasion the man's fame was stained. More about Diodore may be seen in Tillemont, tom. 8, under his title. Of Carterius we find nothing, unless he be that Carterius whom Nazianzen celebrates in Poem 47, page 108, as Tillemont suspects in tom. 9, in Nazianzen, art. 25. That matter is uncertain, nor does Nazianzen say anything else about Carterius than that he lifted his mind to heaven, and that thence his glory was great among the dwellers in heaven.

[71] To them the Saint draws Theodore and Maximus. While under these teachers the holy Youth was learning the sacred Letters and the exercises of the monastic life, he drew to the same institute of life two young men of great expectation, formerly his comrades in Libanius's school. Of them Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, thus speaks: He also persuaded Theodore and Maximus, his fellow-disciples, who together with him had heard Libanius the sophist, to leave the profession which looked to nothing but gain, and rather to embrace a simple and slender life. Of these Theodore indeed was afterwards bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia; but Maximus of Seleucia in Isauria. The same has Sozomen in book 8, chapter 2. But of these Maximus remained constant in his purpose. Nevertheless few things about him have become known, and these may be seen in Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, tom. 2, col. [ ], where Maximus is reckoned among the bishops of Seleucia in Isauria. For although some Maximus is from time to time praised in Chrysostom, and he may be this very man, yet I cannot make that certain. About Theodore, who gave our Saint the occasion of exercising his zeal and his pen excellently, more must be said.

§ VII. To Theodore, who after beginning the monastic life returned to the worldly one, the Saint writes two fairly long letters, and leads him back into the way.

Theodore, brought back to the monastic life by Chrysostom, Sozomen hands down this about Theodore, drawn to the religious life: But Theodore was afterwards bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, a man not moderately learned both in the sacred Letters and in the other disciplines of the rhetors and philosophers. And he indeed, when he had first learned the laws of sacred philosophy and had used the company of holy men, approved that manner of life, but condemned the civil life. But he by no means persevered in the same purpose: but, led by repentance, was carried away to his former manner of living. And when he had confirmed his purpose by contrary arguments which he had taken from the examples of the rhetors — for he was endowed with manifold erudition — he returned to the city, judging it more right to obtain what he desired. John therefore, when he had learned that he was giving himself to business and thinking of taking a wife, sent to him a Letter written with such words and sentences as exceed the grasp of the human mind. Which when he had received, he was touched with repentance: and again, leaving his means and renouncing marriage, he was saved by John's counsel and returned to the philosophic life. From which it can, in my judgment at least, not with difficulty be conjectured how great a force of persuasion was in John's speech. For it conquered those who were strong in an equal faculty of speaking and persuading. Thus far Sozomen, who mentions only one Letter of Chrysostom to Theodore, although nearly all writers agree that two were given to the same man by our Saint. But since some oppose, the matter comes to be examined in this place. Both stand in Montfaucon, tom. 1, and the more prolix is the one which is printed first, as it is believed to have been first.

[73] Montfaucon in the Warning prefixed to both Letters first briefly refutes Valois's opinion in these words: who to this end wrote to him, Valois is deservedly hissed off the stage by all, who, thinking that only one Exhortation of Chrysostom to Theodore is extant, namely the second, dared to doubt about the γνησιότης of the former. Certainly he must not have touched Chrysostom even with the tips of his lips, who does not reckon the first Exhortation among his most elegant offspring. Such indeed does it seem to me too, having read it through repeatedly. Presently he thus proceeds to set forth Tillemont's opinion: One Letter therefore to Theodore of Mopsuestia Sozomen here mentions, and indeed, as it seems, the second. Likewise one to the same man Hesychius in the synod of Constantinople, session V, page 470 (in Labbe, tom. 5 of the Councils). Likewise one Theodore of Cæsarea in the same place, page 490, but of many lines. This the praised writer wishes to be understood of the first rather than of the second. But the second also is a fairly prolix Letter, although much shorter than the first. Leontius of Byzantium, however, commemorates two Letters or Exhortations to Theodore of Mopsuestia; and likewise Isidore of Seville… These things being perceived, Tillemont altogether inclines to this opinion, that he thinks that only one Exhortation to Theodore of Mopsuestia is extant, namely the second; but he judges that the first was sent to another man of the same name.

[74] not one, as some will have it, But besides the authority which he brings forward, of Sozomen, of Hesychius, and of Theodore of Cæsarea, who, as we have seen, mention one Letter to Theodore of Mopsuestia, Tillemont rests on these reasons and arguments. How can it be that in neither Exhortation does any mention of the other Exhortation occur, even where Chrysostom uses the same reasons and examples? Why in

the course of the first is Theodore never addressed, whose name appears only in the title; while in the second Theodore's name is not infrequently brought forward? But what must be judged graver: the Theodore mentioned in the second had not yet, on Chrysostom's testimony, reached his twentieth year; but on the contrary, by the same author Chrysostom, he to whom the earlier Exhortation is sent could hope for no more than fifty remaining years of life, even if he were carried on to extreme old age — which could be said of a man nearly forty years old only. Besides this, he whom Chrysostom addresses in the earlier Exhortation had broken out into open vices and crimes, as is gathered from various passages of the Oration. But Theodore of Mopsuestia had not come so far into ruin, who, if already baptized he had fallen into such crimes, could by no means afterwards have been chosen bishop according to the canons. These are Tillemont's arguments faithfully explained, to which Montfaucon rightly answers, as may there be seen. I for brevity's sake shall take from him only those things which shall seem to suffice.

[75] but two Letters First, the authority of Sozomen, of Hesychius, and of Theodore of Cæsarea cannot much profit Tillemont, since they so mention one Letter of Chrysostom to the Mopsuestene that they do not deny the other, but are only silent about it: for the praised men were not weaving a catalogue of Chrysostom's Works, so as to need to recount them all. And so far above these prevail St. Isidore of Seville and Leontius of Byzantium. The former, in the little Work On ecclesiastical Writers published by Suffridus Petri, chapter 6, clearly designates both Letters in these words: John, most holy bishop of the see of Constantinople, surnamed Chrysostom, whose speech bestows both very great compunction of heart and great sweetness of speech. He composed in the Greek tongue many and illustrious little Works, which the Latin world uses. I have read two little books of his on the lapsed, written to a certain Theodore, full of laments and exhortations, as one cast down from a good manner of life. And because he had exercised the monk's life with him in one and the same monastery, therefore he admonished him in those very books of the manner of life led there, calling him back to his purpose, and showing that no sinner or impious man, if he return to repentance, is to be despaired of.

[76] fairly prolix ones: Leontius of Byzantium, in tom. 6 of the Library of the Fathers of the Cologne edition, page 476, says of Theodore of Mopsuestia: Whom the great John, as one lapsed from the purpose of the monastic institute and who had abjured his promise, strove to draw out, fallen into the depth of intemperance, with two strong and very long ropes. To these I add the authority of the old codices, of which Montfaucon thus discourses: Each (Letter or Exhortation) is certainly inscribed to the same Theodore in all the manuscripts, some of which are of the remotest antiquity: πρὸς τὸν αὐτὸν Θεόδωρον, to the same Theodore, all have; namely for the second Letter. For the first has: πρὸς Θεόδωρον ἐκπεσόντα, to Theodore the lapsed: or literally, to Theodore who had fallen away, namely from the institute of the religious life. And so the authority of writers and of codices far preponderates for our opinion. Besides, from the inscriptions given it is gathered that that is the first Letter which is inscribed, To Theodore the lapsed: and this can also in some measure be proved from the Letters themselves, if each be diligently weighed.

[77] Now let us examine Tillemont's reasons. He wonders first that neither is ever praised in the other. Tillemont's arguments, But the Saint in the second, page 41, at least intimates that he had often written to Theodore, when he thus speaks: I know that I have exceeded the just limits of a letter: but pardon me, for I have not done this willingly, but compelled by the force of love and of grief. This affection has necessarily led me to write this Letter also, though many forbade and said: Make an end of laboring in vain and of sowing on rocks. These words show that Chrysostom had often written to Theodore, and yet the words of no Letter are alleged in this one, so that that reason of Tillemont's is of no moment. Besides, when he says that he has exceeded the limits of a letter, he seems to speak of that first longer one, of which we are disputing, and not of the second, which we allege. But he could bring forward that excuse about the length of the former because Theodore had answered something about so great a prolixity of the letter. Indeed the excuse of prolixity is preposterous unless it be understood of the first Letter. For who would say of the same Letter: Love compelled me to exceed the limits of a Letter, and the same compelled me to write this Letter also? Chrysostom therefore says that by the force of love and grief he exceeded the limits in the earlier Letter, and that he has added this other one also.

[78] Tillemont's second reason — that in the context of the earlier Letter he never addresses Theodore by his own name, but does this from time to time in the second — who contends that only one was written to Theodore, is no more solid than the preceding. For the Saint used that diverse manner of writing at his own pleasure, as Montfaucon observes that he does also in the Letters to Olympias. He could use that change whether he wrote to the same man or to different men. Tillemont's third reason, although he makes much of it, is equally inept. Theodore was not yet twenty years old in the second Letter, page 39. But in the first Letter, page 13, the Saint says: For my part I do not think that more than fifty years of life remain to you, so that you may come to extreme old age. Hence he will have it that he to whom Chrysostom gave the first Letter was nearly forty. But Montfaucon in tom. 13, in the Life, page 93, adduces a passage of Chrysostom about Socrates, whom in tom. 10, page 29, he says to have been carried on to extreme old age when he was seventy years old. And so, in Chrysostom's judgment, Theodore, being nearly twenty years old, could hope for only fifty other years before extreme old age. Wherefore the passage objected by Tillemont favors our opinion rather than his.

[79] Finally, Tillemont believes that he has found open crimes of Theodore in the first Letter, are refuted. but not so in the second, and thence gathers a diversity of the two men to whom he judges them given. But Montfaucon abundantly refutes this argument also; nor does he find so great a diversity in the sin which the Saint was reproving in Theodore. Theodore, he says, who had deserted the sacred assembly, was handling secular business, was given over to pleasures, was burning with love for a certain girl Hermione. Chrysostom reports no other crime of Theodore's: yet he seems to hold this in place of a great crime in the earlier Exhortation, where these things are recounted. These very things are not denied in the second Letter; but when about to write this, the Saint had learned what excuses Theodore was using, namely that he was bearing the care of his father's affairs and wished to take a wife in lawful marriage. For these excuses Chrysostom refutes in the same place, and disapproves Theodore's plan more briefly indeed, but no less, in the second Letter than in the first, so that what Tillemont added about the sacred canons is plainly useless. For from both Letters it is clear that Theodore had separated himself from the sacred assembly, and had wished to pass over to secular business and to marriage. These things suffice for driving away Tillemont's arguments. But that the holy Youth's zeal may appear more from these his first little Works, I transfer hither from both Letters various things agreeing with one another.

[80] In both Letters the Saint reproves Theodore, The first Letter he thus begins: Who shall give water to my head, and to my eyes a fountain of tears? This I shall now say far more opportunely than that prophet of old. For although I have not to bewail very many cities, nor whole nations, yet I lament a soul equal in dignity to such nations, nay even more precious. For even one who does the will of God is better than six hundred impious men: certainly you were before better than those innumerable thousands of the Jews. Presently, comparing Theodore's soul with the temple of the Jews, he subjoins: This temple was holier than that: for it shone not with gold or silver, but with the grace of the Spirit, and instead of the ark and the Cherubim it had Christ and his Father and the Paraclete dwelling in it. But now it is not so; but it is deserted, and stripped of that beauty and comeliness, despoiled of its divine and ineffable ornament, and empty of all security and guard; so that neither door nor bar is at hand, but it lies open to all the destructive and foul thoughts of the soul. Whether the spirit of arrogance, or of fornication, or of avarice, or spirits worse than these should wish to enter, no one will forbid. But before, as heaven is inaccessible to all these, so also was the purity of your mind… Wherefore now I grieve and mourn, and shall make no end of mourning until I see you in your former splendor.

[81] because he had left the monastic life, Let us now hear the beginning of the second Letter, in which is refuted the excuse about the care of his father's affairs undertaken, otherwise not bad, but in Theodore untimely. If weepings and groanings could be exhibited by letters, I should have sent to you a Letter filled with them. For my part I weep, not because you bear the care of your father's affairs, but because you have blotted yourself out of the catalogue of the Brethren, because you have trampled on the compacts entered into with Christ. Besides this I shudder, over these things I am anguished, therefore I fear and tremble, knowing that the contempt of these brings great condemnation upon those who, enrolled in this sacred warfare, have through sloth deserted their rank. But that the punishment destined for them is heavier is plain even from the thing itself. For no one would accuse a private man of deserting the warfare; but he who has once been made a soldier, if he be caught in desertion, lies under the utmost danger. It is clear that Theodore's sin is traced to this, that he had deserted the religious life, and not to its being established that he had fallen into other crimes.

[82] In Letter 1, page 22, the Saint says: I know that you now admire Hermione's beauty, and think that nothing on earth is equal to her loveliness. But, if you will, O friend, and, seized with base love, wished to take a wife, you shall be as much more elegant and more beautiful than she as golden statues are than clay ones. This love of Hermione, although she is not there named, the Saint before deplores in most weighty words at page 4: He who had reached heaven, who derided the vanity of life, who looked upon the beauty of bodies as upon stone images, who despised gold as mud and all delights as filth — he, suddenly seized with the fever of a foolish concupiscence, has lost his health, his strength and all his comeliness, and has been made the slave of pleasures. Shall we not deplore him, tell me? Shall we not mourn, until we recover him? How the Saint repels him as he tries to excuse that love under the title of a marriage to be contracted, receive from the second Letter, page 38: Marriage is a lawful thing, I confess it: "For honorable is wedlock, and the bed undefiled. But fornicators and adulterers God will judge." But it is no longer open to you to keep the rights of wedlock. For he who has once been joined to the heavenly Bridegroom, if he be torn away from him and take a wife, certainly commits adultery, though you should a thousand times call this very thing a marriage: nay, this is as much graver than adultery as God is more excellent than man. Let no one

deceive you by saying: God does not forbid the taking of a wife. This I too know. But he forbade adultery, and you were willing [*] to commit it — which God forbid — namely that you should ever be joined in wedlock. Why do you wonder if a marriage is reckoned as adultery, when God is despised?… For, as I said at the beginning, if you were a private man, no one would accuse you of deserting the warfare. But now you are no longer your own, who have begun to serve as a soldier under so great a Commander.

[83] In both Letters Chrysostom vehemently urges Theodore by recalling the punishments of hell and the delights of heaven and the eternity of both, recalling in both eternal punishments and joys, with which he compares the brevity and vanity of all present things. A few things out of many I shall recite. In Letter 1, page 12, he thus speaks: Have you not seen some who have died amid delights and drunkenness and the rest of the mockery of this life? Where now are those who, swollen with pride, walked through the forum with many followers? Who, clothed in silken garments and smelling of ointment, and feeding parasites, were always fixed at the theater? Where now is that ostentation and pomp? Gone is the expense of banquets, the crowd of musicians, the clientele of flatterers, the immoderate laughter, the relaxation of mind, the effusion of the soul, the soft, idle life ruined by luxury. Whither have all these now flown away? What has become of the body, which lately abounded with so great a household, with so great elegance? Go now to the sepulchre: contemplate the dust, the ashes, the worms: behold the deformity of the place, and sigh bitterly. And would that the loss stopped at ashes! But now transfer your thought from the sepulchre and the worms to that immortal worm, to the unquenchable fire, to the gnashing of teeth, to the outer darkness, to affliction and distress, to the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, who, furnished with so much money and clothed in purple, afterwards had not even a drop of water in his power, being set in so great a calamity. For the condition of this life is nothing better than dreams. For as those who dig in mines, or pay some other penalty heavier than this, if at any time, dozing amid those hard labors and that most bitter life, they have seen themselves in a dream amid delights and abundance of things, when they awake afterwards have no thanks for their dreams; so also that rich man, when in the present life, as in a dream, he had abounded in riches, after he had departed hence was smitten with a hard punishment. These things, the punishments of hell and the felicity of the Blessed in heaven being recalled, the Saint pursues at length and eloquently.

[84] and the vanity of present things, In Letter 2 he uses the same argument frequently, though more briefly, as all the rest: He who is now despised, he says at page 38, is the very one who will then judge. Think always of him, and also of that river of fire… For he who has once been delivered to that fire can hope for no end of his punishment. And the pleasures of an absurd life differ nothing from shadows and dreams: for before the sins are brought to an end, the delight of pleasure is extinguished, but the punishments destined for them have no term. That sweetness is very brief; the torment eternal. Tell me, what in this world is stable? Are riches, which often do not even remain until evening? Is it glory? But hear a certain just man saying: "My life is swifter than runners." For as they, before they have stood still, leap away, so also does this fly off before it comes. And after not a few other things, at page 41: You have seen, Theodore, the shipwrecks of those who sailed on this sea. Wherefore flee the deep, avoid the waves, and take a lofty place where you cannot be cut off. There will be a resurrection, the judgment will be at hand, a dreadful tribunal awaits us when we have gone forth hence: "All must stand before the tribunal of Christ." Not in vain is gehenna proclaimed with threats: not for nothing have so great goods been prepared for us. A shadow, nay emptier than a shadow, are the things of this life, full of very many fears, of many dangers, and of utmost servitude.

[85] adding in the second the inconveniences of matrimony: In this Letter, however, he adds the inconveniences of wedlock, of which he thus speaks at page 40: Do you wish us to treat of the domestic cares of a wife, of children, of servants? It is grievous to have married a poor wife, grievous a richer one. For the one harms one's means, the other the husband's authority and liberty. It is troublesome to have had children, troublesome not to have had them: for the latter [] is to have married in vain, the former [] to be subjected to a bitter servitude. The child is sick; hence no light dread: he has died untimely; hence a grief not to be consoled: at each step of his age, cares about them, solicitudes and labors. What shall we say of the wickedness of servants? Is this a life, Theodore, where one soul is drawn asunder into so many cares, serves so many, lives for so many men, and never for itself? Nothing of this kind is found among us, beloved, and I call you to witness. For in that brief time in which you wished to emerge from the waves, you know with how great gladness, with how great joy you enjoyed. This the Saint says, when he had learned that Theodore was thinking of marriage.

[86] and finally he declares his own and others' grief, and exhorts, In both Letters also Chrysostom labors much that Theodore may not cast down his spirit, nor despair of amending his life: in both, finally, he declares great goodwill toward Theodore and much love. In the first, page 3, he writes this: That woman who had found one drachma called her neighbors as sharers of her gladness, saying, Rejoice with me. But I shall now call together all my friends and yours for a plainly contrary purpose: and I shall not say, Rejoice with me; but, Mourn with me, and take up the same grief, and cry out with us with a lamentable voice. For we have suffered the utmost loss; not that so many talents of gold have fallen from our hands, nor that a great quantity of precious stones has; but that a man more precious than all these, who was sailing with us in this great and vastest sea, has, I know not how, been shaken off and fallen into the very depth of destruction. In Letter 2, page 39: You have by God's grace many and great men who grieve on your behalf, who exhort you, and who fear for your soul; namely the holy Valerius of God, his brother in every way, Florentius, the wise Porphyrius — and wise indeed with the wisdom of Christ — and many others. These, mourning daily, make no end of praying, and would long since have obtained what they desired, if you had been willing even a little to withdraw yourself from the hands of the enemy. How then would it not be absurd that, while others do not despair of your salvation and pray assiduously that they may receive back their own member, you, having once fallen, should be unwilling to rise again, but should lie there… Do not, I beseech you, do not so injure yourself, nor pour so great a grief upon us.

[87] The first Letter the Saint thus closes: Only do not despair, that Theodore may not despair, but return to the monastery: which he did. nor fall down. For this I shall not cease to repeat to you in every meeting of speech, wherever I shall see you, and even by the mouth of others: and if you shall hear it, you will need no further remedies. The end of the other Letter I likewise subjoin: But we hope that you by the grace of God will perform what is in your power, and that we shall see you again flourishing in the flock of Christ, and strong with true health, and shall by the prayers of the Saints receive you back the more quickly, O beloved head. If you have any regard for us, and have not utterly cast us out of your memory, deign to write back to us, for in this way you will affect us with great gladness. Thus far Chrysostom, whose admirable zeal then had the desired effect, although the fame of Theodore, afterwards bishop of Mopsuestia, did not always remain unimpaired. For Theodore returned to the religious life, and became renowned by not a few writings. But in these he was believed to have paved the way for the Nestorian heresy, and he was condemned long after his death in the council of Constantinople in the time of Pope Vigilius and the emperor Justinian.

[88] It remains that we inquire at what time the Saint wrote these elegant Letters to Theodore. Both Letters were written, The most eminent Baronius at the year 382, num. 71, reckons those Letters among the lucubrations composed by Chrysostom in the desert; and this opinion Hermant followed in the Life, chapter 16. But Tillemont in Note 5, Montfaucon in the preliminary Warning, and Ceillier in tom. 9 of the Sacred Authors, chapter 1, art. 2, deservedly recede from that opinion — Tillemont, however, in such a way that he does not disapprove that opinion for the first Letter, which he wrongly believes was written to another man. But Montfaucon from Chrysostom's words just given, in every meeting of speech, wherever I shall see you, thus reasons: Chrysostom therefore was in a place where he could meet Theodore, immersed in business and pleasures, and could by chance come upon him and see him, and therefore at Antioch. But Tillemont uses this argument. Theodore together with Chrysostom gave his labor to eloquence in the school of Libanius the sophist. But this is not probable from Theodore's age, if Chrysostom wrote to him in the solitude, that is, in the year 374 or later: for Theodore was not yet passing his twentieth year when the Saint wrote to him, on the testimony of the second Letter, page 39, When you are not yet passing your twentieth year. But if in the year 374 or later he was not yet passing his twentieth year, it is not probable, according to Tillemont, that Theodore was a fellow-disciple of Chrysostom in the school of Libanius, since Chrysostom withdrew from it in the year 368. That argument is probable, not altogether convincing; since Theodore could have betaken himself to Libanius's school at a tender age. Wherefore I bring forward another, which he too has touched upon.

[89] before Chrysostom betook himself into the solitude, According to Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, Theodore together with Chrysostom learned the sacred Letters under Diodore, afterwards bishop of Tarsus. Theodoret in book 5, chapter 40, treating of Theodore of Mopsuestia, declares this in these words: He had been a hearer of the most excellent Diodore, and the companion and helper of the divine John. And yet Diodore, together with Flavian, bore the chief care of the church of Antioch from the year 372 to 378, when St. Meletius the bishop was in exile, as Theodoret again testifies in book 4, chapter 25. And so they gave their labor to sacred studies together at Antioch under Diodore, and there Chrysostom was living when he called Theodore back into the way as he was recoiling at the very beginning of his better life, as we shall see. To these I add another argument. Chrysostom, when he lived in the desert, was for the first four years under the discipline of a certain old Syrian, and then for two years alone, as Palladius has it in the Dialogue, page 41. But Diodore, to whose discipline he called Theodore back, was not then an old man: for after some years he was ordained bishop, and held the bishopric for thirty-six years, on Theodoret's testimony, book 5, chapter 40. And so the Saint wrote those letters before, about the year 374, he betook himself to the solitude.

[90] about the year 373, not in the year 369, I cannot, however, agree with the opinion of Tillemont, Ceillier and Montfaucon about the year 369, about which Tillemont believed the second, the others both, to have been

written. Here indeed Tillemont hastened too much, and others have easily followed him. For in Note 5 he says that Chrysostom (whom he had before said came to Libanius's school at twenty years old) went out from it in the year 368, and already in the year 369 he makes him the author of so notable a little Work, in which he disputes so elegantly and so skillfully about sacred matters, and that from sacred Scripture, as though he had spent his whole life in the sacred Letters. I rather judge that in the year 369 the Saint only began the study of the sacred Letters. Secondly, St. Meletius's exile must be fixed about the beginning of the year 372, as we saw at num. 68. But it is not probable that Chrysostom studied under Diodore so long as Meletius was at Antioch. It is necessary therefore to fix the first conversion of Theodore, whom Chrysostom brought to Diodore's discipline, in the year 372 or later, and consequently Chrysostom's Letters given to Theodore about the year 373. On this chronological arrangement the holy Youth had some years for learning the sacred Letters before he used them so skillfully, and could for some time continue his sacred studies under Diodore together with Theodore brought back into the way.

[91] in which the Saint had not yet so great a skill in sacred Scripture. What Tillemont adduces for his own chronology is of no moment against my opinion. For neither Socrates nor Sozomen asserts that Theodore renounced the vanities of the world at the same time as Chrysostom. Nor shall we be able to wonder if Theodore, younger than Chrysostom, frequented Libanius with him, and then continued to frequent him for three or four years. Theodore had quickly and from the very beginning, or in the very equipping for the contest, as the Saint says at page 36, recoiled from what he had begun. Chrysostom therefore could write in the same year in which he had begun to frequent Diodore and Carterius, whether that happened in the year 372 or 373. One doubt therefore alone remains: what that sacred assembly was of which Chrysostom and Theodore were: for they are from time to time called brethren, which Tillemont thinks must be explained of monks; but Montfaucon, in the Life, page 93, expounds it only of the faithful living rightly. But I judge that those Brethren who were under the discipline of Diodore and Carterius did not indeed all dwell together, since Chrysostom dwelt in his mother's house; yet that they were bound by a vow, at least of keeping chastity. For otherwise I do not grasp on what ground Chrysostom, praised at num. 82, could so strongly dissuade Theodore from marriage as to say that it was not open to him to keep the rights of wedlock, to say that he was joined to a heavenly bridegroom, and that marriage was no less unlawful for him than adultery. These and many other things show that those brethren were bound by a vow of continence.

* ἐθέλεις, you wish

* this

* that

§ VIII. The Saint, though Basil exhorts him to the monastic life, is detained by his mother's prayers, and meanwhile lives piously and in solitude in his mother's house.

Chrysostom, thinking of the monastic life, Of the notable friendship between Chrysostom and Basil we have already said various things in §5, where at num. 54 we narrated that Basil urged much that Chrysostom should embrace with him the common and monastic life. The Saint did not shrink from that purpose, and would gladly have acquiesced in his friend's counsel: But, he says in book 1 On the Priesthood, tom. 1, page 363, my mother's assiduous allurements stood in the way of my rendering him this favor; nay rather, of my receiving this benefit from him. For when she got wind that I was entering upon this plan, taking me by the right hand she led me into her own private dwelling, and, having bidden me sit near the bed where she had brought me forth, letting loose fountains of tears, she uttered words more pitiable than the tears themselves, addressing me with groaning in these terms: I, my son, she said, was able by divine providence to enjoy your father's virtue for no long time. For his death, following upon the pangs of your birth, left you an orphan and me a widow prematurely, with the added inconveniences of widowhood, which are well known only to those who have experienced them. For no speech could express that tempest and storm which a young woman undergoes when, lately sent out from her father's house and unskilled in affairs, she is suddenly struck with an intolerable grief and compelled to take up a care greater than her age and sex. For it is needful to correct the sloth of servants, to watch their wickedness, to repel the snares of kinsfolk, to bear bravely the annoyances of tax-gatherers and their savagery in exacting the imposts.

[93] But if he who dies leaves offspring; if it be a female, his mother detains with many prayers in her own house, she brings indeed a great care to her mother, but one free from expense and fear. But a son fills her daily with six hundred fears and many solicitudes; for I say nothing of the outlay of money which a mother is compelled to make much of, if she desires to bring him up liberally. Yet none of these things moved me to a second marriage, or to bringing another bridegroom into your father's house. But I remained in the storm and whirlwind, and did not escape the iron furnace of widowhood: first indeed supported by help from above; then it was no small solace to me in my calamities that I looked often upon your face, and preserved a living image of the departed, which accurately reproduced him. Wherefore, when you were still an infant and not yet able to speak, when children are most wont to delight their parents, you were a great consolation to me. Nor could you turn this to my reproach, that, although I bore my widowhood bravely, I nevertheless diminished for you your father's means because of the inconvenience of widowhood — which I know has unhappily befallen many in orphanhood: for I kept them entire for you, though I omitted none of those expenses which were necessary for your liberal education; and that out of my own means and out of the money which I had brought from my father's house.

[94] [and there furnishes him with every convenience for living piously and in solitude.] But do not think that I say these things reproaching you: but for all these things I ask one favor, that you do not involve me in a second widowhood, nor stir up again a grief already lulled: but wait for my death; hence perhaps I shall soon have to depart. For the young indeed can hope to be brought to advanced old age; but we who have grown old await nothing but death. When therefore you have committed me to the earth and mingled me with your father's bones, undertake long pilgrimages, and cross whatever sea you will: no one will then forbid. But while we breathe, do not reject my companionship, nor rashly run into offense against God, while you involve us — who yet have done you no injury — in so many evils. For if you can complain that I draw you to worldly cares and compel you to look after your affairs, reverence neither the laws of nature, nor your upbringing, nor custom, nor anything else, but flee us as plotters and enemies; but if we leave nothing undone to procure you leisure for ordering your life, if no other bond, let this one at least detain you with us. For even if you say that you are loved by six hundred others, none will procure you so great a liberty, since there is no one to whom your good repute is as dear as to me.

[95] He lives therefore austerely and in solitude in his mother's house, Thus far Chrysostom, with whom his mother's prayers had the greater weight the less she hindered her Son's piety in anything. Besides, he dealt sparingly with his mother herself, but with the utmost union of minds, so that he had a solitude in his mother's very house. For in book 6, page 426, he thus speaks of himself to Basil: Do not therefore wonder if we, fleeing the forum and the company of many, have not many accusers… Who, I ask, who could reveal my wickedness? Is it the roof, or the house? But they could not utter even a voice. Or rather my mother, to whom all my affairs are known? But not even with her have I any company [*], nor has any quarrel ever arisen between us. Thus, modestly covering his own praises, the Saint at the same time declares his utter solitude. That the Saint joined to so great a solitude also hard vexations of the body is clear from the words with which he addresses Basil in book 3, page 389: For do not here allege to me fasting, or vigils, or lying on the ground, and the rest of the maceration of the body: for you are not ignorant how far we are from these virtues. But even if they were accurately practiced by us, these would in no way help us, endowed with so great a sloth of mind, toward this prefecture (the bishopric). For to a man shut up in some little house and caring only for his own affairs, these would bring great profit, etc.… For we see that to despise dainty food, drink, and bed is easy for many. We cannot deservedly doubt that the Saint practiced the said virtues, although he humbly denies that he accurately perfected them.

[96] Further, to what end he directed his solitude and the maceration of his body — namely to the taming of the depraved affections of the mind and into the depraved affections of the mind and to subjecting them to right reason — we gather from what the Saint modestly declares in book 6, pages 430 and 431, writing thus: For besides what has been said, although I must now undergo much labor not to be wholly laid low by the affections of the mind, nevertheless I undertake the labor, nor do I shun the contest. For by vainglory indeed I am now caught; yet often I come to myself and see that I have been caught: and sometimes I rebuke my mind for being reduced to servitude. Absurd desires assail me even now, but such as kindle a slacker flame, because no matter fit for the fire is supplied to my outward eyes. From the reproach and hearing of curses I am utterly free, since there are none present to speak to me: for these walls cannot utter a voice. But neither can I refrain from anger, even though no one be present to exasperate me: for the memory of wicked men and of their very deeds makes my mind to swell; but that not to the end: for immediately we restrain it as it burns, and bring it to rest, saying within ourselves that it is very foolish and of the utmost wretchedness that, while we neglect our own evils, we should be so curious about others'.

[97] But if I betake myself to the crowd and be occupied with innumerable tumults, he diligently inquires, I shall no longer be able to enjoy an admonition of this kind, nor to find those thoughts which rightly instruct me. But as those who are carried over precipices, or by some currents, or in some other way, can indeed foresee the destruction that is at hand, but can devise no help for themselves; so I too, if I fall into so great a tumult of sicknesses, shall indeed be able to see my punishment daily increased for me; but to think within myself, as I now think, and to bridle the raging impulses of my mind, will not be so easy for me as it was before. For my soul is weak, little, and easily captured, not only by these affections, but by the bitterest of all, namely envy: and it knows how to bear moderately neither insults nor honors; but by the latter it is greatly exalted, and by the former greatly cast down. As therefore savage beasts, while they are well in body and exult, attacking those who assail them

easily conquer them, especially if these be weak and unskilled; but if anyone has wasted them with hunger, hence it comes about that their fury is lulled and a great part of their strength extinguished; so also, whereas the affections of the mind, when made weak, are subjected to right reason, if anyone on the contrary shall diligently have fed them, he prepares for himself a heavier battle against them, and renders them so terrible that he leads his whole life in servitude and fear.

[98] What then are the foods of these beasts? Of vainglory indeed, honors and praises; that he may both conquer and cut them out: of arrogance, greatness of power and dignity; of envy, the celebrity of others; of avarice, the liberality of givers; of luxury, delights and frequent intercourse with women: and thus one is fostered by another. Now all these beasts will attack me when I come into the midst of affairs, will tear my soul in pieces, will strike terror, and will prepare for me a heavier war against them; but here, as I sit, they will be subdued, though with great violence applied: yet they will be subdued by the grace of God, so that they have nothing more than a bark. Therefore I inhabit this little house, I give access to no one, I mingle company and conversation with no one. Thus far Chrysostom, enumerating the enemies of his soul with as much modesty as anyone in any way skilled in the ascetic life will easily perceive he contended with them with diligence. For unless he had waged a strenuous war with vainglory, with wrathfulness, with envy, and with the other affections enumerated, he would not have observed their assaults so accurately, nor feared those beasts so greatly, nor striven to have the foods of each so diligently discerned. For men who do not study to bridle their affections are not even wont to know them.

[99] The Saint was not so alone as not to speak frequently with Basil. From what we have adduced, Tillemont in art. 3 suspects that Chrysostom at the time when he sought so great a solitude in his mother's house scarcely went out except to St. Meletius, whom he believes was punished with exile toward the end of the year 370, and whose exile we fix about the beginning of the year 372. But it is not established whether before St. Meletius's exile the holy Youth gave himself to so severe a solitude. Wherefore we shall more rightly say that he at that time dealt only with Diodore and Carterius, to whose discipline he had given himself, or with fellow-disciples of the same school, and almost only about sacred matters. Certainly he spoke frequently with Basil, as is clear from the Saint's words recited at num. 58; and again from what Basil, consecrated bishop, says to Chrysostom in book 1 On the Priesthood, tom. 1, page 367, complaining of him thus: Nevertheless, as I said, I lay none of these things to your charge, nor do I reproach you with the solitude in which you have set us, when you took away those conversations from which we often plucked no small pleasure and profit… For you yourself know that you have inflicted no slight loss upon me, if only you will remember the discourses which both others held about us and we continually held about ourselves. Now these discourses were that we should have great gain from concord, and a defense from mutual friendship. And all the others said that our concord would be of no small profit to very many others also. More follows about the fruit of that mutual concord, as also many other things are read in the same Work about that excellent friendship between Chrysostom and Basil. The Saint therefore was not so alone in his house as not to deal with friends who had prescribed for themselves the same kind of life; but so as not to mingle conversations about profane matters with the lovers of the world.

* elsewhere anything in common

§ IX. Chrysostom and Basil are sought for a bishopric: the former hides himself; the other, Chrysostom dissembling, is taken and consecrated: the Saint excuses his deed.

Bishops try to advance Chrysostom to a bishopric: What we shall now narrate about Chrysostom's being sought for a bishopric, and about his friend Basil's promotion to that dignity, are fixed by Tillemont in Note 7 at the year 372. Montfaucon in the Life, page 94: But as to the year in which these things were done, I agree with Hermant and Tillemont, who refer them to the year of Christ 372 or thereabouts, and think that they cannot be deferred beyond the year 374. One thing there is which might turn one away from such a manner of reckoning, namely that John would then have been only 25, or at most 27, years old, and Basil of about the same age, which seems unsuitable for taking up so great an office. But although the age at which bishops are ordained is for the most part required to be greater, there are not wanting examples of those who before the twenty-fifth year were chosen and appointed bishops; and besides, Basil himself in Chrysostom says that those were charged with a crime by some who had ordained him, and who had vainly sought John to consecrate him bishop; as men who, leaving so many and so great men, suddenly brought to so great an honor as they would not have hoped to attain even in dreams μειράκια, youths who yesterday and the day before were rolling in secular cares, so that for a short time they knit their brows, put on dark garments, and feigned a sadness of countenance: by which it is argued that John and Basil his fellow-disciple were then very young. These reasons will perhaps in some measure seem to some to suffice for the epoch fixed: nevertheless it seems to me that the epoch given must by no means be acquiesced in.

Indeed, since Tillemont and Montfaucon themselves confess that Chrysostom did not go away to the solitary life before the year 374, this happened not in the year 372, I do not sufficiently grasp for what cause they preferred to fix that memorable event in the year 372 rather than 374. For it is probable that the Saint was moved by that unexpected danger at length to desert the city and to practice the solitary life in a desert place, about which he had long been deliberating. For how could he not fear that he would be dragged to a bishopric if he remained in the city? Besides, the rare examples of some who before the thirtieth year of their age were promoted to a bishopric do not seem to suffice for us at once to believe that two young men at the same time, about the twenty-fifth year, were sought by the bishops of Syria to be promoted to so lofty a grade, other men of riper age being passed over — whom that we have from Chrysostom himself that there were not wanting at that time. Certainly in the council of Neocæsarea of the year 314 it had been enacted in canon XI that no one be ordained priest before the thirtieth year of his age, even if he be of approved life: and I do not judge that the consecration of two at once was attempted against that canon in the same century by the bishops of Syria, since there is no reason of any weight compelling us to fix Basil's consecration in the year 372.

[102] Chrysostom himself in the books On the Priesthood, however frequently he speaks of his own youth, but is to be fixed about 374. seems altogether to persuade us that neither to himself nor to Basil was the age required by the canons lacking. For nowhere does he say that anything against the canons was attempted by the bishops by whom he was sought for a bishopric. Nay rather in book 3, page 380, he seems to say that Basil's election was conformable to the ecclesiastical laws. For, when he had said that the calumniators would say about his consecration, They have committed such great things to unwise boys, he adds that this can no longer be said on account of his own flight: For if, he says to Basil, they shall bring these things forward on your account, you will straightway teach them from the very fact that prudence must not be measured by age, nor an old man be held approved from his grey hairs, nor a young man be utterly excluded from such a ministry, but a neophyte: and there is a great difference between the two. It does not appear probable to me that Chrysostom here contradicts the Neocæsarean canon, but that he calls those Young men who indeed had thirty years, yet could seem young for taking up the lofty office of a bishopric. As regards the few examples of those who are believed to have been ordained before that age, I do not know whether all are certain enough; and if any be indubitable, from a very few examples a solid argument cannot be drawn. I should prefer therefore to judge that Chrysostom was sought for a bishopric a little before his withdrawal to the desert, and that he was then about thirty years old. But it is certain that that event happened before the Saint's withdrawal, as is gathered from the words presently to be given; and therefore it must be fixed about the year 374.

[103] Basil consults Chrysostom about the bishopric; but he dissembling, Now I subjoin the event itself. Chrysostom in book 1 On the Priesthood, tom. 1, page 364, narrates that Basil continued to urge that they should lead a solitary life together, and thus proceeds: While we were turning these things over between us, he frequently urging, I refusing, a rumor suddenly arising disturbed us both; for the report was that we were to be promoted to the episcopal dignity. Hearing which, I was struck at once with fear and hesitation; with fear, lest I should be seized unwilling; with hesitation, as I again and again inquired how it had come into those men's minds to think anything of this kind about us. For to me, examining myself, nothing occurred worthy of that honor: but that generous man, meeting me apart, when he had disclosed the report as to one ignorant of it, asked that, as before, so here too we should seem partners in deeds and counsels: that he was ready to follow whichever way which I should embrace, whether we must flee or consent. Perceiving his mind, and reckoning that I should bring a loss upon the whole Church if I should through my own weakness deprive Christ's flock of a young man so upright, so fit for the rule of many, I did not disclose what was in my mind, although before I had hidden none of my counsels from him. But when I had answered that deliberation about that matter must be put off to another time, since it did not press at present, I straightway persuaded him that nothing need be cared for on that account, and gave him confidence that I should be a partner in the same opinion if ever a matter of this kind should occur.

[104] and hiding himself at the time, he is taken and consecrated bishop: Not much time having elapsed, when he who was to ordain us had arrived, and I had hidden myself, he, ignorant of these things, is led as though to another business, and receives the yoke, hoping that I, as I had promised, would likewise follow — nay rather that he would follow with me going before. For some of those who were present, seeing him taking it ill that he had been seized, deceived him with words, crying out that it was absurd that he who seemed fiercer than all — meaning me — had with great modesty obeyed the fathers' decree; but that he, far more prudent and moderate, should be fierce, seek vainglory, leap about, recoil, resist. He, having yielded to these words, after he heard that I had fled, comes to me very sad, and sits by me, wishing to speak; but, held back by anguish of mind, since he could not declare the violence he had suffered, he was hindered from speaking in the very opening of his mouth, grief interrupting his speech before it passed his teeth. I, beholding him bathed in tears and troubled in mind, and having learned the cause of the matter, burst out into laughter with much pleasure, and, taking him by the right hand, tried to kiss him, and gave glory to God,

because my devices had turned out rightly and according to my wish. When he saw me glad and cheerful, as soon as he perceived that he had been deceived by us, he took it far more grievously and more unworthily. Thus far Chrysostom, about the manner in which he himself fled the bishopric, and in which by dissembling he brought his friend Basil to that dignity.

[105] But since by that counsel the Saint offended not only Basil, a moderate man, but others also, it will be worth while if we investigate what was objected to Chrysostom, and by what reasons he defended himself. Basil complained that he had been deceived, betrayed, circumvented by a crafty dissimulation. For we, he says at page 367, brought you our soul, so to speak, and placed it in your hands; but you employed as great craft against us as if you had had to beware of your enemies. And yet you ought, if you thought a counsel of this kind useful, not to flee its gain; but if harmful, to snatch us too — whom you always said you preferred to all — from harm. But you left nothing undone that we might fall into it; nor was there need of guile or dissimulation against one who was wont to say and do all things with you without guile and simply. To these things at page 368 Chrysostom, having premised that a man most friendly of all to him must be appeased by an excuse, answers that craft is not always bad, but sometimes even worthy of praise. Then he proves this by various similitudes, and especially by the example of physicians, who by a prudent guile heal the sick. He subjoins at page 370: For great is the power of deceit, provided it be not offered with a guileful counsel. Nay rather, this is by no means to be called deceit, but economy, wisdom, and a certain art which can find many exits in hard matters, and amend the faults of the soul.

[106] But presently in book 2, page 371, he begins to show that great gain is to be hoped from that economy of his for Basil, that he had rightly used dissimulation, lest Basil, of an ample reward, namely because a bishop does those things which Christ himself said were proofs of love toward Christ, who thus addresses the coryphæus of the Apostles: "Peter," he says, "do you love me?" And when he confessed it, he adds: "If you love me, feed my sheep." The Master asks his disciple whether he is loved by him; not that he might learn: for how should he learn, since he knows the hearts of all? but that he might teach us how much the rule of such a flock was at his heart. And since this is plain, that too will be manifest, that there will be a great reward for him who labors in those things which are of great price with Christ. Many things he adds to these, in which from the love with which the Lord follows his Church he elegantly shows that the reward of good pastors of the Church will be ample. Then at page 372 he thus addresses Basil: Will you then even now contend with us, as though we had wickedly cast you into a snare, when you are to be set over all God's goods, doing those things which, when Peter did them, gave him power and set him far before the other Apostles? For "Peter," he says, "do you love me more than these? Feed my sheep." And yet he could have addressed him thus: If you love me, practice fasts, lie on the ground, keep vigils, protect the injured, be as a father to orphans and as a husband to their mother. But now, omitting all these, what does he say? "Feed my sheep." For those things which I said above many of the subjects can easily perform, not only men but also women.

[107] But when the rule of the Church is in question, and the care of so many souls to be entrusted, and the Church of an excellent bishop, should be deprived. let the whole female sex retire from the greatness of so great a business, nay also the greatest part of men. Let there be brought forward those who by a great interval surpass all the rest, and who according to virtue of soul are as much loftier than the rest as Saul was above the whole nation of the Hebrews in tallness of body — nay, by a far greater space. These things likewise he excellently proves. Since therefore he had discerned Basil's charity, prudence and other notable endowments, as he says at page 377, I knew the things concerning you better than your parents, as you yourself confess — the Saint clearly shows that by dissembling without a lie he had profited both Basil and the Church by his purpose. For he proves that he profited Basil, because he did not hinder him from entering upon an ample field for meriting much; and the Church, because on that occasion it received a plainly notable bishop. But the whole dissimulation lay in this, that he had not declared to Basil that he wished to flee the bishopric, lest he should imitate the example.

[108] But he excused his own flight, saying that he was not capable: Further, the humble Chrysostom, who passed so favorable a judgment on his friend, judged very differently of himself: for he judged that his own bishopric would be harmful both to himself and to the Church, or at least he feared this, because he thought humbly of himself and of his own capacity. When the Saint had proved that charity is chiefly shown in the pastoral office, Basil asked: But do you not love Christ? And the Saint answered: I both love him, and shall never make an end of loving; but I fear lest I provoke him whom I love. When Basil said that this was a riddle, the Saint again replied: It is not, I say, a riddle, but a matter quite clear and simple. For if I were fit for administering the office according to Christ's pleasure, and yet fled it, you could shrewdly refute my words. But since the weakness of my mind makes me useless for this office, why is there need of an objection? For I fear lest, if I receive Christ's flock in good health and vigor, and then ruin it by negligence, I provoke against me God, who so loves it that for its salvation he gave himself as the price. With these and other like things Chrysostom could satisfy his friend Basil.

[109] and when others objected pride, arrogance, and insult offered to the bishops; But Basil wished that the Saint should answer also the complaints and calumnies of others. What those men were bandying about he explains in book 1, page 366, in these words: But now you have opened the mouths of all, and all say that out of love of empty glory you refused this ministry, nor is there anyone who frees you from this charge. And a little below: For some accuse you of arrogance, others of vainglory: but those who wish to spare the accused less both cast up both of these, and besides add the insult which we offered to those who honored us: who also, they say, justly suffered these things, nay deserved graver ones; as men who, leaving so many and so great men, suddenly brought to so great an honor as they would not have hoped to attain even in dreams boys who yesterday and the day before were rolling in secular cares, so that for a short time they knit their brows, put on dark garments, and feigned a sadness of countenance. And those, they say, who from their earliest age down to extreme old age have followed asceticism or exercise, are in the number of the subjects; but there rule over them their own sons, who do not even know the laws laid down for exercising this magistracy. These are the chief things which were said against the Saint, because, being sought for a bishopric, he had hidden himself. But these could easily be refuted.

[110] the Saint answers about the insult, and shows that he rightly consulted Concerning the insult he first answers in book 2, page 378, that no care must be had of insults offered, if one would otherwise be compelled to run into offense against God. For those, he says, who are devoted to God and look to him alone ought, I judge, to be so piously affected as not to hold this for an insult, even if they were six hundred times so dishonored. Then he denies that he even thought of offering insult to them, or fled the bishopric out of pride or desire of empty glory, thus presently proceeding: But if we did not even think this, but declined the burden with a far different counsel, why do they charge those to whom, if not approval, at least pardon they ought to have given, because we spared our own soul? For so far am I from having inflicted insult upon them, that I even think that by refusing I honored them. Nor should you think that I have said a paradox; for I shall presently bring forward the explanation of this. For then, if not all, at least those who delight in slanders, could have suspected many things both about me as ordained and about those who had chosen me; for example, that they had regard to riches, that they admired splendor of family, that moved by our flattery they had chosen us to it. But whether anyone would have suspected that they did it induced by money, I cannot say. Christ indeed, they would have said, called fishermen, tentmakers and publicans to a magistracy of this kind: these reject those who provide their food by daily work; but if anyone give his labor to the letters of outsiders and live at leisure, him they approve and admire. For why at last did they despise those who had endured a thousand sweats in the business of the Church, and straightway drag to so great an honor him who had never experienced these labors, and had worn away his whole life in the vain disciplines of outsiders? These and like things they could have said, if I had accepted this dignity. But now it is otherwise; for every occasion of slandering has been cut off from them, and they can reproach neither me with flattery nor them with gifts received, unless perhaps there be some who wish of their own accord to be mad.

[111] Presently he shows that he would have been exposed to calumnies also in the very administration of the bishopric, their honor: then he repels the calumny about empty glory. writing thus at page 380: But after we had touched the ministry, we could never have refuted the daily calumnies of accusers, even if we had done all things blamelessly; not to say that we, at this age and in our inexperience of affairs, must needs have gone astray in many things. But now we have taken from them the occasion of a charge of this kind. But then we should have rendered them liable to innumerable reproaches. For who would not have been going to say, They have committed such great and such wonderful things to unwise boys, they have ruined God's flock, the affairs of the Christians are now exposed to laughter and mockery? Thus far about the insult not offered to the electors. No less strongly in book 3 does the Saint refute the calumny of those by whom he was accused of pride and empty glory on account of his flight from the episcopal dignity, which he shows to be the greatest thing. But presently he subjoins: Further, if they say that I did this for glory's sake, they will openly be caught disagreeing and fighting with themselves: for I do not know what other speech they would have sought if they had wished to free us from the charge of empty glory. For if a love of this kind ever seized me, I ought rather to have accepted than to have fled. Why? Because that would have brought us great glory. Since indeed that a man of this age, who had lately withdrawn himself from secular cares, should suddenly seem so admirable in the eyes of all that he was preferred even to those who had worn away their whole life in labors of this kind, and received more votes than all of them; that certainly would have implanted in all a great and admirable opinion of us, and would have exhibited us as conspicuous and illustrious. But now, a few excepted, the greatest part of the Church does not know us even by

name; so that it is not even known to all that we refused, but only to a few, of whom nevertheless I do not think that all rightly know what was done: and it is probable that many of them judge either that we were not at all elected, or that after the election we were driven off as not seeming fit enough, and that we did not flee of our own accord. These are clear and manifest arguments.

[112] [Then, having set forth the sublimity of the priestly office, he shows himself unfit for it] The calumny of empty glory having been sufficiently driven away, the Saint begins to treat of the sublimity of the priestly dignity, and of the endowments and virtues necessary for a bishop; and thence out of his humility he finds other reasons for which he judged that that dignity must be fled by him. At page 385, having weighed St. Paul's endowments, and before the rest his excellent charity, he subjoins: If anyone can utter this voice (of Paul); if anyone be endowed with such a soul …, he could justly be blamed if he flee. But if anyone be as far removed from this virtue as we are, he is worthy of hatred not when he has fled, but when he has undertaken the office… For if it is enough to be called a pastor, and to receive the office anyhow, and no danger be present, let anyone accuse us of empty glory at his pleasure: but if great prudence, and before prudence great grace of God, probity of manners, purity of life, and a virtue greater than human is required in him who undertakes such a care, do not wish me deprived of pardon if I am unwilling to give myself vainly and rashly to destruction… I know my soul, weak and small, and the vast difficulty of the matter. These difficulties he presently sets forth eloquently.

[113] for various reasons which he found in his own defects Then at page 389 he alleges another reason for which he believed that the priesthood must be fled by him. For when he had proved that desire of a bishopric must be driven out of a priest's mind, he adds of himself: But we (that you may not think that I wish in any way to lie to you for modesty's sake) are held by a great desire of this kind: which thing, together with all the rest, terrified us not a little, and turned us to this flight. Things agreeing with these he writes in book 6, page 426, thus addressing Basil: But that I do not speak thus for modesty's sake, remember how often I said to you, when the same discourse frequently arose between us, that if a choice were given me where I should rather wish to shine, in the rule of the Church or in the monastic life, I should prefer the former kind of life by a thousand votes: for I never made an end of admiring before you those who could rightly discharge that ministry. But that I should not have declined that which I made so much of, if only I had been equal to administering it duly, no one would deny. But what shall I do? For nothing is less fit for the rule of the Church than sloth and negligence, which others think to be a certain admirable exercise: but I hold it as a veil of my own idleness, with which I cover the greatest part of my defects, and do not suffer it to betray itself.

[114] with skillful candor, For he who is accustomed to so great leisure and so great quiet, however great the disposition with which he is endowed, is at once disturbed and distressed for want of experience, and lack of exercise cuts off no small part of his virtue. But when he shall be at once of a slower genius and inexperienced in words and contests of this kind — which indeed is our condition — he will differ nothing from stones if he undertake this administration. Here again we have another cause for fleeing the bishopric, which the wondrous modesty of the holy Youth feigned for himself. Receive another also proceeding from the Saint's modesty alone. When in book 3, page 390, he had set forth how far a priest ought to be removed from wrathfulness, Basil thus interrupts him as he speaks: But I will no longer endure you thus dissembling. For who is ignorant how far you are from this disease (of wrathfulness)? The Saint answered: What then, I say, O blessed man, do you wish to bring me to this pyre, and to provoke a resting beast? Or are you ignorant that this has come to us not by our own virtue, but from love of a quiet life; and that a man so affected, living apart and using one or two friends, can escape a conflagration of this kind; but otherwise, if he fall into so great an abyss of cares? For then he drags with him not only himself but very many others to the precipice of destruction, and makes them slower in the care of uprightness. For the multitude of subjects is wont to look upon the manners of their rulers as an archetype and a kind of image, and to fashion themselves after their form. How then could he calm their swellings, if he himself swell? etc.

[115] More things could be brought forward from the same Work which are fit for showing the Saint's notable humility. and which struck a great fear into him But I shall add only one passage to the preceding. In book 6, page 432, he thus addresses Basil: It is time therefore that I should at length pour out upon you the one secret that remains to me; which perhaps will seem incredible to many: nor yet shall I be ashamed to bring it into the midst. For although what I am about to say be a proof both of a bad conscience and of innumerable faults, since he who is to judge us, God, knows all things accurately, what more can be conferred upon us from the ignorance of men? What then is that secret? From that very day on which you cast this suspicion upon me, there was often danger that this body of mine should be utterly dissolved; so great a fear, so great a grief seized my mind. For reckoning with myself the glory, the sanctity, the spiritual beauty, the prudence, the adornment of Christ's bride, and considering my own evils, I did not cease to bewail her and to call myself wretched, and, frequently groaning and at a stand, I spoke such things with myself: Who was the author of this counsel? What so great sin has the Church of God committed? What so great matter has exasperated her Lord, that she should be delivered to me, the most ignominious of all, and should suffer so great an infamy? Turning these things over frequently with myself, since I could not bear even the thought of so great an unworthiness, as though thunderstruck and smitten with stupor, I could neither see nor hear anything.

[116] When this fainting of mind left me — for sometimes it ceased — he declares with wondrous humility. there succeeded tears and sadness: then, after a fill of tears, fear came again, troubling my mind, filling it with tumult and shaking it. In so great a heat I have passed the time now past. But you did not know, and thought that I was living in tranquillity. But now I shall try to reveal to you the storm of my soul: hence perhaps, laying aside your charges, you will grant me pardon. But how could I, how could I disclose it to you? Since, if you wished to see it clearly, I could do it in no other way than by uncovering my heart. But since that cannot be done, I shall try meanwhile, by a certain obscure image and according to my ability, to depict for you the smoke of my sadness. Then he brings forward two similitudes to declare his fear by them. The first is taken from a king's daughter, most richly adorned with endowments of body and mind, and most ardently loved by her suitor, who should be given as bride to an ignoble and most worthless man. The second, from an army most excellently equipped on every side, over which, for entering into conflict, there should be set a youth brought up in the country, who knows nothing at all besides the shepherd's lyre and crook. Thus the Saint considered the Church as a most noble virgin, most beloved by Christ, but himself as utterly unworthy of marriage with so great a bride. He considered the Church as a most excellently equipped army, but himself as a rustic youth, utterly unskilled in waging war against the enemies of the Church. If all so greatly meditated the sublimity and difficulty of the episcopal dignity, and measured their own strength with so great humility, fewer indeed would run of their own accord to the rule of churches.

[117] Basil, Chrysostom's friend, is not St. Basil the Great, It remains to be examined who that Basil was, the Saint's friend, who was then promoted to a bishopric. Socrates indeed in book 6, chapter 3, designates Basil the Great, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. But this error is so open that there is no need of a longer refutation, because St. Basil the Great was neither a young man nor living at Antioch while these things were being done; but had for many years been a priest at Cæsarea in Cappadocia, and for some years bishop there, before there was any question of the election of the Basil who had long been Chrysostom's friend at Antioch. Hermant in the Life, chapter 12, suspects that Basil, Chrysostom's friend, is no other than Maximus, bishop of Seleucia in Isauria, whom the Saint drew to Diodore's school, as was said at num. 71. That Maximus, he says, could have had both names, and his friendship with Chrysostom is established.

[118] nor Maximus or Basil of Seleucia; This opinion Tillemont refutes in Note 8, chiefly by this argument, that Seleucia of Isauria is very far distant from Antioch, whereas Basil's bishopric was not far from the city of Antioch, as we shall see. Le Quien in the Oriens Christianus, tom. 2, col. 778, inserted Maximus, Chrysostom's friend, into the catalogue of the bishops of Seleucia of Syria, which is not much distant from Antioch. But that Seleucia is not Seleucia at the Taurus, where Theodoret, praised by him, in book 5, chapter 27, makes Maximus, Chrysostom's friend, bishop. Wrongly therefore is Maximus reckoned in that catalogue, and more rightly is he placed by the same writer in the catalogue of the bishops of Seleucia of Isauria, col. 1013. But neither that Maximus, nor Basil of Seleucia (as it seemed to Photius in the Bibliotheca, page 378), is the same as Basil, Chrysostom's friend. For, to omit other arguments, Symposius in the year 381 presided over Seleucia in Isauria, as may be seen in the praised Le Quien. And so, since Basil was promoted before the year 381, he cannot be the same as Maximus, Symposius's successor, nor as Basil of Seleucia, who survived down to the year 451, since he was in the council of Chalcedon.

[119] but probably Basil of Raphanæa in Syria: The most eminent Baronius at the year 382, num. 69, suggests two other opinions, writing thus: But who that Basil, Chrysostom's intimate, was, we have nothing certain that we could firmly affirm. We know, however, that at the same time in the same province of Syria there lived two Basils, who were present at the synod of Constantinople, namely Basil of Raphanæa in Syria, and another bishop of Byblos in Phœnicia. What Baronius suggests about the bishop of Byblos does not appear to me, any more than to Tillemont, probable enough, both because that bishopric was in Phœnicia and far distant from Antioch, and because he is read in the subscription of the council as called not Basil but Basilides. But so much the more probable and likely is Baronius's other opinion about Basil of Raphanæa, which likewise pleased Tillemont in art. 5, and Montfaucon in the Life, page 94. Certainly in Labbe, tom. 2 of the Councils, col. 955, among the bishops of Syria there is read last as subscribed to the council of Constantinople of the year 381 Basil of Raphanæa. And the city of Raphanææ Cellarius mentions in tom. 2 of the Ancient Geography, page 258, in inland Seleucis, whose head was Antioch, and he places

it between Antaradus, a town of Syria, and the river Orontes, on which Antioch lies, so that it seems not to have been very far from that metropolis. And this nearness makes the matter most probable.

[120] For that Basil's bishopric was not far from Antioch is gathered from Chrysostom, book 6 On the Priesthood at the end, where Basil thus addresses the Saint: For the rest I ask and beseech you … that you stretch out your hand to me, saying and doing those things which can amend us. Do not resolve to desert us for the very shortest time; but let our companionship now be closer than before. Then the Saint: But I, smiling at these words: And in what matter could I be of use to you in so great a mass of business? But since this is your desire, be of good cheer, O head beloved by me. For at whatever time it shall be permitted you to breathe from cares of this kind, I shall be with you and shall console you, so far as in me lies, failing you in nothing. At these words he rises, weeping the more. But I, embracing the man and kissing his head, led him forth, exhorting him to bear bravely what had happened, in these words: I have confidence in Christ, who called you and set you over his sheep, that you will acquire from this ministry so great a confidence that on that day you will receive us, who shall be in peril, into eternal tabernacles. Chrysostom's promise, who was unwilling to withdraw far from the city of Antioch, but either to remain with his mother, or in the mountains near the city, intimates that Basil himself did not go away to another province, so that it is most probable that he was bishop of Raphanæa in Syria.

§ X. The Saint lives four years in a monastery under the discipline of a severe old man, two years alone in a cave: what the life of those monks was.

The Saint embraces the monastic life, Palladius in the Dialogue, page 41, where he had narrated that Chrysostom was ordained lector, subjoins this: But since his mind impelled him not to be content with the labors of the city, in the ardor of his youth, though his mind was sound, he goes to the neighboring mountains. Here, having lighted upon a certain Syrian old man of the most severe continence, he imitates the harder institutes of his life for four years, which he passed with him, wrestling with the rocks of pleasures: which when he had overcome rather easily, not so much by labor as by reason, he then withdrew alone into a cave, desiring to lie hidden. There he stayed two years, in which he remained for the most part sleepless, learning the Testament of Christ that he might drive out ignorance. Since through that whole two years he had lain down neither by day nor by night, the parts next his belly died in him and the strength of his loins was overthrown by the cold. Thus far Palladius about the Saint's monastic and anchoretic life, which was indeed most austere, but on account of ill health could not be continued beyond six years. George at page 168 reports the death of Chrysostom's mother before his monastic life, and the goods left by him after his mother's death. But these things are both unknown to the ancients and little probable. About the time in which the Saint withdrew to the mountains I altogether agree with Tillemont and Montfaucon, who refer that event to the year 374 or the beginning of 375, because thus there are found six years before he was ordained deacon: for that this happened toward the end of the year 380 or the beginning of 381 we shall show in its place. That Syrian old man, under whose discipline the Saint was for four years, is called Hesychius by George of Alexandria and by others who followed him.

[122] not without a grave struggle of the flesh. Further, that the holy Youth did not withdraw from his mother's house without a grave struggle is clear first from what was said at nums. 92 and following. Other things deterring him from that purpose he narrates with that notable modesty with which he always speaks of himself, in the Work On Compunction to Demetrius, book 1, or tom. 1, page 132, writing thus: When lately I had determined, leaving the city, to go to the tents of the monks, I anxiously asked and inquired whence a supply of necessaries would be at hand, and whether it could be that fresh and daily bread should be eaten: whether anyone would compel me to use the same oil for my lamp and for my food: whether anyone would drive me to the wretched fare of pulse, or would assign me hard work, such as digging, carrying wood, bringing water, and all the other services of this kind: and, to speak summarily, I inquired much about the ease of the body. These things could indeed cause delay to a Youth noble, rich, delicately brought up, and accustomed in his mother's house to all the conveniences which he wished to use; although he had long since begun to practice some austerities of the monastic life there. For that Youth of grey-haired prudence knew that it is far easier to take up some works of penance at one's own pleasure, when piety and the love of God invite to their performance, than to commit oneself wholly to another's judgment for carrying out the hard commands of a severe master. Nevertheless, since he burned with an excellent love of God, and knew that lovers of God must deny their own will, and probably driven also by the fear that he should be drawn unwilling to a bishopric, he broke all bonds, that he might more safely and more perfectly serve the divine Majesty.

[123] But what the life of the monks was, how tranquil, What life the Saint led in the monastery we can in some measure gather from what he himself elegantly narrated in various places about the monks near Antioch, whom he exhorts the Antiochenes to visit. For neither can we doubt that a Man of the greatest mind, who excelled everywhere in all his works, practiced with the highest magnanimity also the labors of the monastic life and the virtues of the monks, which he afterwards so often had in his mouth and celebrated in so many orations; especially since from the exercises of the cenobitic life he passed over to the harder labors of the anchoretic life, and deserted them only from the necessity of repairing his strength. Let us hear therefore the Saint speaking of the monks of Syria, that we may learn what life he himself led in the monastery. In Homily 68, elsewhere 69, on Matthew, tom. 7, page 673, he compares the life of the monks with the secular life: That you may learn, he says, that the life which seems hard and burdensome, namely that of the monks and of those who have crucified themselves, is far sweeter and more desirable than this life, which seems more pleasant and more delicate… We shall find as great an interval between the two lives as between a harbor and a sea tossed by waves. Consider their happiness from their dwellings, at the very outset; for, fleeing the forums and cities and the tumults set in the midst, they have chosen a life in the mountains, which has nothing in common with the present life, which suffers nothing human; not grief for secular things, not sadness or solicitude, not dangers, not snares, not envy, not spite, not base loves, nor anything else of the kind. Now here they meditate the things which pertain to the kingdom of heaven, living among woods, mountains and fountains, with much quiet: but chiefly they cleave to God, and their hut is empty of all tumult, their soul free from every disease and depraved affection, light, unencumbered, and purer than the thinnest air.

[124] Presently at page 674 he comes more to particulars: They who are the lights of the world, he says, how sublime, how intent on divine things when the sun has risen, nay long before it gives light, rising from their bed, are healthy, watchful, unencumbered: for there is no grief there, or solicitude, or drowsiness; no toil, no crowd of business, nothing of the kind… Rising therefore straightway glad and cheerful, forming one choir, with glad countenance and conscience together, all as with one mouth celebrate with hymns the God of all things, praising him and giving him thanks for all benefits, whether their own or common… But their clothing is worthy of those men… As those blessed angels, Elijah, Elisha, John, the Apostles, were clothed, some in goats' hair, others in camels' hair: some are wrapped only in skins worn with age. Then after those songs, bending their knees they pray to God for things which could not even come into the minds of many. For they ask nothing of present things, for these they do not care at all; but that they may be able to stand with confidence before that dreadful tribunal … and that with a pure conscience and good works they may measure out this laborious life, and pass tranquilly over this stormy sea. And the leader of their prayer is their father and superior. Then, rising after those holy and frequent prayers, at sunrise each betakes himself to his own work, thereby preparing a great revenue for the needy. At page 675 he intimates that sons of the rich, and grandsons of distinguished ancestors (such as he himself also was), are clothed in those garments which not even the lowest of the poor would deign to wear.

[125] Page 676: And not only when singing or praying, but also when intent upon their books, and on the sacred Letters: with how great humility adorned, they present a pleasant spectacle to those who see them. For when the choir is dismissed, one, taking up Isaiah, speaks with him; another is engaged with the Apostles; another reads books written by others, and philosophizes about God, about the universe, about things visible, about things invisible, about things spiritual, about the vileness of this life, about the greatness of the life to come. But they are fed with the best food, not with the boiled flesh of animals, but with the words of God. The humble works of those monks Chrysostom sets forth in Homily 72, elsewhere 73, on Matthew, page 705, thus celebrating their humility: Do you wish that we go again to the city of virtue, the tents of the saints, I mean the mountains and the woods? For there we shall find another sublime humility. For men who were conspicuous either for dignity or for riches abase themselves on every side, in clothing, in house, in service, and out of all these, as out of letters, they have written humility. But the things which kindle to pride — magnificence of garments, splendid buildings, a multitude of servants, which often cast even the unwilling into pride — all these, I say, have been taken away from that place. They themselves kindle the fire, cut wood, cook, minister to guests. There it does not happen that one hears any man insolent, nor sees any man insulted; no one to whom orders are given, no one giving orders: but all are servants, each washes the feet of the guests, and in this matter there is a great contest. And this they do without inquiring who he is, whether slave or free, but they fulfil this ministry toward all. There no one is great or small. What then? Is there confusion? Far from it, but the best order. For even if one be small, he who is great does not look to that, but thinks himself inferior to him, and therefore is made greater. There is one table for all, for those serving, for those sitting, the same food, the same garments, the same houses [*], and the same manner of living. He is great there who snatches at the meaner works. There is no mine and thine there, but that word is banished thence, which is the cause of a thousand wars.

[126] how conspicuous for charity, Why do you wonder if the manner of living, the table, the clothing are one for all — not only according to substance, for this is one in all, but according to charity? How then can it

ever be proud against itself? There is there no poverty, no riches, no glory, no infamy. How could pride and arrogance find admittance there? For there are both least and greatest according to the measure of virtue; but, as I said, no one sees this. He who is small is not distressed as though despised: for there is no one who despises. But even if there were one to despise, in this above all they are trained, to grow accustomed to be contemned, despised, held cheap in words and in deeds; they live with beggars and with the maimed, and at their table you may see many guests of this kind; and therefore they are worthy of heaven. One tends the wounds of a sick man, another leads a blind man, another carries a maimed one. Joining presently to these works of humility certain others, he teaches that by all these humility is easily implanted in the minds of the monks, in these words: But besides, the very works teach them to show modesty and do not suffer them to swell. For who, I ask, digging the earth, watering and planting, weaving baskets and sewing sackcloth, or handling other such things, will ever be high-minded? Who, living in poverty and fighting with hunger, will labor with this disease? Certainly no one. Therefore humility is easy for them.

[127] to how hard works of penance devoted, Of the austere life of the monks the Saint treats in many places. But I shall transfer hither only some things from Homily 14 on the First Epistle to Timothy, where in tom. XI, page 628, he thus speaks: Truly houses of mourning are the monasteries, where there is sackcloth and ashes, where solitude, where no laughter nor tumult of secular affairs, where fasting, where lying on the ground, where all things are pure from the reek of cooking, from blood, from crowds, from tumult, from perturbations. And at page 631: These (monks) are always sober, persisting without food until evening, and giving their labor to hymns… When evening comes, these, resting from their labors, recline at table, not … setting on many dishes fragrant with odor, but some set on bread alone with salt, others oil. But others, who are weaker, have herbs and pulse. Then after they have sat a little, and have concluded the whole with hymns, each rests in the [ ] of the brethren, furnished for rest, not for delights. Of the brevity and moderation of their sleep he says this at page 630: For the great fear of God does not suffer them to fall into deep sleep, but they rest as it were on the surface… But, as I said, the cock has crowed, and immediately the superior coming and striking with his foot the man lying down, rouses all. For neither is it lawful there to sleep naked.

[128] What they do after the morning song he presently narrates there thus: how perpetually occupied with useful things, is set forth in the Saint's words. After they have completed the Matin hours and the hymns, they betake themselves to the reading of the Scriptures: there are also some who have learned to copy books. Each having his appointed dwelling, they live always in quiet, no one uttering trifles, no one speaking. Then they perform the prayers of Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers, and dividing the whole day into four parts, in each part they honor God with psalmody and hymns; while all others dine, laugh, play, and burst themselves with excessive food, these give their labor to hymns. Almost no time is assigned to the table and to sensible things. Again after dinner they resume the same exercises, after they have given themselves a little to sleep. From these things it can be gathered what sort of life Chrysostom led among those monks, who could scarcely be satisfied with recounting their pious exercises and virtues. Many things could be added from him, and many explained more fully: but I fear lest I become longer than is just, if I dwell longer on this purpose. For the rest, George of Alexandria at page 168 makes Chrysostom superior of the monks. But Palladius would not have kept silence about that superiorship.

* read little dwellings

§ XI. Little Works written, namely the books on the priesthood, against the Assailants of the monastic life, and the Comparison of a king and a monk.

The six books On the Priesthood written, Although we cannot deservedly doubt that St. John diligently and studiously practiced the meanest works of the monks, he did not, however, so spend all the time free from prayers in those monastic occupations as not from time to time to give his labor to writing books. For this was by no means contrary to the institute of the monks, but was useful to many; and therefore he was not rarely asked to compose some little Work. Hence it does not seem to be doubted that his superiors not only permitted him usefully to exercise his pen, but even impelled him to do so. Certainly the learned commonly agree that some little Works were written by Chrysostom in the time of his monastic life, but they do not equally agree in designating those little Works. Ambrose the Camaldolese, who translated Palladius's Dialogue on the Life of Chrysostom into Latin, and whose translation we have in a manuscript copy, has this in it, where he reports that the Saint was ordained priest by Flavian: He is consecrated priest … although unwilling and much resisting. This is noted from those books On the Priesthood which he wrote while still a solitary. For this cause Hermant in chapter 14 judges that the books On the Priesthood were written by Chrysostom in the solitude. But, as Tillemont and Montfaucon have already observed, in the Greek text published by Bigot these things are not read, so that it rather seems an addition of Ambrose than the opinion of Palladius.

[130] Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, asserts that the books On the Priesthood were written by Chrysostom not afterwards in the diaconate, but most probably after he was ordained deacon by Meletius. But Tillemont in art. 5 says that nothing occurs to him to hinder him from following the said opinion of Socrates. But Montfaucon establishes nothing certain about the time in which that Work was written. Baronius at the year of Christ 382 judges that St. Chrysostom composed the books On the Priesthood after the matter was done, as an apology for his flight, and notes that Chrysostom was in the twenty-second year of his age when he wrote On the Priesthood and withdrew into the desert. This opinion seems to me altogether to be followed, not as regards the Saint's age, which was without doubt much greater, but as regards the time of the Work's being written not long after the matter was done of which it treats. For the Saint's purpose was to weave an apology both for his flight and for his dissimulation with Basil, and to render reasons to the Antiochenes why he had not acquiesced in his election, and why he had not made that plan of his manifest to his intimate friend, that thus the gibes and calumnies of many might cease. But it is not probable that that offense of the Antiochenes, and the gibes arising thence, lasted through six whole years, and that Chrysostom then at last had recourse to an apology to excuse a deed so long past: for that would then have been rather to renew the memory of the deed than to settle the offense.

[131] either at the beginning of the monastic life, Besides, the Saint diligently narrates what Basil, what others had objected against his deed. But it is not probable either that he preserved all these things in memory for six whole years, or that after so long a time he wished to bring forward things which had then almost fallen from memory at Antioch. Wherefore the opinion of Socrates appears improbable to me, whose authority is of no moment even to Tillemont himself. Montfaucon indeed in the preliminary Warning thus speaks: For neither are those to be heard who will have it that the holy Doctor wrote these things at the very time in which the matter was done. Since even the very manner of beginning indicates some time elapsed, and the whole series shows forth a thing meditated and prepared at leisure. But I do not see from what word of the beginning, if we consider only the Greek text, it can be inferred that a notable time had elapsed since the matter was done when Chrysostom was writing his apology. This one thing seems to me to be proved from the beginning and the end of the Work, that Basil was no longer with Chrysostom, but had set out for his own bishopric, when the Saint published his apology, or the books On the Priesthood. But if Chrysostom presently noted down Basil's complaints, and the censures of others learned from Basil, in order to answer them at leisure, he could after some months have brought that illustrious apology to light. But the whole series of the Work intimates that it was written while the offense arising from the declined bishopric was fresh. For which cause I judge that Chrysostom, as soon as he understood how much his plan had displeased many, prepared himself for an Apology, and, having elaborated it with great care, published it after some months. And since in it he disputed many things excellently about the Priesthood, thence the name clung to the Work.

[132] or before it was undertaken: the praise of this Work. According to this opinion, which we believe most probable, the books On the Priesthood were written about the year 375, either a little before the monastic life or at the beginning of that life. But on this opinion it is not necessary that we say that those sayings which are attributed to Basil were feigned for the composing of a dialogue; but we easily understand that almost the very sayings of Basil could be set forth in Chrysostom's style, as also the minutest circumstances of what passed between the two, nay even the gibes of some who murmured against the Saint. Further, this Work On the priesthood has deserved great elogia. St. Jerome had read only this of Chrysostom's Works when about the year 392 he was writing On ecclesiastical Writers. St. Isidore of Pelusium in book 1, letter 156, to Eustathius, commends those books with such an elogium: I indeed have sent the book which you asked of me: and I await from it through you the fruit which has been wont to be exacted from all. For no breast, none, I say, has the reading of this penetrated which it has not wounded with divine love; as one which shows the priesthood to be a thing august and venerable and hard of approach, but teaches that it must be pursued without any stain of reproach. Since indeed that wise and learned interpreter of God's secrets, John, the eye of the Byzantine church and indeed of all churches, composed that book so subtly and prudently and accurately that all — both those who discharge the priesthood as is pleasing to God, and those who negligently and slothfully administer the priestly dignity — may here find both their virtues and their offenses. The elogia of others I pass over.

[133] The occasion of another little Work, written on behalf of the monastic life, When the emperor Valens wished to force the monks to military service; Chrysostom himself, presently to be praised, alleges: namely that the monks were being dragged out of their cells and suffering grievous things, as we shall see. The time is gathered from the History of Paulus Orosius, book 17, chapter 33, where he narrates that Valens reigned alone for four years, Valentinian being dead, adding the following about Valens: Straightway, as with the audacity of unbridled liberty, he gave a law that the monks — that is, Christians who, having dismissed the manifold action of secular affairs, reduce themselves to the one work of the faith — should be forced into military service. St. Jerome agrees in the Chronicle in these words: Valens gave a law that the monks should serve as soldiers. He places these things in the same year as the death of Valentinian I, which is commonly fixed in the year 375, in the month of November. And so Valens's law seems to have been given about the beginning of the year 376, and indeed at Antioch, or at any rate in Syria, where Valens was toward the end of the year 375 and the beginning of 376. Hence it does not seem to be doubted that the persecution

against the monks began in Syria in the year 376. That it began about Easter St. Basil intimates in letter 256, formerly 200, to the monks, given in that year, which he thus begins: When I had heard of that vehement persecution which has been stirred up against you, and that immediately after Easter those who fasted for lawsuits and fights, coming upon your tents, delivered your labors to the fire — preparing indeed for you a dwelling in the heavens not made with hands, but procuring for themselves a treasure of fire, which they used for harming you — I groaned at this event, not pitying you, brethren (far be it), but those who are so swallowed up by malice that they have stretched out their wickedness so far.

[134] When therefore about Easter of the year 376 that persecution of Valens had begun, and in that year 376 they were being dragged from the monasteries; in which many monks perished, on the testimony of Jerome and Orosius, a pious man ran to John living in the monastery, and sought help against so great an evil from his pen, already then known especially through the books On the Priesthood. According to Baronius's chronology John had then scarcely passed twenty years; according to others he was not yet passing thirty. But in our opinion he had passed the age of thirty by a year or two when he drew his pen against so great an impiety of powerful men. Let us hear now from the Work itself against the assailants of the monastic life in what manner he received that most bitter news, and by what reason he was moved to defend the cultivators of the monastic life. In tom. 1, page 45, where he had premised some things about the punishments of those who once were hostile to the temple of Jerusalem, he says that these things were not without cause recalled by him: But because someone coming brought news full of bitterness, of trouble, and of vast insult against God. For he said that there are certain men who would today dare to commit the same things which those barbarians once did, nay far more iniquitous ones: namely that they were driving out on every side those who are the authors of our philosophy being taken up, and with many added threats forbidding them ever to teach any man anything of this kind.

[135] These things are announced to the Saint Hearing these things, I straightway cried out, and often asked the narrator whether he spoke these things in jest. Away with it, said he; for I would never jest in a matter so serious, nor would I say or feign things which I would have ransomed at a great price: and I would have desired with very many prayers not even now, when they have been done, so much as to perceive them with my ear. Then indeed, groaning more bitterly: Truly, I said, these things are as much more wicked than what Mithridates and all those men committed as this temple is more honorable and holier than that. But who, I pray, are these men, or whence, who presume such things? Why, and for what cause, looking to what end, do they cast stones on high, and hurl darts against heaven, and wage war with the God of peace? … By what curtailment of liberty, by what removal of license, by what help of princes have they dared these things? For those kings of the Persians had these things by their own will, but ours desire and wish altogether the contrary, as I persuade myself. Wherefore I am full of great astonishment that, while the emperors follow the pious religion, you say that these things are done with impunity in the midst of the cities. Thus the Saint, in some measure sparing Valens, although he was not ignorant that he was an Arian, because he was at least a Christian and therefore ought not to have turned away from the monks. But Gratian, who was reigning in the West, was a Catholic and pious. But let us hear the messenger answering. For from his words the Saint probably learned Valens's law.

[136] in the solitude, But what, said he, if you shall learn things still more wonderful than these: namely that the authors of these things wish to seem pious and call themselves Christians, and that very many of them are even initiated [*]: nay that one of them, the devil vehemently breathing upon him, dared to say with his execrable tongue that he would depart from the faith and sacrifice to demons: for that he was choked at seeing men free, noble, and able to lead a life full of delights, drawn away to this hard manner of life. Hearing these things I was struck with a bitterer wound, and, conjecturing the evils to come thence, I wept at once for the whole world, and addressed God in these words: Take my soul from me, and rescue me from my necessities, and free me from this mortal life, and transfer me to that place where no one will utter anything of this kind, nor shall I myself hear it… But he, seeing me mourning greatly, said: The time does not demand this: for neither by these tears will you ever be able to recover those who have already perished and who daily perish: nor do I think that the evil will here have its end. But provision must be made that we extinguish that pyre and restrain this pestilence. And, if you will comply with me, laying aside these weepings you will publish a book in which you will give admonitions to sick men of this kind and to seditious ones, for their own salvation and that of all men. This book I, taking it up, shall place in the hand of the sick in the stead of a certain medicine. For there are of their number very many joined to me in friendship, who will suffer me to approach them once and twice and oftener, and I know that they will quickly be freed from this pestilence.

[137] You indeed, I answered, measure our strength by your charity; but there is no force of speaking in me, and he is asked to write on behalf of the monks' and that which seems to be in me I am ashamed to use in this argument: nor do I so fear any other men as all the Gentiles, both those who are now and those who shall be hereafter — whom I have always been wont to blame no less for the sloth of their life than for the manner of their doctrine — lest I now teach them our own evils. For if some of them perceive that among Christians there are men so hostile to virtue and philosophy that they not only shun the labors for attaining it, but do not even suffer words to be made about it; nay, not content even with so great a madness, if they see anyone advising it and discoursing about it, drive him away on every side; if, I say, they perceive these things, I fear lest they judge us not men but beasts, and monsters in the shape of man, and certain noxious demons and enemies of common nature, and pass such a sentence not only on the guilty but on the whole race at once. And he, laughing, said: You jest in saying these things: for I shall now speak more to the point. Do you fear lest they learn from your words what they have long since learned from the very deeds? For as if some most wicked spirit had seized the minds of all, these discourses are turned about on the mouths of all; whether you betake yourself to the forum, or to the shops of physicians, or to any part of the city where those are wont to sit who wish to do no work, you will see a huge laughter raised by all.

[138] But the subject of that laughter and comedy is the merry narration of the things done against holy men. which he, moved by the account of the persecution, For as warriors who have gone through many battles and set up trophies rejoice to narrate their brave deeds, so also do these rejoice in their crimes. One indeed you may hear saying, I was the first to lay hands on that monk, and inflicted blows; another, But I found his cell before the others; another, I stirred up the judge against him more than all. Another boasts of the prison and the miseries of the prison; and that he dragged the Saints through the forum he sets down as part of his praise; another likewise something else: then all follow up these things with profuse guffaws. And these things indeed in the assemblies of Christians. But the Gentiles deride both these men and those who are derided by them: the former, because they have perpetrated these things; the latter, because they have suffered such things; and all things are filled as with a kind of civil war; nay these things are far more atrocious than such a war. For those who waged that war, when they afterwards remember it, pursue its authors with curses, and refer everything that was done in it as received from some evil demon: and those are affected with greater shame who perpetrated more than the rest; but these glory in their daring deeds. Nor is this war more wicked than that only because it is stirred up against holy men who have injured no one; but also because it is against men who know not how to do evil to anyone, and are prepared only to suffer.

[139] Stay your step, said I, stay; enough now of narrations of this kind, unless you wish me to expire: at length determines to do: and in the first book he describes but, leaving me this little strength, let me go. What you have bidden we shall fully carry out: only add nothing more to what has been said; but, departing, pray that, the cloud of grief being shaken off from me, I may obtain from God, who is assailed, some help for the healing of his enemies. And that he will without doubt give, since he is clement and wills not the death of a sinner, but that he be converted and live. Thus, having dismissed him from me, I set about writing these things. Thus far Chrysostom, setting forth the occasion of his lucubration. But presently he adds that he writes rather for the sake of those who were inflicting the aforesaid insults on the monks than for the sake of the monks themselves, since these gain heavenly goods by those evils, but the others render themselves liable to eternal punishments. For as soon as he begins to prove that the persecutors inflict huge evils upon themselves, and do not harm the Saints. But then he shows from how great dangers they withdraw themselves who renounce the world and embrace the religious life; and he proves this from the frequent sins and grave crimes which reign in the cities.

[140] the impiety of those who vex the monks: And that book he concludes with these words: For, to omit all else, this very thing which has impelled us to write these things — does it not alone suffice to point out the pestilence of the present disease? For if not to be moved by the sense of one's own sins, but to perpetrate crimes without any grief, is the utmost term of wickedness, where at last shall we place those new legislators, the authors of this recent and most absurd law, who with greater confidence drive away the teachers of virtue than others do the teachers of wickedness, and assail far more sharply those who wish to amend sins than those who have themselves sinned? Nay rather, they neither bear the latter unwillingly nor accuse them; but these they can scarcely bear, crying out in a manner both by words and by deeds that one must cling tooth and nail to wickedness, and never return to virtue; so that vengeance must be taken not only on those who give their labor to it, but even on those who dare to utter a voice on its behalf. Thus our Saint, even then a Youth, with great freedom set himself as a wall for the house of the Lord against powerful adversaries. But at that freedom, which knew not how to fear, no one will greatly wonder, provided he shall have diligently considered how great a love of God and contempt of earthly things shines forth in all the Saint's writings: for neither could he who desired nothing but God abstain, through fear of men, from freely defending the cause of God.

[141] [in the second he proves to an unbelieving father the happiness of a son who is a monk:] I wonder therefore the more that a Youth otherwise humble had so great confidence that he undertook to prove the happiness of the monastic life to unbelievers also. Further, the arguments of the second and third books Montfaucon sets forth in the preliminary Warning in these words: In the second book he addresses an unbelieving father, or one not yet believing in Christ, whose son, having embraced the Christian religion, he feigns to have withdrawn to the mountain and taken up the life of monks: and by human reasonings and by the examples of the ancient Greeks he proves that he who despises all things is truly rich, and is made more illustrious by virtue than he would be made by wealth, and can be injured by no one. But although he sets this forth after the manner of one feigning, yet at the end of the book he says that there was a friend of his, the son of a heathen man, who, when he had embraced the Christian philosophy, at length by his constancy brought his father — who was trying by threats, chains, and other troubles to recall him to his former life — to sing a palinode, and to prefer that son to the rest, nay to hold him in a father's place.

[142] in the third he treats of the monastic institute with a believing party. In the third, in a far more prolix oration, he addresses a believing father, and warns him not to draw his son, who wishes to withdraw, from his purpose: then he attacks the negligence of parents about the salvation of their sons: he describes παθητικῶς how great a corruption of manners has invaded the city: that salvation can scarcely be cared for amid so great a sink of vices. He praises the life of the monks; and brings forward the history of a young man brought up in the city by a solitary, and teaches a thing worthy of note, namely that the Antiochenes were accustomed to send their sons as adolescents to the monasteries, that after they had been well exercised in virtue and piety they might return home. These three books are almost equal in bulk to the six books On the priesthood. For the rest, some slight difficulties which Tillemont raised against the epoch of the Work's writing, although he himself follows this, we shall not touch, because Montfaucon abundantly solves them.

[143] After the praised Work in du Duc, tom. 4, Another little Work also seems to be a fruit of the solitude, and in Montfaucon, tom. 1, there follows another of lesser bulk, which is elegantly written in praise of the monastic life. To this little Work in Montfaucon there is such a title: A comparison of the power, riches and excellence of a king with a monk living in the truest and Christian philosophy. Montfaucon prefaces it thus: Already above (in the Work just mentioned), book 2, num. 6, Chrysostom, comparing a monk with a king or emperor, proved that he is more fortunate and more powerful than he. And this same thing he demonstrates in this whole little Work; namely that he who gives his labor to philosophy — for so he commonly calls the monastic life — is richer and more powerful than a king, stronger in war, fitter for winning men and for adorning them with benefits, happier in death. Since therefore this little book is of the same argument as the three former, it is opportunely placed after them in one series. Savile, who had incautiously placed this little Work among the spurious, afterwards in his notes declared that this had been done thoughtlessly and rashly, and confessed that the Work is truly worthy of Chrysostom. Certainly we judge that it is not only Chrysostom's offspring, but is to be numbered among the more elegant ones. About the time of the little Work's writing he adds nothing in this place. But in the Life, page 96, he thinks it was written at nearly the same time, and Tillemont in art. 9 judges that it is a fruit of the solitude; and this appears to me very probable. The matter, however, is not certain from any note of time, and that little Work could have been written even in the diaconate. But it does not seem to have been written later, because it was not delivered as a sermon.

[144] Whatever be the case about the time, the little Work thus begins: in which the happiness of a good monk is preferred to royal fortune. When I behold very many men following with the greater love and admiration those things which seem to be goods rather than those which by nature and most truly are goods, I think it necessary to treat here in a brief discourse of both, and to set side by side both the things which are commonly neglected and those which mortals pursue with great zeal, that, being taught the difference of the two, we may make much of the former as serious and salutary, and may learn to despise the latter as things to be reckoned as nothing. Then he accurately compares riches, glory, honors and the other conveniences of princes with the goods of the religious life of the monks; and at length concludes: Reckoning and learning all these things, we must not admire the rich… Therefore when you behold a rich man adorned with a garment, proud with gold, borne in a chariot, walking with a magnificent gait, do not call the man blessed. For temporal riches, and whatever seems to be good, will be corrupted together with this life. But when you see a monk walking alone, humble, gentle, quiet, peaceable, emulate the man, see that you appear an imitator of his philosophy… For these are truly goods, salutary, abiding, etc. These things they will not understand who, as though drunken with the conveniences of this world and the love of earthly things, do not sufficiently consider the future and eternal goods. In death, however, and at the last judgment we shall all confess that the things are most true which that most wise Orator set forth eloquently after his manner.

* namely by baptism

§ XII. Other little Works, namely the book On Compunction to Demetrius, another to Stelechius: three books to Stagirius vexed by a demon.

The Saint likewise in the solitude, The little Works which we now mention are proved to have been written by Chrysostom in the solitude: and perhaps they were composed before he undertook the defense of the monastic life; but of this order there occurs no suitable proof. Chrysostom indeed says at page 132, When lately I had determined, leaving the city, to go to the tents of the monks, etc., and thence it is rightly inferred that this first book On Compunction was written in the monastery: but that lately is perhaps not to be taken so strictly that it is necessary to say that the little Work was composed in the year 375, or at the beginning of the year 376, before the Saint wrote against the assailants of the monastic life. And so I leave it undecided whether it was composed in the year 375, 376, or in the year 377, and hold only for certain that it was written when the Saint was living with the monks as a monk. But that of the two books On Compunction the first is that which was written to Demetrius is certainly made out from the other to Stelechius: for in it at page 143 the Saint praises the former in these words: But that these things are not said by hyperbole, anyone will be able to see who shall read what we have written to Demetrius on the same matter.

[146] induced by Demetrius's frequent prayers, The reason for writing this book to Demetrius the monk was Demetrius's often repeated request, as Chrysostom himself declares, thus beginning the book in tom. 1, page 122: When I see you, blessed Demetrius, assiduously pressing upon me and with much vehemence demanding discourses on Compunction, I always call you blessed and admire the purity of your mind. For it cannot be that anyone come to a desire of such a discourse unless he have first thoroughly purged himself and become superior to all secular cares. Which you may easily discern from those who are held by a like desire, in whom so great a change is suddenly wrought that they are straightway transferred to heaven: for they so let the soul, loosed as from the heaviest chains of worldly cares, fly to its own and natural place. But this indeed rarely befalls many through their whole life: but you, O divine head, I know to burn always with this fire of compunction. Of which thing sleepless nights are witnesses, fountains of tears, love of solitude, perpetually residing and increasing in your soul. What accession then is to be hoped for you from our discourse? For this very thing, that when you have already come to the summit you think that you walk with those creeping on the ground, and call your soul, furnished with wings, a stony one, and that frequently touching and kissing my right hand you say with tears: Break my hardened heart — of how great piety, of how great fervor must it be thought a sign?

[147] writes an illustrious book On Compunction Certainly if it was to rouse us as we slept that you drew us to this argument, I approve that great wisdom and providence of yours; but if it was to take counsel for yourself, thinking that you had need of one to rouse you, I know not how you have from elsewhere taught us that you have no need of our work. But however it be, we shall comply with you and obey, moved by all reasons — namely by your confidence in God, by your zealous request, by your love for us. I could wish that you repay the favor with your prayers, that we may be able both to amend our life and to bring forth in the present something worthy which may both raise up prostrate souls and bind up and restore the relaxed. So humbly, after his manner, speaks Chrysostom, who presently begins diligently to dispute about the frequent sins even of pious men. I could wish now to be silent and to stay the course of my discourse, so am I affected with shame, and I fear to go further, he says at page 130, presently adding: But what gain from our silence, when the very facts cry out that conflict (with God's precepts), and when he who is to judge us knows all things clearly even before the event? At page 133 he teaches the negligence of men and the vanity of present things in these words: No one hitherto, dearest, has been so seized with desire of heavenly things as it was fitting to be seized. Otherwise he would have thought that the things which seem grievous are a shadow and worthy of laughter. Indeed he who looks up to present things will never deem the contemplation of things to come worthy of him; but he who despises them, and thinks that all things are nothing better than shadows and dreams, will quickly attain those great and spiritual things. This is perceived in Chrysostom himself.

[148] He closes a book fairly prolix and elegant with the same modesty to Demetrius the monk. and with the praise of Demetrius with which he had begun it, writing thus: We could indeed have drawn out the discourse further; but since these things have been said by us only for obedience's sake, and for no other cause, they will be more than enough. For I know well that you perfectly possess the virtue of compunction, and can deliver it to others even in silence, if only they were willing to live for a short time with your piety and to see that crucified life: so that if those who now live wish to learn compunction, let them betake themselves to your dwelling; but those who shall be hereafter must hear of your deeds: for I think that even the narration of your life will bring great help to this. Wherefore I beseech you to repay me in turn, and to grant your prayers as my reward; so that I may not only speak about compunction, but also exhibit the thing itself in works. Since doctrine without work brings not only no gain, but even great loss and condemnation to him who orders his life with so great sloth. "For not everyone," he says, "who says to me, Lord, Lord; but he who shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

[149] The other book On Compunction, given likewise to Stelechius who asked for it, Another, to Stelechius who asked, was probably written not immediately after the preceding, but after

that one had been read and approved by many. From the desire of such great men, demanding from Chrysostom writings for inflaming their own piety, it is clearly plain how much they made — not of the profane eloquence of a most eloquent Orator, but of the divine wisdom of a young Monk, to whom a perfect contempt of worldly things and an ardent love of God supplied fiery words, fitted to kindle a heavenly flame even in cold breasts. Nevertheless, since he was not ignorant how far he was from that love with which the supreme Majesty and infinite Goodness is worthy to be loved, he complains no less truly than humbly of the coldness of his own breast, thus beginning the little Work: And how can it be, holy man of God Stelechius, that what you command should be done — that from a soul so weak and cold discourses on Compunction should be published? For I think that he who is to say anything good on this matter must above all others glow and burn with this zeal; so that the words which they bring forth may be able to cut into the minds of hearers more vehemently than glowing iron. But fire of this kind is not present in us, but all our inward parts are ashes and dust. Whence, tell me, whence shall we kindle that flame, when neither is a spark at hand, nor is wood laid beneath, nor does a wind come to blow upon it, on account of that vast fog which the force of sins spreads before our soul? I indeed do not know; but it is for you to say, who command, in what way your command may proceed into work and attain a fitting end.

[150] the book On Compunction, We certainly shall furnish the ministry of the tongue; but do you pray to him who heals the contrite of heart, who gives long-suffering to the faint-hearted, who raises the poor man from the earth, that he may kindle in us that fire which is wont to consume all human infirmity, and to cut away sleep, sloth, and carnal heaviness, and to raise the soul's wings aloft to heaven. And from that vault, as from some lofty summit, it shows all the vanity and counterfeit appearance of the present life. For he who could neither fly away thither nor sit on that watchtower can see neither the earth nor earthly affairs as it is fitting to see them. To this exordium many things agreeing with it are subjoined. But all these I pass over for brevity's sake, and only subjoin the end of the little Work, that we may again hear that most modest Man speaking of himself: To you great men, therefore, he says, these things are enough: but to us, with so many remedies, there remains a strong necessity which can take away from the midst all pride and arrogance. And what is that? The multitude of sins, an evil conscience, which, after it has seized us, does not suffer us to be raised to lofty things even when we wish.

[151] which the Saint concludes with the humblest words. Wherefore I beseech and ask by that confidence which by your good works you have acquired with God, that you stretch out your hand to us as we pray frequently, that we may be able to bewail as we deserve the burden of so great evils, and after our mourning to attain a certain friendly way leading us to heaven; lest, being led down into hell, where no one can confess, we suffer what the reprobate suffer, with no one thereafter snatching us away. For so long as we shall be here, both we shall be able to receive great fruit from you, and you will be able to confer the greatest benefits upon us. But when we shall have come thither, where neither friend, nor brother, nor father will be able to help, nor to be present with us as we pay the penalty, it will at last be necessary in anguish and thick darkness, deprived of all consolation, to pay an immortal punishment, being made the never-to-be-consumed food of an all-devouring flame. Thus the most humble Chrysostom. But let no one infer from the words alleged that he was conscious to himself even of one graver sin: for he knows little of the profound humility of the Saints who would reason thus.

[152] Stagirius, the son of a powerful man, About the time in which the Work of greater bulk was written to Stagirius the monk, possessed by a demon and grievously vexed, Tillemont and Montfaucon do not agree. I judge that it was written, or at any rate begun, in the monastery, and I shall allege the reasons of this my opinion when I have set forth the occasion of writing the Work and its argument. Stagirius was the son of a powerful man, but one of very corrupt manners, as is clear from book 2, tom. 1, page 183, where his adulteries, pride and other vices are touched upon. He loved Stagirius, however, before he had embraced the monastic life; not so afterwards. For you know, says Chrysostom to him in the place assigned, you plainly know, since he formerly loved you exceedingly and held you in the place of all things, how, from the time you passed over to the life of monks, all that affection has been extinguished. For he said that you were doing a base thing, unworthy of the splendor of his ancestors, and that you were disfiguring his glory: and unless the necessity of nature had restrained him, he would perhaps have disowned you. But Stagirius had from infancy learned the sacred Letters, as the Saint says in book 1, page 157, and when he was a secular he had led an honorable life, as Chrysostom testifies in book 3, page 226.

[153] But afterwards, having left his father, he had passed over to the monastic life, becomes a monk and is thereafter seized by a demon: but had not straightway served God among the monks with so great fervor as he afterwards, taught by the demon's vexation, attained. But that he lived in the monastery with Chrysostom is clear from the Saint's words presently to be given. Of his being seized by a demon Chrysostom at page 156 thus speaks: When at the beginning that wicked demon invaded your soul, and with the rest laid you low as you prayed, I was not indeed then present, and I give thanks to the most clement God; yet I learned everything most diligently, no otherwise than if I had myself been present. For Theophilus of Ephesus, a friend of us both, having set out to me, related to me everything in order: the twisted hands, the grim eyes, the foam of the mouth, that horrible and confused voice, the trembling of the body, the long deprivation of sense, and the terrible sight which was shown on that night. For he said that a certain most ferocious swine, fouled with a great quantity of mud, kept leaping upon you and struggling with you. And when he who slept beside you, disturbed by that vision, had awakened, he found you again vexed by the demon.

[154] When therefore he announced these things, I confess that he spread over me as great a cloud of grief Chrysostom, grieving at this, as this most hard demon did over your charity. But after I had recovered myself from a bitter and long grief, nothing in the world now seemed to me grievous, nothing sweet; but although I had long held the vanity of the world in contempt and had been wont to blame it, then most of all did I feel this, and a greater affection and longing for your love came upon me: for such is the nature of sad events, which is wont greatly to increase friendship; and this is clear from the fact that it can easily bring back even enmities into favor. For there is scarcely anyone so savage and so mad that, if he see an enemy distressed by some grievous accident, he can keep his hatred against him. But if we pity even enemies, and hold them in the place of friends, when we see them suffering something grievous and unlooked for, consider, I pray, diligently what I must have suffered, or in what state of mind I must have been, while I heard that he whom of all men I most love, and whom I hold no less dear than myself, was most bitterly vexed and was failing with grief. Do not therefore think that we, exempt from your vexation, apply to you the fomentations of consolation. For although by God's grace I am free from that perturbation and casting down of the devil, yet I claim for myself an equal share with you of this sadness and grief: and in this those will believe me who have learned to love as they ought. These things the Saint says of his own grief at his friend's misfortune.

[155] But his vast sadness from various causes he explains at page 155 in these words: and knowing the manifold causes of grief, There seems therefore to be one cause of your sadness, namely the madness of this most wicked demon: but from this as from a root, if one look rightly, he will notice that very many sad things arise. Which I gather not only from myself, but from those things which, while you were present, I often heard you complaining of. First, that lately, when you lived after the secular manner, you suffered nothing of the sort; but when you crucified yourself to the world, then you came to the sense of the disease — a thing which could indeed cast one into perturbation and despair. Secondly, that you knew very many who, while they lived delicately, were seized with this plague; yet after a short time were so freed from that infirmity that, restored to perfect soundness, they both took wives and begot very many children, and enjoyed all the conveniences of the present life, and thereafter suffered nothing of the sort: whereas you, though you have worn away so much time in fastings and night-watchings and the rest of the austerity of life, have hitherto found no deliverance from your troubles. Thirdly, that although that holy man showed so great power over other men, he could accomplish nothing of the kind in your beloved self — neither he, nor those who were with him, more powerful than he even in this kind, but all departed from you with a blush, their business unaccomplished. Besides this, you said that you were exceedingly distressed on another score, that the force of grief so seized your mind that often it is little short of your running to the noose, the river and the precipice.

[156] with which Stagirius, possessed, was afflicted, In the fifth place next, that you behold your equals and companions, who entered upon this life with you, living tranquilly; but yourself still exposed to a most savage storm, and — what indeed is most wretched of all — consigned to a prison. For you asserted that those who are bound with iron are not so to be wept for as those who have been bound with a chain of this kind. You said too that there was besides another thing which chiefly troubled you: that you feared and trembled lest, if your father should perceive these things, he should afflict with the greatest injuries and inconveniences those holy men who received you from the beginning: since, relying on the greatest strength and wealth and stirred with indignation, he would attempt everything against them with the utmost audacity, and would spare no one of their number who met him. And that hitherto indeed your mother had been able to withdraw the matter from your father's knowledge, and had often repelled him when he inquired about you; but that in the process of time this cautious dissimulation of your mother would be detected, and then he would press most sharply both upon her and upon the monks. Lastly, which is the highest summit of all evils, you said that you had no certain confidence of things to come, nor knew more clearly whether there would ever be a release and deliverance from this disease, since often, this expectation having been entertained, you had fallen back into the same misery. Thus far Chrysostom about the causes of the very great sadness with which Stagirius was afflicted.

[157] he writes three books to console and strengthen him, But since St. Chrysostom desired to soothe this grief and to render that most bitter affliction useful to Stagirius, and could not go to the man, being hindered by a pain in the head, he wrote to him three fairly prolix books, and began them with the following words: It would indeed have been fitting, O most loving

Stagirius of all men, that we should now be with you, and pass into fellowship with your troubles, and by helping in deed, exhorting in words, and rendering all the other services according to our strength, should soothe some part of your grief: but since both the ill health of the body and the pain that has come upon our head have compelled us to remain at home, and have taken from us the ministry of so great a gain, we shall not neglect to bring in what remains, as ability shall allow, for your consolation and for our own profit. For this will perhaps profit you more toward bearing most bravely your present adverse chances. But if we shall accomplish nothing of the kind, it will certainly console us that in nothing have we deserted our duty, and have omitted no diligence, and it will make us of a better mind for the future. For he who has fulfilled all things which he judged would most contribute to lightening griefs, even though he accomplish nothing else, is at least freed from the accusation of his own thought and conscience, and, the burden of blame being laid aside, is compelled to bear the load of sadness alone.

[158] If therefore I were of the number of those who, being more familiarly joined to God, have very great power with him, in the first showing that that vexation is a sign of God's love, I should assuredly never cease to pray and beseech for a head most dear to me: but since the multitude of my crimes has taken from me strength and confidence of this kind, I shall endeavor to bring you the consolation of words. For to those also who labor under bodily ill health, although it is the physicians' part to drive away pains and to restrain the infirmity, yet the consolation of words is not forbidden to the servants who are in attendance: nay rather these are they who use very many words in consoling, when they are well affected toward their masters. If therefore anything shall be said by us which can extinguish this immense grief of yours, it will be as we wish: but if we shall have been able to find or to speak nothing of the kind, yet our will and purpose he will approve who through the blessed Paul commanded us to weep with them that weep and to grieve with the lowly. These things the Saint says of his purpose and of the reason for writing the Work, with his accustomed modesty, presently adding the causes of Stagirius's grief already given, that he may thus enter upon the matter. But then he disputes many things eloquently about the providence of God, exercising with various afflictions in this life not only the wicked but the good also, for their own profit: and from what has been disputed he draws this conclusion, with which he ends the first book: And so that which seems a sign of divine abandonment is a proof of his highest affection and love toward you.

[159] But the second he begins in this manner: And let it suffice to have said these things about God's providence, and in the second and third discoursing against excessive grief. and how he exercises you in this way not turning away from you and cursing you, but even loving you exceedingly. But since you have complained that you are vehemently distressed on another score also, because often the demon persuades you to take away your life either by the sea, or by a precipice, or by any other kind of death, come, let us discourse briefly about thoughts of this kind also. For that counsel is not the demon's alone, but also of grief; nay rather of grief than of the demon, and perhaps of grief alone. This grief, moreover, he endeavors to take away, adducing examples of the old and new Testament and alleging many reasons. But among other things he sets before Stagirius's eyes the profit already obtained from that affliction. For I hear, he says at page 180, that so great increases of piety have come to you that you now contend in virtue not with those youths, but with great and admirable men, etc. The third book tends to the same end, as the Saint professes at the beginning, which is such: Those things which have been said could indeed have sufficed to extinguish the flame of grief and to persuade you to be of a better and more tranquil mind: but that the consolation may be fuller, I have determined to add this book also. Thus far about the purpose of a Work truly elegant and apt for consoling any afflicted persons.

[160] About the time I think the opinion of Baronius and Tillemont must be followed, who judge that that notable lucubration was completed by Chrysostom in the desert. Someone believes this Work was written at Antioch in the diaconate: Socrates indeed asserts that the books to Stagirius — in Greek πρὸς Σταγείριον, not against Stagirius, as Valois badly expressed the Greek words — were written after the Saint had been promoted to the diaconate: but his authority is altogether of small weight, as Montfaucon confesses, although he follows his opinion for reasons which we shall examine. Having adduced the beginning of the Work, which I gave at num. 157, Montfaucon thus reasons in the preliminary Warning: He addresses (in those words) Stagirius as then living at Antioch; and while he says that he is compelled to remain at home by infirmity of body, and cannot go to Stagirius, he intimates that he is staying in the same city: for if he had then been living in the desert and in the recesses of the mountains, he would, as it seems, have said this very thing. But by this reasoning it does not seem to me to be made out that Chrysostom was at Antioch when he wrote to Stagirius, much less that he was a deacon. For first, it was not necessary that Chrysostom should name the place where he was living, since that was without doubt known to Stagirius. Secondly, that place was not so far distant from Antioch but that Chrysostom could have come to Antioch to Stagirius, had he not been hindered by infirmity of body.

[161] but the reasons adduced do not make this out: Further, what Montfaucon supposes as certain, that Stagirius was then living at Antioch, rests only on an uncertain conjecture, from which Tillemont gathers it in Note 12. Chrysostom in book 3, page 223, tells Stagirius to go to the hospice, to the prison, to the vestibules of the baths, to the lodging of the poor, that he may behold the manifold kinds of diseases and of various miseries: and thence Tillemont concludes that he was in a city where those things were, and probably at Antioch. But that consequence is uncertain. For if the Saint altogether wished that Stagirius should go to those places, and did not rather speak in such a way that he himself in a brief discourse, and Stagirius in thought, should run over at the same time the miseries of many, Stagirius could betake himself to all those places even if he did not live in the city itself, if only he were in some monastery near enough to the city. Certainly Stagirius had gone to many places to obtain a cure; but, disappointed of his hope, he had returned home, on Chrysostom's testimony, book 1, page 179. Why then could he not go to others for another cause, even if he lived not in the city but in his own monastery? But let us suppose for a moment that he was at Antioch; so much the more certain will it be that Chrysostom was not there. For who would believe that our Saint was not hindered by his infirmity from writing three books of such bulk, but that infirmity was so great a hindrance to him that he could not go to a friend staying in the same city?

[162] more probably it was written in the solitude in the year 377 or 378. Now I subjoin the reasons by which I am led to believe that that Work was composed in the monastery rather than in the diaconate. First, Chrysostom intimates that he was a monk when Stagirius was first seized by the demon; but nowhere does he intimate that he was afterwards compelled by illness to return to Antioch. But he would probably not have kept silence if he had been compelled by illness to desert the monastic life. Secondly, Chrysostom says in book 2, page 181: And they have here pricked the hearts of very many while they related your institutes. And yet it is not probable that things pertaining to Stagirius were related to very many at Antioch, lest they should become known to his father. This here therefore does not seem to be understood of Antioch, but of the monastery in which Chrysostom was living. And so I judge it more probable that the three books to Stagirius were written in the year 377 or 378, before Chrysostom withdrew to the cave to dwell there alone; and that this infirmity of which he speaks at the beginning was another than that by which he was compelled to return to Antioch, and was not so grave. I confess, however, that the reasons which I have alleged are not so weighty as to make the time of the Work's writing altogether certain.

[163] George of Alexandria in Savile, page 169, narrates various things above the natural order Certain uncertain marvels from George. which he will have happened to Chrysostom in the monastic life. First he sets forth an apparition of the Apostles Peter and John, which signifies the Saint's excellent skill in expounding the sacred Scriptures, if it is true. For St. John is said to have delivered to him a volume of Scripture, Peter the keys. And as witness of the whole vision Hesychius is cited, who is asserted to have narrated it to the brethren. Presently at page 170 George begins to report some miracles: namely a noble Antiochene freed by the Saint's patronage from an ailment of the head and eye; then another noble Antiochene, Archelaus by name, who was infected with leprosy, cleansed. After some other things about those who followed the Saint to the monastic life, he adds at page 173 a miracle of a right eye restored to a certain Eucleus, and presently another about a flux of blood healed in Christina; nay, he even affirms that a savage lion was killed beneath a fixed cross. But all these things are too uncertain to deserve our attention: nor do I judge that more should be added about them, since the ancients were silent, and George's credit is not sufficiently approved. These things therefore having been briefly touched upon, let us return to more certain matters.

§ XIII. The Saint, compelled by illness, returns to Antioch, where he is ordained deacon: deeds in the time of his diaconate, and various writings.

The Saint, compelled by a grave infirmity, returns from the desert to Antioch: Palladius in the Dialogue, page 41, having set forth Chrysostom's austere life while dwelling in the cave, thus proceeds: But since he could not help himself (in the infirmity of the body), he again laid hold of the ecclesiastical harbor. And this was the work of divine providence, which for the profit of the Church drew him back through infirmity from the labors of the monastic life, that, hindered by necessity, he might be torn away from the caves. Thence, after he had ministered at the altar five years, he is ordained deacon by Meletius. The last words from the Greek we shall more rightly render thus in Latin: Thence he is ordained deacon by Meletius, and served the altar five years. So in the Epitome of the life in Bigot, page 227: Again he returns to the Church, and is ordained deacon, and was renowned for five years. Socrates agrees, in book 6, chapter 3, that he was ordained deacon by Meletius. But Meletius, who after the death of the emperor Valens had returned from exile to Antioch, died in the year 381 at the time of the council of Constantinople, to which he had set out in the same year, probably in the spring season, since he died about the month of May or June, so far as appears. Certainly he does not seem to have died on the XII of February, as Bolland believed, because on that day his cult was.

[165] From these things it follows that that ordination cannot be fixed after the earlier months of the year 381. and there he is ordained deacon. If now we consider that the Saint was five years a deacon and twelve years a priest before he was consecrated bishop — which we shall see was done in the month of February of the year 398 — no doubt will remain that the ordination to the diaconate happened in the year 380 as it drew toward its end, or at the beginning of the year 381.

Hence I judge that Chrysostom returned to Antioch in the year 380, and, after health had in some measure been restored to him, was ordained deacon in the same year 380 or at the beginning of 381. If the ordination was made in the year 381, we have five years of the diaconate and twelve of the priesthood before the episcopal ordination without any at least notable increase; but if it happened in the year 380, some months were added to those seventeen years.

[166] The opinion of Socrates, who makes the Saint doubt for three years, Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, subjoins this to the ordination reported: After this, Meletius having died at Constantinople (for thither Meletius had set out on account of the ordination of Gregory Nazianzen), John, withdrawing from the company of the Meletians, and yet not embracing the communion of Paulinus, lived three continuous years in the utmost quiet. That these things may be understood by less skilled readers, a few things must briefly be observed about the division which had arisen at Antioch on Meletius's occasion, and which endured even at that time. Meletius in the time of the Arian emperor Constantius was elected patriarch of Antioch by the efforts of the Arians, who believed him addicted to their party. Hence, although Meletius straightway openly professed himself a Catholic and orthodox, some of the orthodox held him suspect and would not communicate with Meletius. For that cause Lucifer of Cagliari, legate of the Apostolic See, in the year 362 ordained Paulinus bishop for the Antiochenes. By this ordination the church of Antioch had two orthodox bishops, and the Catholics were divided into two parts, some adhering to Meletius, others to Paulinus. Many labored in vain to take away that division. If we believe Socrates, book 5, chapter 5, peace between the two parties had been entered into on this condition, that when one of them died the other alone should thereafter preside over the Catholics of Antioch, with no one substituted in the place of the deceased. But that condition, if it was made, was certainly not kept after the death of St. Meletius, but in the place of the deceased Flavian was elected, St. Gregory Nazianzen laboring in vain that no one be substituted for Meletius.

[167] is not probable, whether he was to follow the party of bishop Flavian: Chrysostom therefore, who had always adhered to St. Meletius, could doubt whether he ought likewise to adhere to Flavian, by whose substitution the division was continued; and Socrates will have it that the Saint really doubted, and for three years joined himself to neither party. But Tillemont in Note 13 refutes Socrates as here narrating improbable things, and on that occasion recounts many of his errors about St. Chrysostom. Among these is that which he immediately subjoins to the words alleged, in this manner: But at length after the death of Paulinus he is ordained priest by Evagrius his successor. For it is certain that he was ordained priest by Flavian, before Evagrius had succeeded Paulinus: and thence it is neither probable nor likely that the Saint abstained from Flavian's communion for three whole years, although perhaps he doubted for some time to which bishop, Paulinus or Flavian, he should join himself, because many disapproved the election of Flavian, a man otherwise illustrious, as contrary to the hoped-for peace. George of Alexandria at page 176, from Socrates's words as given, I think, asserted that he returned to the monastery after his ordination and remained there three years. But that return to the monastery does not sufficiently agree with the words of Palladius, who asserts that the Saint ministered at the altar five years, and intimates in some measure that he did this at Antioch, not in the monastery. Wherefore neither that utmost quiet of three years asserted by Socrates, nor the return to the monastery probably feigned from it, is probable enough.

[168] Nay, Socrates seems to intimate even more, especially since he subjoins but he errs more openly when he says that he was ordained by Evagrius: that Chrysostom was ordained priest by Evagrius; by which he supposes that he was alien from Flavian's communion. That this is altogether false, Chrysostom's own words in his first Sermon, when he had been ordained priest, make out. For in it, tom. 1, page 442, he thus speaks of Meletius and Flavian: Indeed when we had lost that former father, who also begot this one for us, our affairs were in straits… But when this man arrived and was seen in clear light, he brought it about that all that straitness passed away like a cloud, and all troubles vanished. Nor did he take away that grief from us little by little, but so suddenly, as though that same blessed man had come back to life from the tomb and had ascended anew upon this throne.

[169] Again in the Homily on St. Meletius, tom. 2, page 522, he has this: for he constantly adhered to Flavian. For the kind and clement God, pitying our grief, quickly gave us another Pastor, who accurately reproduced his virtues. Who, when he had ascended the see, straightway stripped us of our lowly and mournful garment, and extinguished our grief, but rather renewed the memory of the blessed Meletius. These things altogether suffice for us to believe that Chrysostom always followed the party of Flavian, whom in many other places he greatly praised; although at the beginning he perhaps proceeded cautiously, and both from love of the solitary life and from hatred of the division of the church of Antioch could abstain rather long from taking part in counsels. The excessive censures also with which the Meletians assailed the Paulinians could bring it about that the Saint fled their company. Certainly after some years, in the Homily on the Anathema, he reproves his own Meletians with most weighty words for censures of this kind, as may be seen in tom. 1, page 691.

[170] Tillemont in art. XI suspects that a certain praiseworthy deed which Chrysostom narrates in Homily 46 on the Acts of the Apostles about a comrade of his The zeal of a certain deacon for instructing the ignorant: must not only be recalled to this time, but even attributed to Chrysostom himself. The deed deserves to be transferred hither. The Saint there thus prefaces: I shall tell something which befell one of my familiar friends. Here the Greek words are rightly expressed from the edition of Fronton du Duc, ἐίκω τι καί τινι τῶν ἐμοὶ συνήφων συνβάν. But in Montfaucon they are wrongly thus expressed: I shall tell something which befell both me and a certain familiar friend of mine. For that and me is not in the Greek. The matter itself in Montfaucon is thus set forth in Latin: When the wrath of God fell, and he was quite a young man and in the order of deacons: the bishop then being absent, and none of the priests caring, in one night they baptized in a crowd and rashly many thousands of men, and all were simply baptized knowing nothing. These he, receiving them privately, addressed by hundreds and by two hundreds, about no other matter than the mysteries only — namely that he would not permit the uninitiated to approach. Many thought that he did this out of ambition for the primacy. But he, making nothing of their opinion, did not go on doing it longer, but ceased straightway; namely when the necessity ceased.

[171] Chrysostom praises the deed, and teaches that he gave no just cause of offense, that deacon was not Chrysostom himself, but a comrade of his. because the manner of instructing the ignorant was lawful; but that he rightly ceased when the necessity was removed. For the rest, I cannot judge that that deacon was Chrysostom himself: for since he says that this befell a certain comrade of his, he seems clearly to distinguish him from himself: and consequently it is uncertain whether the matter happened in the time of Chrysostom's diaconate or earlier. Nay, if we consider the times, we shall easily see that the matter did not happen when Chrysostom was a deacon, but rather in the time of Meletius's exile. For the Saint asserts that, the bishop then being absent, that deacon undertook the care of instructing the ignorant. But in the time of Chrysostom's diaconate the bishop of Antioch was never absent for so long a time that a necessity of instructing the ignorant could seem to have arisen for a deacon: but that could easily arise in the time of Meletius's exile; at that time also Chrysostom was a young man, such as he asserts his comrade was when he did these things.

[172] [Various writings the Saint published; he did not preach to the congregation in the time of his diaconate.] Marcellinus in the Chronicle at the year 398 says of Chrysostom: Where (namely at Antioch), being a deacon for five continuous years, he published many and divine books. Of these writings of the Saint we shall assign some below. Baronius at the year 382, num. 53 and following, judges that Chrysostom not only wrote much in the diaconate, but also preached various discourses to the people of Antioch at that time. But Chrysostom himself is openly contrary to this opinion in the Sermon just praised, which he delivered when he had been ordained priest: for he there clearly shows that he had not before spoken to the congregation. A few things I transfer hither. In tom. 1, page 427, he thus addresses the people: Since we have undergone so great a hazard for you and for your charity, than which nothing is more violent or more imperious, as one which has drawn us, not at all skilled in speaking, to speak, and has made us go out into the arena of teaching, although before this we never touched this kind of wrestling-school, but have always been wont to enjoy quiet silence in the rank of hearers. Near the end he again says: We indeed had need of protection before also (of the prayers which he was asking), while we passed our life alone, free from business, etc. In Homily 16 to the People of Antioch, tom. 2, page 162, he says: Behold, this is the second year since I have been discoursing to your charity. But that that Homily was likewise delivered in the second year of his priesthood we shall see in its place. And so Chrysostom did not discourse publicly to the people when he was a deacon, as Tillemont has already observed. But at that time he published many excellent writings, of which I shall investigate some.

§ XIV. A twofold Treatise to a young Widow: the book On Virginity.

The book To a young Widow Among the earlier writings of the Saint in the time of the diaconate I judge that there must be numbered the elegant treatise with which Chrysostom consoled the widow of Therasius, a man of the first rank, a young woman in age, and which for that cause is inscribed To a young Widow. Further, this treatise was certainly written after the tragic death of the emperor Valens, which is narrated at page 345 as not long past. For of the disaster then received he thus begins to speak at page 344: And since mention of this war has occurred, a great troop of widows meets me, of whom some formerly received very great splendor from their husbands' dignity, but now suddenly all, clothed in a black and mournful robe, pass all their time in tears. Hence there is no doubt that he speaks of Theodosius when he says that his wife is as it were unnerved with fear, because her husband from the time in which he took the diadem down to this present day is engaged in war and battles, and pines away more from the shame and the reproaches with which he is assailed on every side than from calamities.

[174] For Theodosius carried on more happily the war against the Goths in which Valens had perished, written more probably in the year 381: and clashed with them in the year 379 and 380; but before the year 381 he had not won such great victories over the Goths as to have restrained their insolence, of which Chrysostom subjoins much, thus proceeding: For what never happened before now happens, that the barbarians, leaving their own region, have run through many thousands of stadia of our region, and, the fields being burned and the cities taken, have cast off all thought of returning home. Many other things are subjoined about the insolence of those Barbarians. Wherefore, since the affairs of the Goths began chiefly to totter

in the year 381, and peace with them followed in the year 382, I judge that that treatise was written in the year 381. For it cannot be fixed in the year 379, in which Theodosius was made emperor, nor in the year 380, in which Chrysostom returned sick to Antioch. The year 381 or 382 therefore must be chosen; and the former indeed appears to me more probable, because so many things are said about the arrogance of the Goths that they seem scarcely to have been able to be said in the year 382. About that war of Theodosius with the Goths one may see Tillemont, tom. 5 of the Emperors, in Theodosius.

[175] The occasion of writing was the grief of that widow who, after five years of marriage with Therasius, [he consoles her on the death of her husband, and exhorts her not to desire another.] a man noble, pious and upright, whom she hoped would soon be raised to the throne of the prefects, had lost that so beloved husband by an untimely death. This widow therefore the Saint undertook to console by that little Work, after the first vehemence of her grief had somewhat abated, as he himself declares near the beginning. For we have heard, he says, from your uncle, that henceforth we may be confident: for that even maidservants who are somewhat more honored dare to bring in prolix discourses about these matters; nay, women from outside also, and those who are either related to you by family or in any other way fit for discharging this office. And if you admit their discourses, we are very confident, and hold it for certain, that you will not despise ours, but will apply quiet and tranquillity, so far as you can, to the hearing of them. Further, Chrysostom not only consoles that widow with pious reasons, but also not obscurely exhorts her not to take another husband, but to remain in widowhood and to seek God alone. So long therefore, as I was saying, he says at page 341, as you lived with the blessed Therasius, he showed you that honor and that zeal for your advantages which were to be expected from a husband. But now in his place you have the Lord God of all, who, as he was with you before, will now do this much more abundantly and fully. Page 547: Seek heaven, and all the things which conduce to passing your life there, and nothing of the things which happen here will be able to harm you, not even the prince of darkness himself, provided we do not harm ourselves. For even if anyone despoil us of our goods, even if he cut down the body, none of these things touch us, provided our mind remain unimpaired for us. More I do not adduce: but not a few historical things from the same little Work I have already recited before.

[176] To the same woman he more probably wrote On not repeating Marriage: In Montfaucon, tom. 1, page 349, there is subjoined to this another little Work, to which this title is prefixed: Of the same, to the same, on not repeating marriage. That title intimates that this little Work also was directed to the widow of Therasius. Besides, to this opinion the very argument on not repeating marriage is favorable: for what in the first little Work he had urged in various places, in this he strives altogether to persuade by many arguments. Nevertheless, because in that little Work the Saint addresses not one widow by name but all in general, Tillemont in art. 12 and Montfaucon in the Warning at page 337 judge that it was not written to the same widow, but is rather a sermon delivered to a congregation. Montfaucon gathers this from the conclusion of the little Work, because he closes it in this manner: Since to him (Christ) belongs all glory, honor and adoration, etc., as he is wont to conclude his homilies. This, he says, everyone sees to be the epilogue of a discourse. Wherefore either that in the title, To the same, was rashly added by some copyist; or, if Chrysostom truly sent that oration to Therasius's wife, he afterwards composed it in the manner of a homily and recited it in an assembly. But to this opinion he afterwards adhered less in the Life, page 97; but he doubts whether it be a book or a homily.

[177] for that little Work is a book, not a homily: Whatever others have thought, it seems to me a book or treatise, not a homily to the people. For neither was Chrysostom wont so to direct a whole sermon to one kind of men, as this book is directed to widows alone. Nor do I find anything in the whole treatise by which it can be made out that the discourse is directed to a multitude standing about. But as regards the conclusion, Montfaucon himself notes of it thus: This common conclusion is lacking in the Colbertine (codex), and is perhaps an addition of a copyist. There is therefore greater suspicion that that conclusion was added than the title. Besides, even if the conclusion were certainly Chrysostom's, from it it would not become certain that it is a homily rather than a book. Certainly at the end of the Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians a like clause is found: nor yet from that would it legitimately be concluded that that Commentary, as it now stands, was preached to the people. The Saint could ascribe praise to the Most Holy Trinity in written little Works equally as in homilies, although he did not do so everywhere. But in this little Work mention is made of Christ before the conclusion, and on that occasion he could also be invited to praise him with the Father and the Holy Spirit. And so it appears to me more probable that the title is legitimate, and that this little Work also was composed in the diaconate, and inscribed to one widow that it might profit all.

[178] in it Chrysostom dissuades, but does not disapprove, second marriages. For the rest, whatever be the case about the time of the little Work's writing, the Saint only urges that widows should not contract second marriages, just as the Apostle urges virginity but does not command it. This mind of his he had already declared before, and at the end declares again in these words: These things we have brought forward not as judging them necessary, or as condemning those who are unwilling to remain in widowhood; but doing this one thing by our exhortation and admonition, that they be not willing to cleave perpetually fixed to the earth, but, once loosed, may remain in liberty, may aspire to heaven, may employ a heavenly manner of living, and, joined to Christ, may perform all those things which befit those who have obtained so great a Bridegroom: since to him belongs all glory, etc.

[179] The book On Virginity, certainly composed before the episcopate, Montfaucon in the Life of Chrysostom, page 97, after the little Works just mentioned, thus speaks of another of greater bulk: The very long and excellent book On Virginity, which fills more than sixty-eight pages, we think John published at Antioch, and before he was a priest. For that he published it at Antioch he himself testifies in Homily XIX on the epistle to the Corinthians, in these words: "But if we pass over what should be said about virginity, let no one condemn us for negligence. For a whole book on this passage has been published by us: and since we have there pursued all things as accurately and diligently as we could, we have thought it superfluous to set them forth here again." Further, that passage which in Homily XIX on the First Epistle to the Corinthians he proposes to himself as his theme — namely, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," etc. — he perpetually handles and discusses in this book On Virginity; so that it is just as certain that this book On Virginity is commemorated in that Homily as it is certain, on Chrysostom's own testimony and by Tillemont's confession, that the Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians were delivered at Antioch… It is therefore indubitable … that the book On Virginity was published at Antioch…

[180] But at what time he wrote it we nowhere find. and more probably in the diaconate: I think, however, that it can probably be said that he prepared this book before he was a priest, when he had more leisure. For after he was ordained priest he discharged the office of preaching most frequently, so that he had no leisure to compose such prolix books. Otherwise, moreover, if he had written these things as a priest, he would, as one may believe, have distributed the whole into homilies, as the Homilies On Penance, On the Incomprehensible, On Lazarus, etc. This reasoning certainly makes out that that book was published at Antioch, or at any rate before Chrysostom left Antioch. But Montfaucon himself doubts, in tom. 1, page 267, in the Warning before the book On Virginity, whether it was perhaps not published when the Saint was living in the solitude. I confess that it cannot certainly be made out that it was published in the diaconate. Nevertheless this appears to me most probable, both because the Saint seems to have written books through the whole time of his diaconate, and therefore had sufficient leisure for composing this together with the others to be bound to that time, and because at that time he wrote about widowhood, which matter is very near to the argument about Virginity. But in the solitude he does not seem to have treated of such matter, nor to have spent his whole time thus in studies.

[181] Tillemont in Note 46 confesses that the book On Virginity seems to be commemorated by Chrysostom as praised above; Tillemont is refuted, who binds that Work to the episcopate. yet he binds it to the time of the episcopate, because Chrysostom in it, num. 9, in Montfaucon page 275, thus speaks: Do I then forbid marriage, who do not accuse the married? I forbid fornications and adulteries, but not marriage: and those who dare these things I chastise and proscribe from the assembly of the Church. He judges that the Saint could not have spoken thus unless he had been a bishop. But Montfaucon shows in the Warning that Chrysostom in other places also spoke with so great authority before he was a bishop; and he strives to show that Chrysostom says these things in the person of St. Paul, or brings in St. Paul speaking. To me indeed it does not seem necessary that we have recourse to that. Let Chrysostom himself speak: what at last will those words signify, I proscribe from the assembly of the Church? This, namely, in my judgment: I judge and teach that they must be proscribed from the assembly of the Church. For that manner of speaking is common enough. Those very words which precede — I forbid fornications and adulteries — must be expounded in nearly the same way. For in so speaking he does not signify that he is making a law for forbidding fornications, but that he teaches that they are forbidden. There is therefore no doubt that the Saint published that notable Work On Virginity before the episcopate: nor can it be bound to any time so probably as to the diaconate. In it the Saint not only extols virginity with great elogia, but at the same time gives excellent precepts to Virgins for living rightly and holily.

§ XV. The book on St. Babylas against Julian and the gentiles: it cannot be shown that the Saint erred in that treatise against the history of St. Babylas, as some believe.

The book on St. Babylas against Julian and the gentiles, about the year 382 After we have seen priests, monks, widows and virgins instructed by St. Chrysostom before he took up the dignity of the priesthood, and other little Works written by him, it is time that we should see the gentiles also assailed by his pen. For in the time of his diaconate he began to exercise his pen against the gentiles, and namely attacked in a fairly prolix book the emperor Julian the apostate and Libanius the sophist, formerly his master in eloquence. That little Work is contained in du Duc, tom. 1 of Chrysostom's Works; but in Montfaucon, tom. 2. Here at page 573 the Saint

thus speaks of the temple of Apollo near Antioch which was burned down, which was consumed by fire in the time of Julian the apostate in the year 362: For behold, the twentieth year from that time is now passing, etc. From this passage Baronius, Tillemont and Montfaucon rightly gather that that book was written by Chrysostom about the year 382, that is, in the time of his diaconate.

[183] was written; it was not delivered as a sermon. Hermant indeed in the Life, chapter 20, believes that it was composed later, when the Saint was a priest, because he thought that it was an oration delivered to a congregation. But that opinion is improbable: for although Chrysostom from time to time directs his speech in some manner to the people, others also do this who write little Works to be read by many; so that from this nothing can be inferred. On the contrary the prolixity of the book sufficiently shows that it was not delivered as a sermon. The style of the book too is that of a book rather than of a homily: and at page 560 Chrysostom openly says that he is writing these things, where he has it thus: For therefore do I write these things while there are still living witnesses, lest anyone should think that I, narrating certain old matters to those who are ignorant, am lying with great license. For of those who saw them both old men and young still survive, all of whom I ask that, if anything has been added by me, they come forward and refute me: but they cannot convict me of having added anything; of having omitted something, they can. There is therefore no doubt that it is a book written against the gentiles, not a homily delivered before the people.

[184] In this Work the Saint had a great care for truth, Besides, from the words alleged it is clear that in this little Work the holy Deacon had a great care to narrate none but true facts. And indeed not only the Man's sanctity ought to persuade us that Chrysostom watched greatly lest he should bring forward anything false; but the very adversaries whom he assailed could render him most cautious in this part. He undertook to refute the emperor Julian, whose fame was most dear to all the gentiles, and whose vindicators could be as many learned gentiles as were living. He was carping at and deriding the living Libanius, a sophist advanced in age, celebrated for eloquence and for many writings, who would have left neither Julian nor himself unavenged, if Chrysostom by reporting false things had given occasion by which he in turn could carp at and deride him. There was therefore the greatest necessity of accurate truth, lest the gentiles should say that they were being assailed with fictitious histories. Further, as it was necessary that he should allege none but true facts, so in time and place he seems to have been near enough to those things which he reports about the martyrdom and the cause of the martyrdom of St. Babylas not to err in the few facts which he alleges about them.

[185] For he was writing at Antioch, where the matter had been done. He was writing about a hundred and thirty years after St. Babylas's martyrdom. as was altogether necessary. Through the whole intervening time Antioch had had its own bishops with clergy. Who then would believe that no monuments of St. Babylas's martyrdom had been preserved among the Antiochenes down to Chrysostom's times? What prudent man would judge that a man so religious, so wise, so prudent, used the uncertain rumors of the crowd to defend the Christian religion against learned, eloquent and audacious gentiles? These things assuredly appear incredible to me. Nay, they ought to have appeared incredible to Tillemont, who observes that the history of the life and miracles of St. Babylas seemed to St. Chrysostom of such moment for the whole Church that he used all his eloquence in narrating it, and uses it for confounding the gentiles. For thus he speaks in tom. 3 of the Monuments of the Church, when he begins the article on St. Babylas.

[186] Nevertheless Tillemont in the place alleged and in the Annotations, Nevertheless Tillemont and Montfaucon believe and again in tom. 3 of the Emperors, Note 1 on Philip, acknowledges many errors in St. Chrysostom, and reports such a history of St. Babylas that the gentiles could not undeservedly have derided our Saint as an inept declaimer alleging foolish little fables, if we should prefer to believe Tillemont's criticism rather than the diligence of Chrysostom assailing the gentiles. Tillemont Montfaucon indeed believed in the preliminary Warning: and although our Bosch in the chronological History of the patriarchs of Antioch, page 16 and following, refuted Tillemont with solid reasons, Montfaucon, ignoring or dissembling that refutation of his own opinion, pressed on in the footsteps once fixed in the Life of Chrysostom, where at page 98 he sets forth his own and Tillemont's opinion in these words: The argument of the book and the history of the martyrdom of St. Babylas, bishop of Antioch, is recounted for the most part in a declamatory manner and from the rumor of the crowd, redundant with tropes, in which you would often miss the truth. For as I judge it certain that St. Babylas was slain for Christ, so it is not doubtful that the kind and the cause [*] of the martyrdom are brought forward by John rather from the rumor of the people than from the true history of the deeds. For who, I pray, was that Christian emperor of the Romans who, having entered into peace with a barbarian king on the condition that he should hand over his son to be educated by him, straightway slaughtered the son received as a pledge of peace, and for that cause, having been shut out from the entrance of the church by blessed Babylas, ordered that same holy prelate to be thrust into prison and beheaded? This emperor a certain man, whether a scholiast or a copyist, says is Numerian: than which what could be more inept? For either to call Numerian a Christian, or the slayer of a certain son of a barbarian king, equally conflicts with true history…

[187] It is probable therefore that the emperor Philip is here mentioned, who, for the sake of invading the empire, having slain Gordian Augustus, after by so great a crime he had obtained his wish and had come to Antioch, The history of St. Babylas, as written by the Saint, at the time of Easter approached the church, about to share in the prayers and the Mysteries. Learning which, St. Babylas repelled the emperor as he approached, forbade him the entrance of the church, and ordered him to place himself in the station of the penitents, until, the crime being washed away and expiated by penance, he should afterwards be received into the communion of the Church. That Philip bore this repulse from the holy prelate with a grateful mind and modestly, Eusebius narrates, and likewise that he went to the place of the penitents; and then, after he had laid aside so grave a sin by confession according to the statutes of the Church, that he was admitted into the church. But after this, while Decius, an enemy of the Christians, reigned, St. Babylas gave his neck for Christ. What is said by Eusebius about the penance and the Christianity of Philip is narrated not as certain, but as heard by him from certain persons, and is called into doubt by many. It is probable further that from that history of Gordian slain by Philip there flowed that which we reported above from Chrysostom; but so disfigured and deformed in almost all its parts that it seems to be quite another. Thus far Montfaucon, following Tillemont. But I could wish that those learned men would pardon me if I candidly declare that this whole criticism seems not only an injury to St. Chrysostom, who would thus have fallen into very many and most absurd errors, but is likewise ridiculous and contrary to sound judgment, and destitute of all foundation.

[188] is defiled with very many and shameful errors. Receive first, studious reader, how many errors and how absurd and incredible are attributed to Chrysostom. For first, Philip killed a Roman emperor. But Chrysostom says that the son of a barbarian king was killed. Philip, on Julius Capitolinus's testimony, ordered Gordian to be killed by soldiers. Chrysostom writes that the slaughter was carried out by the emperor's own hand. Philip killed that he might reign alone. Chrysostom says that the emperor came to that slaughter from cruelty and perfidy alone, by which he slew an innocent man handed over as a pledge of peace. And so, if the conjecture of our adversaries be true, Chrysostom invented, or at any rate wrote, a most absurd little fable, ignominious to the Roman empire. For neither was he so little versed in historical matters that he should seem to have been ignorant of the history of Gordian and Philip, or could so have disfigured it. Secondly, if we believe our adversaries' criticism, Philip bore the repulse moderately, and drew very great profit from it. But Chrysostom affirms of his own emperor at page 544: He remained without amendment. And at page 551: For neither did he gain anything from the freedom of speech for the emperor's profit… For as though it were not enough to have committed the murder and shamelessly to have leaped into the temple of God, he added another slaughter to the slaughter. Our adversaries establish that St. Babylas's martyrdom happened under Philip's successor. But Chrysostom clearly says that St. Babylas's martyrdom was inflicted by that very emperor whom he had kept from the church. Here let the fair reader consider how glorious it would have been for St. Babylas if he had had an emperor as obedient to his commands as Ambrose had Theodosius obedient in a like case; and let him weigh whether a deed of that kind could have been unknown at Antioch, if it had altogether happened there. Nevertheless Chrysostom not only was ignorant of that modest obedience of the emperor, but that wretched emperor, on his testimony at page 552, added later deeds graver than the earlier. For after he had slain that youth, he proceeded from the slaughter to inflicting injury on the temple, and again, going on a further way, girded himself to displaying arrogance against the priesthood, and thus took vengeance on the Saint, bound with iron and cast into prison, repaying a benefit with punishments, etc. You see, I think, reader, into how great errors Chrysostom fell, if our adversaries' opinion be right.

[189] But let us see whence Tillemont was led into that opinion. From Eusebius, expounded by uncertain conjectures, Tillemont believed Eusebius in book 6 of the History, chapter 34, thus writes: Meanwhile, when Gordian had administered the Roman empire for six whole years, Philip together with Philip his son succeeded in his place. Of him, as a Christian, the report is that on the last vigil of Easter he wished to share in the prayers in the church together with the rest of the people: but that the bishop who then presided over the Church did not permit him entrance before he had made confession of his crimes and had joined himself to those who had fallen after the manner of men and stood in the order of the penitents… And the emperor indeed is said to have willingly obeyed, and to have declared a sincere and religious affection of the fear of God by his very works. This passage of Eusebius, who reports an uncertain rumor, Tillemont so adopts that he believed he could at the same time assign the year, the place, and the bishop not named. For he establishes that the matter was done in the year 244 at Antioch, and that St. Babylas was that bishop who forbade Philip entrance into the church. But Eusebius has none of these things.

[190] The author of the Paschal Chronicle, otherwise called the Alexandrian, [that the emperor Philip was driven from the church by St. Babylas in the year 244.] attributes the matter to Babylas of Antioch, but is silent about the year. For in Du Cange, page 270, at Indiction 14, that Chronicle, defiled with many fables, has the following: Further, from the relation of their elders this too about St. Babylas came to them, as blessed Leontius, bishop of Antioch, narrated to those who lived before these times. This Decius killed the holy Babylas, not only because he professed the religion of the Christians, but also because he dared to keep the emperor Philip's wife, and indeed Philip himself, both of them Christians, from the entrance of the sacred building, etc. The same author

at page 274, at Indiction 3, fixes St. Babylas's martyrdom under the emperor Carus, in the year 284, whether he makes two Babylases bishops of Antioch, or contradicts himself in the same man — which I do not examine. Certainly the authority of that Chronicle, on account of the many fables with which it abounds, is of no moment.

[191] How little probable is Tillemont's conjecture, resting on this foundation of straw, But it is not probable that Philip we shall now consider. Tillemont in tom. 3 of the Emperors, Note 1 on Gordian, disputes and hesitates about the time of his death. He will have it that Gordian was killed in the month of March of the year 244, against Pagi, who establishes that he died after the VII of the Kalends of April, because there stands a law given by him on that day. Pagi's opinion appears to me the more probable because Gordian was killed while he was returning from the expedition against the Persians, as Tillemont confesses. And yet it is not probable that that expedition was begun in mid-winter, as nevertheless it must have been if Gordian was returning from it in the month of March. And so it is more probable that Gordian was killed in the summer season, especially since thus he could have begun the seventh year of his reign, which is attributed to Gordian on some coins. But this epoch of Gordian's death standing, Philip could not have been at Antioch before the Easter of the year 244. Further, even if we should believe that Gordian was killed in the month of March, not even so would it become probable that Philip was at Antioch before Easter. Certainly, before he departed with his army from the borders of the Persians, Gordian being dead, he entered into peace with Sapor king of the Persians, and confirmed it by oath.

[192] was at Antioch at the Easter of the year 244. But that peace between Philip and Sapor could not be brought about in a few days: for Sapor had withdrawn to the interior of his kingdom, and the Roman army with Philip was near the Euphrates. So far therefore were Sapor and Philip distant from one another that the conclusion and confirmation of the peace consumed at least some weeks. Then Philip with his army was across the Euphrates, very far from the city of Antioch. Wherefore I cannot conceive that all those things which Tillemont himself narrates in Philip, art. 2, were done, and that Philip was nevertheless at Antioch before Easter. Nay rather we may doubt whether Philip came to Antioch at all: for I have found this asserted by no ancient author. Wherefore, if those things which Eusebius narrates about Philip's penance are true, they were done later, and at Rome rather than at Antioch. They are more probably attributed to St. Fabian the Pope than to St. Babylas, as may be seen in St. Fabian at the XX of January. Even the authority of St. Chrysostom alone ought to suffice for us to believe that the emperor whom he was keeping from the church did not obey St. Babylas: for neither could he have been ignorant of so great a matter, if it had been done. And so Eusebius's narration will certainly be false, if anyone will have it that what he asserted from report alone was done at Antioch.

[193] He believed, namely, that Babylas contended with a Christian emperor; But the emperor of whom Chrysostom treats was a Christian, if we believe our adversaries, who suppose this as certain. But to me this is so far from appearing certain that I do not hesitate to reply that it is certainly false. Indeed Chrysostom in the book against the Jews and gentiles, tom. 1 of the Works, page 578, thus speaks: The emperors were gentiles — Augustus, Tiberius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus, and after him all down to the time of the blessed emperor Constantine: and all of them, some less, others more vehemently, assailed the Church, yet all assailed it. But if some of them seemed to act more mildly, yet this very thing, that the emperors lived openly in impiety, was matter for wars, etc. I do not dispute whether this opinion of Chrysostom's is certain, since some except Philip, and about him it is probably disputed on both sides. But from the words alleged I conclude that Chrysostom was of this opinion, that he believed all the emperors before Constantine to have been gentiles. With what probability then shall we say that Chrysostom speaks of a Christian emperor when he narrates that an emperor was forbidden the entrance of the church by St. Babylas? Could he have spoken thus, if he himself had narrated the history of a Christian emperor in a Work written not long before? I long to know whether our adversaries, with the same reverence with which they fasten most absurd errors upon him, are going to ascribe an open contradiction to the Saint.

[194] but it is certain that his contest was with a gentile: But that the emperor of whom the question is was a gentile I shall clearly show from that very book which we are examining. Chrysostom at page 548, nums. 7 and 8, compares the noble liberty of Christians with the base love of gain of the gentiles, and thus speaks of the gentiles: And so wherever it happens that some emperor is created who does not agree with them in religion, if anyone enter the temples of the idols, he will see spiders' webs stretched everywhere on the walls, etc. He adds many things to show that the idols of the gentiles were worshipped only from hope of gain. Then of the Christians he thus discourses: But our affairs are not thus, but plainly the contrary. For when someone agreeing with us in religion comes to the imperial throne, the affairs of the Christians become slacker — so far are they from being raised by human honors; but when some impious man, plainly hostile to us and afflicting us with innumerable evils, holds the empire, then our affairs flourish and are made more splendid, then is the time of rewards and trophies, then the occasion for showing crowns, heralds' proclamations, and fortitude. Who, unless plainly stupid, could attend to these words and not see that St. Babylas's contest, according to Chrysostom, was not with a Christian emperor, but with an impious and gentile one? For he extols St. Babylas's deed, and from it infers that the affairs of the Christians flourished while gentiles reigned. And so if Chrysostom believed that St. Babylas's business was with a Christian, he will be not only an inept historian, but also a most inept logician. It is therefore certain that Chrysostom treats of a gentile emperor: and therefore at page 555 he says that Babylas contended for the truth, and at page 554 that he suffered for Christ. Neither would he have said, if Babylas had contended with a Christian for the discipline of the Church.

[195] Nevertheless Tillemont in Note 1 on Philip contends certain words which seem to intimate the contrary, that it cannot be doubted that Chrysostom is speaking of a Christian prince. To prove this he alleges certain words and expressions from which it could probably be inferred, if the contrary were not so clear from elsewhere. It is worth while to transfer hither what is objected, and other like words. He says at page 546: Wherefore, transferring himself wholly from earth to heaven, as though he stood by that Judge and heard him commanding that he should drive that nefarious and wicked man out of the fold, he so cast him out and separated him from the other sheep. [*] Page 545: As a vile bondman of no price he drove him out of the church with as great firmness and constancy of mind as a shepherd would keep a scabby and diseased sheep from the flock, restraining it lest its disease affect the other sheep… Straightway therefore the subject gave a command to him who commanded, and passed judgment on the ruler of all, and uttered a sentence of condemnation. Finally at page 550 he has this: Meanwhile he punished that injurious man, so far as was lawful for a priest, restrained the lofty spirits of princes, brought help to the violated laws of God, exacted a punishment for the slain youth, the gravest of all punishments, at least for those who are sound of mind. To these things which Tillemont has observed I add others, namely that that emperor at page 553 is called a disciple, and is numbered as it were among sons and members of the household or rather among his own. These things are partly objected, partly may be objected. But all of them offer only some probability of a Christian emperor: but they do not make out that he was a Christian.

[196] That I may therefore answer these things, I first observe after some observations, that the emperor's crime was that he wished shamelessly to enter the church of the Christians; and that Babylas met him in the vestibule and with as much modesty as he could intimated to him that it was unlawful for gentiles to enter the temple of the Christians. The emperor withdrew for this cause, probably because he feared a tumult of the people, but ordered the Saint to be seized, to be led to prison, and afterwards even to be killed. This is the deed which Chrysostom eloquently handles and amplifies. He seems to have recalled the slaughter of the king's son chiefly that, when we have heard of that crime, we may know the rest of the savagery of that emperor's manners, as he says at page 542. To the former crime the emperor added another, which he amplifies with the weightiest words at page 544, when he came to the church of God. To this St. Babylas set himself in opposition, as he has it at page 545, and, a subject, cast the emperor out of the vestibule of the church, and repelled that wretched man from the sacred threshold, as he says at page 547: driving him away from the Lord's courts like a dog or a wicked servant, as he shamelessly leaped into the sacred enclosures and confounded all things, he says at page 550. He did this indeed manfully and generously, as one who had cast away care for his life, on the same testimony at page 546; yet he proceeded moderately and modestly when he dared to repress the emperor's fury, he says at page 547. For, as he has it at page 553, he did these things grieving not only for the temple's sake, but also led by affection toward the emperor.

[497] are accurately expounded. From these and other things we have it that St. Babylas so spoke with the emperor that he exhibited the charity of a father, the wisdom of a teacher and master, the authority of a pastor, the love of a subject, the severity of a judge, and the fortitude of a priest. Hence Chrysostom attributes to the emperor names corresponding to these; not because he believed him a Christian. He calls him son, disciple, sheep, because as a son he was treated by a father, as a disciple he was taught by a master, as a noxious sheep he was kept from the rest by a shepherd. Babylas grieved for the sin of one of his own, because he loved him as his own emperor. The emperor is said to be condemned and punished, because by the severity of a judge he was held unworthy of entrance into the church, and by priestly fortitude was forbidden that entrance. These things therefore by no means show that that emperor was a Christian. Nay rather it appears absurd to me even to think that Chrysostom used a contention between a Christian emperor and a bishop, which ended in the latter's death, in order to dispute against the gentiles; for that contention, on account of the obstinacy and impiety of the emperor, would have been far more shameful to the Christians than it would have been glorious to them on account of the bishop's fortitude. St. Chrysostom therefore narrates that St. Babylas met a gentile emperor entering, or at least wishing to enter, the temple of the Christians; just as in Oration 2 on St. Romanus the martyr, tom. 2, page 610, he reports that St. Romanus set himself in the vestibule of the church against a tyrant attempting entrance.

[198] Another objection of Tillemont's is refuted: But, if we believe Tillemont, St. Babylas would have acted against the custom of the Church if he had set himself against a gentile emperor meditating violence. I answer that this would be true if he were said to have wished to repel force with force. But this is not asserted: rather with words he intrepidly and at the same time modestly warned the emperor not to enter. Chrysostom does not even clearly declare whether the emperor obeyed: but he praises Babylas for the duty performed. He was saying to the emperor: It is not lawful for you to enter, thus the gentile

separating him from the Christians, so far as in him lay. But the reward of that freedom he had in martyrdom, whether the emperor then withdrew or went on to enter. In vain does Tillemont praise Leontius, the Arian bishop of Antioch about the middle of the fourth century, in order to persuade us that Chrysostom erred, and that it was the emperor Philip whom St. Babylas forbade the church. For neither do we believe that Leontius narrated those things which the author of the Paschal Chronicle says were narrated by him, whose words I gave at num. 190. For if Leontius had narrated those things about St. Babylas's deed, neither would Chrysostom have affirmed the contrary, nor would Philostorgius the Arian, nearly contemporary with Chrysostom, who in book 7, num. 8, teaches that by some Numerian, by others Decius, was believed to be that emperor whose entrance into the church St. Babylas resisted.

[199] and it is shown that nothing hinders what Chrysostom narrates Further, since it is established that St. Babylas was crowned with martyrdom under Decius, no other gentile emperor seems to be sought, unless one should wish to admit a second Babylas under Numerian, and to attribute this deed to him. To Decius that savage cruelty which Chrysostom attributes to his emperor agrees excellently, and therefore it seems scarcely to be doubted that he treated of him. But Tillemont in tom. 3 of the Monuments, Note 1 on St. Babylas, asserts that Decius was never at Antioch so long as he was emperor. It can likewise be objected that it is nowhere read that a barbarian king's son was killed by Decius, as Chrysostom asserts of his emperor. I answer that neither the journeys nor the deeds of Decius are sufficiently known, as Tillemont himself acknowledges. Hence it cannot be said that Decius was never at Antioch. Certainly in Syria in Philip's time there arose the usurper Jotapian, whom it is established was killed under Philip or Decius. Priscus, Philip's brother, then presided over that province. Who then would safely assert that Decius was not there after Philip was killed, in order to claim Syria for himself against Jotapian or against Priscus? For one or the other held Syria when Decius was made emperor, nor is it probable that Decius was soon acknowledged by the usurper Jotapian, or by Priscus, Philip's brother.

[200] It is also probable that Decius, who was acclaimed emperor in Mœsia or Pannonia, from being true. before he proceeded with his army into Italy against Philip, or afterwards, made peace with some barbarian king, and afterwards broke it, his son being slain. Finally, if it were established that Decius is not that tyrant of whom the Saint treats, it would have to be said that that tyrant is indeed unknown to us; yet that by the authority of Chrysostom the cause of St. Babylas's martyrdom is sufficiently established. Certainly it is far more probable that a deed so shameful to the Roman empire was omitted by the historians than that it was feigned by St. Chrysostom. These things I have drawn out somewhat at length in order to vindicate the Saint from most base errors which are attributed to him altogether rashly and without foundation, and from mere ignorance of the deeds of that time.

* read the cause

* he separated

§ XVI. The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, which Montfaucon published, can be in part Chrysostom's; but the whole is not of the same author.

Montfaucon first published a Synopsis of sacred Scripture, Montfaucon in tom. 6 of St. Chrysostom's Works brought forward a certain Synopsis of sacred Scripture, and published part of it, and so judged that it should be ascribed to the Saint that he nevertheless affirms that he wishes to establish nothing certain, but to await the judgment of the learned. In the Life of the Saint, page 98, he thus speaks of it: To about this time (of the diaconate) that Synopsis of sacred Scripture seems to be referred, a great part of which we have published: for it has not come down entire to our age. That the Work is genuine I have proved in the Diatribe, to which we send the reader. Indeed it may easily be believed that he wrote a Synopsis of the Scriptures who, devoted to the divine Letters, gave perpetual labor to their reading and meditation. But the other arguments which we have brought forward in the Diatribe we send to the learned world to be explored and weighed in the balance. Ceillier in the Work on the sacred Authors, tom. 9, chapter 1, art. 7, §4, plainly follows Montfaucon, and briefly sets forth his arguments. That the judgment of Isaac Vossius was contrary to him Montfaucon confesses in the praised Diatribe, tom. 6, page 308. I shall examine, according to the plan of our Work, Montfaucon's arguments, before I bring forward my own judgment, such as it is, on a matter so uncertain.

[202] from two codices not very ancient, in which many things are lacking. He begins the Diatribe in this manner: This Synopsis stands in two manuscript codices: of which one is of the Coislin library, formerly the Séguier, num. 388; the other of the library of Leiden, formerly Isaac Vossius's. The former is altogether recent, and written about the beginnings of printing, but by a skilled and not unlearned scribe on the faith of a more ancient one; the other also, although it has not been permitted to examine it with my own eyes, I think is likewise recent, and was transcribed by a less skilled amanuensis. Now these codices do not even both together comprise the whole Synopsis as it had been prepared by its author; but in one some things, in the other others are wanting; and in both the whole Synopsis of the New Testament is missing. The Coislin at the beginning exhibits a preface, composed by the writer himself, and of the best quality: which he entitles προθεωρία, protheoria. But this whole προθεωρία is absent from the Leiden codex; and in turn the Leiden has many things which are wholly lacking in the Coislin: namely the Synopsis on Leviticus, the Epilogue to the Synopses of the books of Kings, the Synopses on Paralipomena, on Esdras, on the books of Esther, of Tobias, of Judith, of Job, on the book of Wisdom, on Proverbs. From these two manuscripts this Synopsis comes forth, in which some things even from the Old Testament are missing; namely the Synopsis of the Psalms and of five of the minor Prophets. Further, in both codices the Synopsis is attributed to John Chrysostom: for in the titles both of the Coislin and of the Leiden codex it is said to be Chrysostom's. Thus far Montfaucon. But this recentness and discrepancy of the codices from which he published that Synopsis does not favor his opinion of attributing that whole lucubration to St. John Chrysostom. To the judgment of Vossius, who denies the Synopsis to Chrysostom, he then answers thus: I think that Vossius read these things perfunctorily, and cast his vote perhaps from the character of the style: which form of style he could not discern in so compendious a narration. Besides, that Vossian codex does not have that Protheoria set at the front of the Synopsis: which προθεωρία indeed, fairly prolix and written by a sagacious man, supplies certain marks which seem to claim the Synopsis for Chrysostom. Thus he.

[203] The reason by which he believes the Synopsis was written at Antioch Let us hear some of his arguments. The first he takes from the last words, which run thus: And three of the Catholic Epistles. There are there enumerated the books of the New Testament. Hence he infers that only three Catholic Epistles were admitted as Canonical by the author of the Synopsis, namely the Epistle of James, the first of Peter and the first of John. Then he observes that of the seven Catholic Epistles, which the greatest part of the Eastern Church and almost the whole Western Church reckoned among the Canonical books, only the three aforesaid were acknowledged as canonical at Antioch in Chrysostom's time. From that twofold observation he infers that the author of that Synopsis is an Antiochene, and that hence some credit is already won for the title in which it is said to be John Chrysostom's. And truly, he says, this holy Doctor, who employs all the books of sacred Scripture in his Homilies, nowhere adduces passages of those four Epistles (the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and Jude), or at least passages of this kind have not yet been discovered in his writings. Thus Montfaucon.

[204] I answer to the first observation that it is altogether useless for the purpose, and consequently that this whole engine collapses. appears inept, since the passage alleged seems mutilated: For it is clear that many things have been passed over in that Protheoria, both from the Old Testament and from the New. The author names as writers of the New Testament Paul, John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, the rest being omitted. Yet, as Montfaucon confesses, among the authors of the New Testament he at least acknowledges Peter and James. In what way then will he prove that no more Canonical Epistles among the Catholic ones were acknowledged by that writer than three, especially since the very words alleged intimate that more were acknowledged? Why, I pray, did he say of the Catholic three, and not rather three Catholic, as before he says, fourteen Epistles of Paul, if he acknowledged no more than three Catholic? Why does he not name the authors of those Epistles, as before he named the writers of the other books of the New Testament, if nothing has here fallen out? Who would not rather believe that three of the Catholic Epistles were ascribed to John, named before, just as to Luke, who had been named among the Evangelists, the book of Acts is then ascribed, than that only three of the Catholic Epistles are admitted, and that it is not added which of the seven they are, or of what authors? Certainly these things belonged not to a sagacious man, but to one laboring under a supine negligence.

[205] But let us see in what way the praised author handled the Old Testament. and many other books of sacred Scripture are omitted in the Protheoria. In the enumeration of the books of the Old Testament there nowhere appear the books of Paralipomena, of Tobias, of Judith, of Esther and of Job, unless perhaps at page 316, where the prophetic books are recounted, Job should be read for Ruth. The books of the Maccabees are not mentioned in express words, yet they are intimated by these at page 315: Then follow the deeds of Antiochus Epiphanes, etc. For of Antiochus only the books of the Maccabees treat. But in the Synopsis itself all these books are treated of, except the books of the Maccabees, which are passed over together with the later Prophets. On the contrary the Book of Ruth is numbered first among the historical books, then among the prophetic. This perhaps might be borne, did not the author note that in the histories also prophecy is found, so that it was in no way necessary to number among the prophetic this book, which does not seem more prophetic than the rest of the historical books are prophetic. And so that Protheoria as it is published is exceedingly imperfect: nor can anything be concluded from it on account of the frequent omissions, whether these be its author's or the transcribers'. Hence likewise falls another argument of Montfaucon's, who, on account of the Apocalypse being there passed over, again judges that the Work is to be attributed to Chrysostom. Certainly, he says, John Chrysostom, who is reported in the title to be the author of the Work, never used the Apocalypse in his Homilies and other books. The praised writer indeed lays upon me a great occasion of searching by asserting this so intrepidly: but I have not leisure to read through again all the Works of St. Chrysostom. I know, however, that the words of the Apocalypse are from time to time adduced by our Saint, as also certain words from the second Epistle of St. Peter.

[206] First these words, Apoc. 20, v. 12; and the books were opened, That some books of the New Testament were not held by Chrysostom are recited by Chrysostom on Psalm 118, tom. 5, page 416, where Montfaucon in the margin assigns Dan. 7, v. 10: for there too the same words are read in Latin. The Greek differs somewhat. For in the Apocalypse is read, βιβλία ἀνεώχθησαν; in Daniel in the Septuagint, βιβλοι ἠνεώχθησαν; in Chrysostom, βιβλοι ἁνεώχθησαν.

The second Epistle of St. Peter Chrysostom praises in Homily 23 on the Acts of the Apostles, as Montfaucon himself observes, noting thus in the margin: 2 Pet. 3:10. Far more passages does du Duc assign in the margin, both for the Apocalypse and for the second Epistle of St. Peter. But whoever shall wish to press on in Montfaucon's footsteps will go on contending that most of the passages were drawn from other books of Scripture rather than from those about which we are disputing, because Chrysostom alleged passages of Scripture as they offered themselves to his memory. Nay, he will perhaps say with him that from some passages of those books alleged it does not follow that that part of Scripture is held canonical, or was held so at Antioch in Chrysostom's time; because in those times there were not a few things in certain churches which were indeed read, but were not reckoned canonical. It would therefore be useless to assign more passages.

[207] as canonical, Montfaucon's arguments do not make out; Besides, although I should admit that the second Epistle of Peter, the two later ones of John, the Epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John were very rarely praised by Chrysostom, hence it cannot certainly be gathered that those books of sacred Scripture were not held for Canonical by St. John. For if we now look at the general index of the passages of sacred Scripture which are employed in the twelve volumes of St. Chrysostom, as it is found in Montfaucon at the end of the thirteenth volume, we shall see that some other books also are praised no more frequently. From the book of Ruth no passage is assigned, except a single one in the Imperfect Work, which is not Chrysostom's. None is alleged there from the first book of Paralipomena, except one from a Homily which Montfaucon has placed among the doubtful Works: none at all is pointed out from the prophecy of Abdias. And yet about the canonical authority of these books neither the Syrians nor any Catholics ever doubted. The same are also recounted in the Synopsis about which we are disputing. No less are the books of Tobias and Judith recounted in that Synopsis: and yet Montfaucon's index has no passage of them from the genuine Works of Chrysostom. From the book of Esther he assigns a single passage. Thus the Saint rarely alleged certain other books of Scripture, such as the books of Joshua, of Judges, the second of Paralipomena and the Canticle of Canticles. I confess, however, that I have consulted only the index, which I do not altogether trust. For the books of the Maccabees do not even appear there, although the second volume contains three homilies on the Maccabees, and in other places also Chrysostom from time to time praises the Maccabees.

[208] for some other books also the Saint rarely praises. These things therefore have been adduced only to this end, that no one should judge that those books which Chrysostom is found rarely or never to have alleged were therefore not held by him for canonical: for he commonly sought the easier passages of sacred Scripture, and those fitter for teaching; but he did not take care to employ all the books in some order. That the studious reader may perceive how fragile the argument is, let him look at the general index of the passages of sacred Scripture in the Works of St. Augustine. There likewise he will see the canonical Epistles and the Apocalypse of John rarely assigned, although the bulk of St. Augustine's Works is very great. Yet from that we cannot infer that St. Augustine did not acknowledge the canonical authority of those books: for all are numbered among the canonical Scriptures by St. Augustine himself in book 2 On Christian Doctrine, chapter 8. Wherefore that argument of Montfaucon's is useless for our purpose.

[209] That four of the Catholic Epistles were not at Antioch And so I shall not further inquire how often Chrysostom praised those books: but I shall examine whether the arguments are solid by which Montfaucon strives to prove that four of the seven canonical Epistles were not admitted as canonical in the church of Antioch and among the Syrians. Intrepidly he asserts this in these words: But the church of Antioch did not admit those four above-mentioned Epistles in John Chrysostom's time; nay, tenacious of its former purpose, not even in the time of the emperor Justinian had it yet adopted them — which was proper to the Syrians, as we shall presently see. This opinion of Montfaucon's is asserted altogether lightly, although a little after, in the same tom. 6, page 417, he contends that the Homily on that saying, By what authority do you do these things, was delivered at Antioch on that argument, disputing thus: Tillemont hints that that Homily may be Severian's, who, being then a bishop, preached before Chrysostom the archbishop of Constantinople; but Tillemont did not notice that these things were said in a certain church where the second and third Epistle of John were not admitted among the canonical books — which is true, certain and ascertained about the church of Antioch, as we have already seen in the Diatribe on the Synopsis above; but about the church of Constantinople no one, so far as I know, has said it. You see, I think, reader, how confidently these things are asserted. But, lest the confidence of the sayings deceive you, I undertake to show that the arguments on which that opinion rests are altogether most slight and inept, and that it is improbable and destitute of foundation.

[210] Montfaucon's first argument is drawn from that very Homily as canonical, is by no means proved before which he set the words alleged. For in it, num. 6, page 430, the uncertain author thus discourses: That same herald (John the Evangelist) writes in his Epistle. But the first Epistle is reckoned among those which are received in the Church, not among the apocrypha: for the second and third the Fathers place outside the canon. But that the first Epistle is John's all agree. Montfaucon confesses that the Homily is not Chrysostom's, speaking thus: That it is certainly not Chrysostom's, the utter diversity of style argues — so great, namely, as you would scarcely ever discern elsewhere. But that the homily is by an Antiochene priest he proves from the words alleged in the preliminary Warning, because, if we believe him, the church of Antioch did not admit the two later Epistles of John, as, namely, he proved in the Diatribe prefixed to the Synopsis, page 309. But by what reason did he show it there? Again from the same words, in this manner: That Homily is by an Antiochene priest: therefore in the Antiochene church the second and third Epistle of John were not admitted.

[211] Either I do not understand logic, or Montfaucon walks in a vicious circle, Montfaucon's vicious circle: especially since he has not adduced other arguments which are fit for proving one side or the other. In vain does he strive to infer that the Homily is by an Antiochene or a Syrian, unless he has certainly shown from elsewhere that the aforesaid Epistles were rejected in Syria and admitted in all other churches. In vain likewise does he try from the same words to infer that in Syria and at Antioch the later Epistles of John were not admitted, unless he has certainly shown from elsewhere that the Homily was delivered in Syria, and that indeed by a Catholic and credit-worthy man; and finally that those words are not a marginal addition which afterwards crept into the context of the Homily by transcription. Certainly the words adduced render the diction less easy, and the word ἀποκανονίζουσι will not easily be found elsewhere, not even among the barbarous ones.

[212] Let us now see what further Montfaucon alleges in the praised Diatribe nor does the authority of Cosmas the Egyptian avail, to show that four of the seven canonical epistles were rejected in Syria. He brings forward the authority of Cosmas the Egyptian, who was writing in the time of the emperor Justinian. And from him he produces these words: But among the Syrians only the three aforesaid are found, namely those of James, of Peter and of John: for the others are not even had among them. That we may understand how utterly without weight this authority is, it is only necessary to read what the trifler Cosmas brings forward about all the Catholic Epistles. Let us hear Montfaucon himself, who published the Christian Topography of Cosmas the Egyptian. For in the Preface, chapter 5, he writes this: Not so much to be approved is what Cosmas has about the Catholic Epistles. For what cause, I pray? But we pass over in silence, says Cosmas, that the Catholic Epistles have from ancient times been placed by the Church among the doubtful. Certainly no one of those who have published Commentaries on the divine Scriptures took any account of the Catholic Epistles. Nay, as many as have woven a canon of the books which have a place in divine Scripture placed them among the doubtful; namely Irenæus bishop of Lyons, … Eusebius Pamphili, Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, and Amphilochius bishop of Iconium, the friend and intimate of Blessed Basil, in his Iambics written to Seleucus, pronounced them doubtful. And likewise Severian, bishop of Gabala, in his book against the Jews proscribed them, etc.

[213] who plainly trifles about the Catholic Epistles, as Montfaucon confesses, Most of these things are false. But let us hear Montfaucon himself, who has this man as the author of his opinion. This Cosmas indeed does not handle the matter accurately. For as to his saying that the Catholic Epistles were illustrated by no Commentaries of the ancients, that is wrongly said: for Didymus of Alexandria published whole Commentaries on those seven Epistles, on Jerome's testimony… As regards Irenæus's canon of the Scriptures, if indeed he ever published it, nothing survives. But as regards Athanasius's canon, I wonder that Cosmas, who had read through his festal Letters, of which he adduces many fragments in book X, did not notice that a canon of the Scriptures is contained in the thirty-ninth, where the seven canonical Epistles are recounted among the books of sacred Scripture, and those indeed liable to no suspicion. Thus far Montfaucon, who from this could gather how little credit Cosmas deserves, since in that very passage which he alleges he so clearly strays from the truth. Nevertheless Montfaucon has this man alone as his author, him as the leader of his opinion, and to him he joined the circle just disapproved.

[214] and he writes things contrary to Athanasius, Jerome, Nazianzen, I should prefer to hear Athanasius, who in tom. 1 of the Works of the latest edition, page 962, has this in the catalogue of canonical books: Afterwards the Acts of the Apostles, and the Canonical Epistles, which are called the Apostles', seven in number: namely one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude. I should likewise prefer to hear Jerome, most learned in the sacred Scriptures, who in the Letter to Paulinus thus speaks: James, Peter, John, Jude published seven Epistles, as mystical as they are succinct, and short and long alike: short in words, long in sentences; so that he is rare who does not grow blind in the reading of them. With this agrees canon 60 of the council of Laodicea held in the fourth century. Nazianzen too in Poem 33 numbers the seven canonical Epistles among the genuine Scriptures, as also Cyril of Jerusalem in Catechesis 4. I pass over Augustine and other fathers, because Montfaucon himself does not doubt about the canonical authority of those Epistles acknowledged by most of the ancients. But, someone will say, from Eusebius, book 3, chapter 23, and from Amphilochius in the Iambic Poem to Seleucus, we have at least this, that down to the fourth century some doubted about the canonical authority of four Epistles and of the Apocalypse. Jerome himself, in the Catalogue of ecclesiastical Writers, in the elogium of St. John, shows that he doubted about the author of the two later of his Epistles. That these things are true I shall willingly admit. But that that doubt did not afterwards long flourish among Catholics, and was laid aside by St. Jerome, is shown both from his writings and from those of others.

[215] But what makes solely for our purpose,

neither Eusebius, and other Fathers: and he was a man of little learning. nor Amphilochius, nor Jerome asserts that among the Syrians there was more doubt about them than among other nations. This therefore we do not believe of Cosmas, unless perhaps he means the Jacobite Syrians, heretical followers of Eutyches and of Severus. Nor was the erudition of that Cosmas so great — who from a merchant is said to have been made a monk — that it is necessary to give credit at once to him speaking, and that in the very passage where he falls into various errors. Certainly St. Ephrem was a Syrian, and nearly contemporary with Chrysostom, or a little more ancient. Yet Ephrem frequently praises both the Apocalypse and the second Epistle of Peter, as may be seen in his Works most lately reprinted, especially in the Greek, where in tom. 1, page 76, the whole fourth verse is recited from the third Epistle of John, with these words premised: For the Scripture says. And so Cosmas the Egyptian either does not speak of Catholic Syrians, or is deceived, and the whole argument of Montfaucon is reduced to a vicious circle. Further, an argument laboring under so many faults could have been more briefly refuted, had I not believed that this inquiry pertained to Chrysostom — whether, as Montfaucon lightly asserted, the holy Doctor rejected books of sacred Scripture which Athanasius, Nazianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem, the council of Laodicea, Ephrem the Syrian, and other Fathers before him had admitted, and which Jerome and Augustine, contemporaries of our Saint, acknowledged. For the rest, how useless for Montfaucon's purpose that whole engine is, is clear enough: for all the things which ought to be certain in order that the argument might have any force are altogether uncertain, and most of them also improbable.

[216] But Montfaucon adds other arguments, and those better ones. Other arguments from the likeness Namely, he produces from the Synopsis some passages of sacred Scripture, and shows that they are there expounded in that way in which they are expounded in the other Works of St. Chrysostom. First, the Synopsis teaches that the curse of Canaan, Gen. 9, vv. 25 and 26, was fulfilled in the Gibeonites; the same also Chrysostom asserts on chapter 2 of Isaiah, tom. 6, page 19. This is an opinion proper to Chrysostom, says Montfaucon, which I do not remember to have read among other ecclesiastical writers; namely that the curse of Canaan was fulfilled in the Gibeonites. Secondly, the passage Gen. 11, v. 31, And so Terah took Abram his son, etc., Chrysostom adduces in another way than it is found even in the Septuagint, in Homily 31 on Genesis, and again that passage is thus alleged in the Synopsis: for in both places Nahor is joined with Terah and Abram. But Nahor is not found there in the copies of sacred Scripture. Hence Montfaucon: This reading, moreover, I have nowhere else found except in Chrysostom, who certainly so read in his own copy. The very words, as they are alleged by Chrysostom, I subjoin: And Terah took Abram and Nahor his sons, and Lot, etc. This so singular reading is thereafter repeated three times in the same Homily, and is found in absolutely all copies of that Homily, both printed and manuscript, on Montfaucon's testimony, so that no doubt can remain that this passage was so expressed in the copy which Chrysostom used: which the author of the Synopsis also used, whether he was Chrysostom himself, as from this and from the preceding arguments seems to be proved. Thus he, and indeed this reason is very probable. Here, however, I observe that the name Terah in Chrysostom is written Θαῤῥα, but in the Synopsis Θαρᾶ: but that is a slight change of the name.

[217] of interpreting, and of alleging passages of Sacred Scripture, Thirdly, in the Compendium of Deuteronomy the Synopsis has at page 337: Here lies that saying: "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree" []. Since therefore a curse had been uttered against those who should not keep the Law: "Cursed is everyone who does not abide in all things written in this book" [] — Moses speaks of the Law; nor could Christ incur this curse, for he fulfilled the Law; he exchanged curse for curse, hanging on a tree. Plainly like things, but more fully explained, Chrysostom brings forward on the Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 3, or tom. 10, page 700, where, having handled the passages alleged at some length, he thus subjoins: But Christ exchanged this curse (of the Law not kept) for another, which says: "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." Since therefore he who hangs is cursed, and he who transgresses the Law is likewise cursed, it behooved not him who was to take away that curse to become liable to the same curse: but instead of it another curse had to be taken up, which he also took up, through which he took away that other, etc. This argument also by no means seems to be despised.

[218] are very probable for claiming the Synopsis for Chrysostom: More passages Montfaucon then adduces more briefly, by which he shows that the Synopsis wonderfully agrees with other interpretations of Chrysostom. At the beginning of the Synopsis of Genesis he says that the sons of God in Genesis mean those who were sprung from Seth, and he adduces this passage of the Psalm: I said, you are gods. But this very thing he says at greater length in Homily 22 on Genesis, adducing the same passage of the Psalm. That from Heber the Hebrew tongue received its name, he says here in nearly the same way as on Genesis (Homily 30), page 300. In both places also he observes that in Heber's family the ancient idiom remained. In both places he observes that the word Βαβυλών signifies confusion. This I observe because the Hebrew word is Babel, and the Greek in the Septuagint σύγχυσις. As regards the tithes which Abraham offered to Melchizedek, he says here more briefly the same things which he says on Genesis, page 357, adducing the same passage of Blessed Paul. About Lot's daughters he says here in fewer words what he narrates at length on Genesis, pages 453, 454. The allegory about the birth of Perez and Zerah he here explains in the same way as in the Commentary on Genesis, pages 593, 594. What he says near the end of the Synopsis of Genesis, that Shechem was taken by Simeon and Levi, that very thing he narrates at greater length in the Homilies on Genesis, page 637. Further, this reading of chapter 49, v. 10, which in the Synopsis runs thus, "ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ᾧ ἀπόκειτει; until he come for whom it is laid up," is always thus expressed by Chrysostom: but other writers vary. For some read in this very way; but others: "ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ." In Exodus, what is said in the Synopsis, that the outstretched hands of Moses, which won the victory for the Israelites, were a figure of the Cross — this very thing Chrysostom reports in the Homily on that saying, "Father, if it be possible," tom. 3, page 20. Thus far Montfaucon, rightly and probably.

[219] other observations increasing the probability. To these arguments, which bring much probability toward claiming the Synopsis for Chrysostom, certain other observations of less moment are added, and yet not altogether useless; as that the author of the Synopsis, equally with Chrysostom, not rarely assails the Jews; that he observes that the legal observance of the Sabbath was from time to time omitted by the ancients, as also other legal precepts; that he shows that he makes much of Paul's Epistles and frequently alleges them. About the style of the Work Montfaucon thus discourses: But as regards the style, to seek in a Synopsis and compendium that flowing abundance of words and similitudes which Chrysostom is wont to use would be to seek a knot in a bulrush. But it is discerned to be Chrysostom's diction: so pure, clear and polished is it. And although he reports things in a compendium, yet sometimes he plays the interpreter, explains things, and adduces other passages of Scripture, and especially of Paul, apt for explanation. Nor is the Synopsis too meager, but especially in the Pentateuch it weaves the history at almost a just length, so that in this part it can be held as a model. And it is probable that he reduced the whole Scripture thus into a Synopsis and compendium for his own use. If further the Synopsis of the New Testament shall at some time emerge from darkness, thence, as I have said, new arguments will come forth by which the true author of the whole Synopsis may be discerned. Thus he. Now I shall candidly set forth to the studious reader my judgment on the whole matter.

[220] The arguments which have been adduced to show the agreement between the author of the Synopsis and Chrysostom [Part of the Synopsis, published from one codex, seems to be Chrysostom's: the other part,] seem to me to suffice for probably adjudging part of the Work to that author to whom it is ascribed in the codex, namely St. John Chrysostom; nay, even for attributing to him all those things which Montfaucon published from the Coislin codex. For to those also there rightly agree what has just been said about the style and about the interpretation of some passages. For all the arguments flowed from that part. But I wonder that Montfaucon did not see that the same arguments do not fight for those things which he took from the Leiden codex alone. I wonder that a learned man, and one so greatly versed in the Works of Chrysostom, did not observe the difference of style, which appears to me clear and manifest. I indeed, all things being diligently compared and considered, cannot doubt that Montfaucon mixed the little Works of two writers in his edition, and that the part of the Synopsis which he published belongs to the author of that Synopsis which was attributed to St. Athanasius, and which we have published in the Works of St. Athanasius, tom. 2, page 126, of the newest Paris edition, where that Synopsis is denied to St. Athanasius in the editor's preface.

[221] The reasons of this opinion I take partly from Montfaucon's own words. [since it is nearly the same as that which was formerly attributed to St. Athanasius,] In the Diatribe prefixed to the Synopsis, page 308, he confesses that these things were found in the Leiden codex alone, namely the Synopsis on Leviticus, the Epilogue to the Synopses of the books of Kings, the Synopses on Paralipomena, on Esdras, on the books of Esther, of Tobias, of Judith, of Job, on the book of Wisdom, on Proverbs. Then at page 513 he observes that almost all the things here enumerated agree with the Synopsis attributed to St. Athanasius, writing thus: But in the books of Solomon, in Wisdom, in Sirach, Esther, Tobias, Judith, it is the very same — this Synopsis, namely, with that which is attributed to Athanasius. The same he presently says about the Synopsis of Leviticus, at least as to a great part of it. Nearly the same likeness he notes at page 361 about the Synopsis on Paralipomena, and at page 362 about the Synopsis on Esdras, and at page 366 about the earlier part of the Synopsis on Job, and finally at page 358 about the Epilogue to the books of Kings. All these things I have found to be true by a comparison of both Synopses, a few things excepted. For the Synopsis on Sirach or Ecclesiasticus is different enough that the two do not seem to be of the same author. Montfaucon himself at page 381 observes this difference in these words: Which Synopsis (ascribed to Athanasius) on Ecclesiasticus or Sirach, being longer than this one, has few things word for word like these. Besides, the Synopsis on Proverbs is indeed wholly like the Athanasian, but has annexed to it a recapitulation after the manner of another Synopsis. Whether this part was lacking in the Coislin codex, as also the latter part of the Synopsis on Job, those will be able to see who

now have that codex in their possession. I meanwhile gather from what has been said that all those things which were published from the Vossian or Leiden codex alone, except perhaps the two parts mentioned, agree with what is read in the Synopsis formerly attributed to St. Athanasius.

[222] it seems to have been added to the former from that: Hence it is certain that one of them received a great part from the other. Montfaucon himself acknowledges and observes this very thing at page 313: And I conjecture, he says, that he (the author of the Athanasian one) borrowed the Synopses of books of this kind from our Synopsis. For that the writer of that Synopsis is in age far later than the author of our Synopsis I do not doubt, nor, I think, will anyone doubt. I would not here dispute about the greater or lesser antiquity of either Synopsis: for neither is that necessary for our purpose. But I should dare candidly to declare that Montfaucon's conjecture is altogether improbable, about those parts of the recently published Synopsis having been transferred to the Synopsis commonly called Athanasius's. On the contrary I judge that there are not lacking indications evident enough for asserting that from the Athanasian Synopsis there was supplied in the Leiden codex that which Montfaucon believes must be attributed to Chrysostom. The reasons of this opinion I subjoin to the studious reader to be examined.

[223] [for neither is it credible that all those things were deleted from one codex, and not rather added in the other,] First, in the Coislin codex all those things are wanting which are found in the Athanasian Synopsis. Why should we say that those rather than the rest were passed over in that codex, if the same writer composed what is found in the Coislin codex and all the other things like the Athanasian? I do not indeed see that a suitable reason can be brought forward why all those things should have fallen out of that codex rather than the rest. On the contrary it can without difficulty be said why the Athanasian things were added in the Leiden codex: for some collector, when he saw that in the Chrysostomian Synopsis the compendia of many books of sacred Scripture were lacking, could fill up those lacunæ out of the Athanasian, as it seems not rarely to have been done elsewhere in manuscript codices. It must be said therefore that all those Athanasian things were found in the Leiden codex because they were added there; and were not found in the other codex, because they were not Chrysostom's, or at any rate not of the same author. Secondly, the style of those parts plainly agrees with the style of the whole Athanasian Synopsis, but not with the style of the Synopsis about which we are disputing. And so those parts belong to the Athanasian Synopsis, in which they were published, and to which they are conformable; not to the Chrysostomian, with whose other parts they in no way agree. This must be shown in this manner.

[224] especially since those things which we believe were added, The author of the Athanasian Synopsis in the Synopsis of each book explains the name imposed on the book and alleges the reasons for it. This anyone will be able to see who wishes to inspect the Athanasian Synopsis. On the contrary this is nowhere done in those compendia which certainly belong to the Chrysostomian Synopsis. Look, learned reader, in Montfaucon at the Synopses of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, which have nothing in common with the Athanasian ones, and you will yourself see that nowhere is a reason assigned why Genesis, Exodus and the other books obtained their names. Then consider the Synopses of Leviticus, Paralipomena, Esdras, Esther, Tobit or Tobias, Judith, Job, Wisdom and Proverbs; and you will perceive that everywhere at the beginning a reason is given for the name imposed on the book. Receive a few examples. The Synopsis of Leviticus thus begins: This book is called Leviticus, because properly and peculiarly it contains the whole form of the Levitical ministry, etc. The beginning on Paralipomena is such: They are called Paralipomena, because many things passed over in the books of the kingdoms are contained in these books. Conformable to these are the beginnings of Esdras and of the other synopses just named, and the same is done throughout the whole Athanasian Synopsis, in which all those compendia are found, except the latter part on Job and a certain addition on Proverbs. This character clearly intimates that all those things were transferred from the Athanasian Synopsis into the Leiden codex.

[225] Besides, in the Athanasian Synopsis it is commonly treated of the authors agree in style with the Athanasian, but not with the Chrysostomian. who wrote the several books, and account is had of chronology. These things we perceive in those which Montfaucon published from the Leiden codex alone; not likewise in those which can probably be attributed to Chrysostom: for in these neither are authors wont to be assigned, unless they are read in the titles themselves, nor is any chronological arrangement assigned, except from time to time in reporting histories. Besides, the style is one in those published from the Coislin codex, another in those added from the Leiden. The latter plainly agrees with the style of the whole Athanasian Synopsis; the former flows more freely, and is that of an eloquent man running through many things very swiftly, but not rarely stopping to interpret something or to allege passages of other books. Neither does the author of the Athanasian Synopsis, but, advancing with an almost even step, he briefly narrates the name, author and content of the books. Finally the Athanasian Synopsis in the other books differs by the whole heaven from the Chrysostomian, as Montfaucon confesses at page 313; and yet it is in all its parts sufficiently like itself and of the same character. Those parts therefore which have been published in the Chrysostomian cannot be conformable to its other parts, as I have already sufficiently shown that they are not conformable. For this cause it is altogether improbable to me that the whole Synopsis, as it was published by Montfaucon in tom. 6, is a Work of St. John Chrysostom.

[226] But those things which the editor found in the Coislin codex The parts which can be attributed to Chrysostom are recounted: can probably be adjudged to Chrysostom, namely the Conspectus or preface of the Work, the Synopsis of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings or of the Kingdoms, as he calls them — except, however, that chronological appendix which begins at page 358. If the latter and greater part of the book of Job, which may be begun at page 367, was found in the Coislin codex, that too I should not wish to deny to Chrysostom, nor that as it were second Synopsis of Proverbs which begins at page 379. But Montfaucon does not clearly declare whether he found those parts in the Coislin codex; but rather the contrary, if he spoke accurately at page 308. Among the Synopses probably to be attributed to Chrysostom is also the Synopsis of Ecclesiasticus at page 380, unless that too was perhaps lacking in the Coislin codex, which Montfaucon does not say; and finally the Synopses of all the Prophets which are extant. But the Synopses of the last five are wholly wanting, as also those of the Psalms and of some other books of the Old Testament. None of the books of the New Testament has hitherto become known under Chrysostom's name.

[227] Montfaucon, however, judges that the whole of sacred Scripture was contracted into a Synopsis by Chrysostom. But he adduces no reasons for that opinion, it is uncertain whether he contracted the whole of Scripture into a Synopsis. nor does Chrysostom in the Protheoria assert that he composed a Synopsis of the New Testament, or of the whole of the Old; and therefore I should not dare to hold it for certain. For Chrysostom could first contract those books which he believed would be more useful to him for his purpose, and then, hindered by other cares, leave the Work imperfect. Certainly, if the said Synopsis is really Chrysostom's, I should believe that it was composed rather for his own use than to be published and communicated to others. Hence it could easily be left imperfect, because other graver cares pressed. Hence too it could come about that it lay long hidden, because it had not been published by the Saint, nor often transcribed. Hence finally it is very doubtful whether Chrysostom ever wrote like Synopses on all the remaining books of the Old Testament and on the New Testament. Socrates in book 6, chapter 3, recounts some Works of Chrysostom written in the diaconate, such as the books On the Priesthood and to Stagirius, which I have proved in their place were written earlier; then those On the incomprehensible nature of God, and On women dwelling together with clerics. But what we have disputed by Chrysostom On the Incomprehensible nature of God was spoken to the people of Antioch when he was a priest, as we shall also see that various things against the Jews were then composed, although Socrates says that the book against the Jews was written by the Saint while he was in the order of lectors. Finally about the cohabitation of women with clerics the Saint more probably treated in the episcopate, as I shall show in its place.

* Deut. 21, v. 23.

* Deut. 27, v. 26.

§ XVII. The Saint is consecrated priest, and begins to preach: his wondrous humility shines forth in his first Homily.

The Saint, ordained priest in the year 386, Of the dignity of the priesthood taken up by St. Chrysostom, and of his deeds in that grade, Palladius treats most briefly in the Dialogue, page 42, writing thus: For the rest, when his faculty for teaching was now becoming renowned, and the people were growing sweet from the bitterness of the world by his conversation, he is ordained priest by bishop Flavian. And when he had shone in the church of Antioch for twelve years (or rather, was shining), he illustrates the clergy of Antioch by an exact rule of life; seasoning some with the salt of wisdom, enlightening others with doctrine, watering others with the streams of the Holy Spirit. Of the time of that ordination it is in some measure established: for since the Saint was ordained bishop in the year 398, on the XXVII day of February, as we shall see in its place, twelve years of the priesthood lead us to the earlier months of the year 386. This year also the five years of the diaconate in some measure confirm: for neither can the beginning of these be fixed after the earlier months of the year 381. Hence Baronius at the year 386, num. 52, has this: In this same year John Chrysostom, prophecies going before, is ordained priest. We gather this from Marcellinus Comes, from Leo Augustus, and before these from Palladius in the Dialogue, when they say that he spent twelve years in the priesthood before he was created bishop, in the consulship of Honorius for the fourth time and of Eutychianus, in the year of the Lord 398.

[229] Baronius does not examine in what month of that year Chrysostom was consecrated. But Tillemont in Note 16 discourses ambiguously about the part of that year or at any rate about the beginning of that year: in which the ordination is to be fixed. Chrysostom in Homily 16 to the people of Antioch, tom. 2, page 162, thus addresses his hearers: Behold, this is the second year since I have been discoursing to your charity, and I have not been able to expound to you even a hundred verses of the Scriptures. This the Saint was saying in the time of Lent, when the Antiochenes were in fear on account of the statues of the emperor thrown down, which deed we shall fix in the year 387, in the month of February. To this opinion also Tillemont goes over, and thence gathers that the ordination must be fixed about the beginning of the year 386. Nay, it cannot certainly be shown that it was not performed a little before the year 386, that is, in the last months of the year 385, to which Hermant binds it in book 2, chapter 1. Certainly the twelve years of the priesthood are not to be reckoned so strictly that three or four months cannot be added, especially since he had to depart from Antioch to Constantinople before the episcopal ordination, and is said to have taught as a priest at Antioch for twelve years. Tillemont indeed from those Homilies on Genesis which in the Lent of the year 386

we shall see in §18 were delivered, gathers that the Saint was ordained not long before the Lent of that year; but that modesty which we perceive the Saint then used does not make out that the ordination must be fixed so near to Lent that it could not have preceded it by three or four months, as I shall observe in the same place. All things considered, however, as it appears certain that the Saint was consecrated before the Lent of the year 386, so it seems more probable that this did not happen before that year, so that the ordination seems to be fixed about the beginning of the year 386: for in §22 I shall assign some Homilies probably delivered before Lent.

[230] Of the bishop who ordained Chrysostom, Socrates, after his manner little accurate, speaks thus: he was ordained by bishop Flavian, But at length after the death of Paulinus he is ordained priest by Evagrius his successor. But this about Evagrius as ordainer the praised Baronius has sufficiently refuted, teaching that the rest of the Greek historians attribute the ordination to Flavian, and subjoining these words: Certainly indeed that he was of Flavian's communion, and ministered in his church, and there delivered sermons to the people, no one can deny: for the Homilies then delivered in it testify this very thing. Namely the Homily in praise of St. Meletius, delivered in the first year of his priesthood, shows that the flock of Meletius, and consequently of Flavian, was instructed by our John's sermons, nor is there any doubt about that matter. Further, Baronius observes that there were indeed dissensions between Flavian and the Roman Pontiffs, nay also the patriarchs of Alexandria, yet that these things never went so far that a schism was kindled by an interception of communion, or that Flavian was subjected to an anathema. For in the hope of concord the matter was borne with: and in the manner in which it had begun it was drawn out for several years. But to excuse Chrysostom let it suffice meanwhile to have said that the rights of both parties were very ambiguous, so that many thoroughly Catholic men and holy bishops joined themselves, some to this, others to the opposite party; and that Chrysostom remained in that party in which he had always been, and at last brought it about that Flavian was reconciled with all the Catholic bishops, as will be reported in §42, where more about that whole discord may be seen.

[231] who is said to have been divinely admonished to this. What Baronius adds about miracles at the Saint's ordination, not only the emperor Leo has, whom he praises, but the same things more prolixly before Leo George of Alexandria wrote, and other biographers then followed him. The whole matter I transfer hither in a compendium. When Flavian was reciting the nocturnal hymns, an angel is said to have appeared to him and commanded that he should create John a priest. Then an angel is asserted to have appeared to John also, and to have charged him not to refuse to accept the dignity of the priesthood. Finally at the ordination itself a white dove, as is reported, was seen above the Saint's head. This is the sum of the miracles, which are adorned with many circumstances little probable, and for that cause here omitted. The miracles themselves also, on account of the silence of Palladius and of other contemporaries, do not seem sufficiently certain. Nevertheless their silence cannot make us believe them certainly fictitious: especially since Chrysostom himself in his first Homily intimates that he was advanced to the priesthood not by human effort but by divine favor, as may be seen at num. 235. Something singular therefore, something above the natural order, seems either to have preceded or to have honored that ordination. Besides, the silence of Palladius and of others presses the less, because they omitted very many other things pertaining to the Saint, and touched only lightly on his deeds in the priesthood. St. Nilus in book 2, Letter 294, reports singular favors divinely granted to Chrysostom, of which other ancients likewise make no mention, so that not everything which they do not have is at once to be disapproved. The praised Letter of St. Nilus will be given in §84.

[232] The Saint delivers his first Homily to the people; Ordained priest, Chrysostom presently began to exercise the office to which he was destined, and delivered his first Homily to an immense multitude of the people. The Saint was then, according to our chronology, at least forty years old, or rather had somewhat passed that; and yet even so he repeatedly calls himself μειρακίσκον, a youngster or a stripling. But that extenuation of his own age by a most modest Man ought to move no one, since in the same Homily he speaks no less humbly of his other qualities. Such, namely, is the humility of many Saints: so modestly and lowlily do they speak and think of their own affairs that not a few others, who are neither adorned with so great humility nor have sufficiently discerned all the power of that virtue over minds, can scarcely understand by what reason they can truly and sincerely say what they humbly pronounce about themselves. Nevertheless it is not necessary to suppress the humble sayings of the Saints for the sake of these, nor even for the sake of those who malignantly interpret like words of the Saints in order unjustly to carp at their manners. Neither will the fair and prudent reader do; and to him I subjoin for consideration the beginning of that first Homily, where the Saint explains his great astonishment at the dignity conferred upon him.

[233] wondrous humility in it, extenuating all his own things And so in tom. 1 of the Works, page 436, he thus begins: Are the things which have befallen us true? Have they really been done, and are we not deceived, and are the things which now happen not night and dreams? Is it truly day, and are we all awake? And who would believe that in the day, when men are sober and awake, a Youth of the lowest sort and abject has been raised to so great a height of dignity? For that such things should happen by night would be nothing incredible. For then some men, both maimed in body and so poor that not even necessary food is at hand, seem to themselves in sleep to enjoy whole limbs and beauty and a royal table: but what seemed to be was sleep and the mockeries of dreams; since this is the nature of dreams, a crafty and cunning thing, and a contriver of prodigies, which delights to mock with new and incredible images. But by day and in reality no one would ever see this happen. Yet all things have now come to pass, have been done, have been accomplished, as you see; these things, I say, more incredible than the visions of dreams: and a city of such greatness, so thronged, a people both numerous and admirable, gapes at my littleness, as though about to hear something great and illustrious from us. And yet, even if my speech flowed like perennial rivers, and if there were fountains of words in my mouth, straightway from the concourse of so great a multitude to hear, the outflow would be stayed by fear, and the streams would leap back. But now, since we are so far from the abundance of rivers and fountains that we do not attain the mediocrity of even a small shower, how can it be that so scanty a flow, dried up by fear, should not fail me? Thus far Chrysostom, who presently says that he fears lest those slender things which he had thought out with much labor should escape him through fear, and therefore he demands the prayers of his hearers on his behalf.

[234] Then at page 438: I desired indeed, being about to speak for the first time in the church, and extenuating himself, to dedicate the first-fruits of my exordia to him who gave us this tongue, namely to God. How consonant with reason this is, he shows, and thus does that very thing briefly in passing over it. Nevertheless he says that he is forbidden it by the sacred words: Praise is not comely in the mouth of a sinner, subjoining this with wondrous humility: For as in garlands it is not enough that the flowers be pure, unless the hand also which weaves them be pure; so also in sacred hymns it behooves that not only the words be pious, but also the mind that sings the hymns. But mine is impure to me, empty of confidence, as being full of many crimes. Again at page 439, having brought forward from Psalm [ ] the words in which even the beasts are invited to praise the Lord, he subjoins this: Not in vain nor rashly, while I speak these things, have I leaped in. Because the thought of my mind is confounded with fear, and almost brought to bitter tears and heavy wailing. For what, I pray, could be more wretched? Scorpions, serpents and dragons are invited to praise him by whom they were created: the sinner alone has been removed from this sacred dance, and that most justly. An evil and savage beast is sin, bringing forth its evil not indeed upon fellow-servant bodies, but pouring out its malice upon the very glory of the Lord. Having dwelt somewhat on these things, the Saint proceeds to the praise of bishop Flavian.

[235] Finally with like humility he concludes his oration, and addresses his hearers: and asking for prayers, his humility. If you have any regard even for us — for we shall no longer dare to place ourselves in the number of priests, since neither is it lawful to reckon abortive births with lawful and perfect ones; but if, I say, there is with you any regard for us as for a certain fetus cast out by abortion, pray that from above much vigor may come to us. We had need indeed of protection before also, while we passed our life alone, free from business: but after we have been brought into the midst — I omit how, whether by human effort or by divine favor: for I shall not contend with you at all about this, lest I seem to anyone to speak by dissimulation and irony — nevertheless, since we have been brought forward and have taken up this strong and heavy yoke, we have need of many hands, of countless prayers, that we may be able to render the deposit safe to the Lord who deposited it, on that day when those to whom talents have been entrusted shall be summoned and set before the judgment to render an account. Pray therefore that there may not befall us what befell those who were bound and cast into the outer darkness: but that we may be in the number of those who shall be able to obtain some sort of pardon. Thus far the most modest Orator. On the words alleged I only observe that he did not dare to deny that he was raised to that dignity by divine favor.

§ XVIII. On some Homilies of the year 386, in which Chrysostom began to preach against the Anomœans and against the Jews.

The author's plan in recounting the Saint's Works. Tillemont and Montfaucon discourse much about the time in which Chrysostom delivered his Homilies to the people. But often clear enough indications are not found by which a determined time can be assigned to each. Hence it has come about that those writers not rarely went off into diverse opinions, and disputed more things than they could make certain. For this cause I judge that not only their reasons must be accurately and without prejudice weighed, but also that it must diligently be investigated whether other indications of the order of Chrysostom's Works may not be found than those which they have hitherto brought forward, so that I may in some measure assign to the several years those Homilies about whose time it shall be sufficiently established by a certain or at least a very probable reason. I see indeed that I am undertaking a difficult labor, and that from time to time I cannot follow whither the praised guides try to draw me, even when they agree. Nevertheless, relying on the Saint's favor, I shall elucidate what I can, and by comparing and re-reading his lucubrations I shall try to recall most of them to the order and time in which they seem to have been written. Lest, however, we be compelled at once

to weave prolix disputations, I shall first assign the more certain Homilies of the year 386, as also others from time to time delivered on the same matter. But of others probably delivered in the year 386 I shall treat in §22, being about to set the order of all before the eyes in a brief compendium near the end of this Commentary.

[237] The eight Sermons on Genesis, That among the earlier Homilies must be numbered the eight Sermons on Genesis, which we have in Montfaucon, tom. 4, from page 645, Tillemont and Montfaucon have observed, whose opinion I judge sufficiently certain. The chief reason is sought from Sermon 2, which the Saint thus begins at page 651: Do you remember the questions which were lately proposed to you? For you have advanced us to such arrogance and audacity that we undertake questions intrepidly. Nay, this deed is neither of audacity nor of arrogance: for not trusting in our own strength, but committing all things to the prayers of the prelates and to yours, we have girded ourselves for the arena. Now so great is the force of the prayers of the Church that, although we were more mute than stones, they would make our tongue lighter than a feather… Therefore we too daily gird ourselves confidently for the contest. These words show that Chrysostom was still acting modestly, and that he had not long before been called to preach. But the questions which he mentions he had proposed in the first Sermon.

[238] delivered in the Lent of the year 386, Further, this first Sermon was delivered at the beginning of Lent, as the inscription has it, and for that cause the holy Orator took his beginning from the praise of fasting, whose goods he briefly enumerates. But the remaining seven followed in the same Lent, and on various following days he from time to time continued those Sermons. Certainly he thus begins the fourth: You heard yesterday, etc. In the fifth near the beginning he says: Yesterday we accused the women, etc. And so the third, fourth and fifth were delivered on three successive days. The sixth also and the seventh were delivered on two days, as is clear from the beginning of the seventh. An observation of Montfaucon's, which I have found most true, I here deliver to the reader: In these sermons, he says in the Life, page 99, although they be numbered among the first which Chrysostom delivered, you would admire not only the eloquence, the richness in speaking, the polished kind of words, and the felicity of invention, which shine forth in all his other Works, where we always see the style accommodated to popular approval. But you would also notice how far so great an Artificer was always prepared for extemporary declamation, and how ready he was to pursue with his pen matters however unlooked-for. Then he adduces an example from Sermon 4, num. 3, where the Orator excellently interposes not a few things extempore among things previously meditated, carping at his hearers because with eyes turned away from him they were looking toward one who was lighting the lamps.

[239] The heretics in those Sermons Chrysostom frequently assails — [in which he exhorts his hearers to relate what they have heard to their own households.] the Manichees before the rest, the Marcionites also and the Valentinians — nor does he pass over the gentiles. He instructs also in morals, but more briefly than he afterwards commonly did. He also much exhorts his hearers to try to gather the desired fruit from his sermons, by repeating what has been said and communicating it to others. Near the end of Sermon 6, page 673, he inculcates this in these words: Let us therefore retain all these things, most beloved, and, returning home, let us set on a twofold table, one of food, the other of sacred reading: and let the husband repeat what has been said, and let the wife learn it, let the children hear, nor let the servants be defrauded of that reading. Make your house a church: since an account must be rendered by you both for your children's and for your servants' salvation. And as accounts will be exacted from us for you, so from each of you an account will be demanded for a servant, for a wife, and for a son, etc. Like things he repeats in Sermon 7, and testifies that they were heard with applause, speaking thus at page 674: For when I said yesterday, Let each of you make his house a church, you acclaimed with a loud voice, and gave a sign of the pleasure with which those words had suffused you. Besides those eight Sermons, Chrysostom probably delivered other Homilies also in that Lent; but it is not so certainly established about them, and they will be disputed in §22.

[240] In the same year 386 he began both to speak in praise of the Saints The Homily in praise of St. Meletius. and sharply to assail the Anomœans, or the Arian followers of Eunomius, and presently the Jews also. Of the several Homilies which he delivered on the Saints at Antioch, that certainly belongs to this year in which Chrysostom celebrated St. Meletius, bishop of Antioch. That was delivered near the shrine of the relics of St. Meletius, as is intimated near the end, and probably in the month of May, on the very day on which Meletius had been translated to a better life, as Tillemont rightly observes in Note 21. It is published in Montfaucon, tom. 2, page 518, whence I transfer hither the beginning: Looking round with my eyes on every side upon this sacred flock, and seeing the whole city present here, I know not whom I should first pronounce blessed — holy Meletius, because even after death he enjoys so great honor; or your charity, because you show so great goodwill toward your pastors even after their decease… For the fifth year has now passed since he migrated to the Jesus whom he longed for, and just as though you had seen him yesterday and the day before, with so fervent a love have you come to him today. Montfaucon, moved by I know not what mistake, says that this Homily was not delivered on the anniversary day of his death; for, he says, Chrysostom would not have said that the fifth year had already passed. But on no other day could he more fittingly say that the fifth year had passed than on that very day on which it had passed, that is, on the very day of his death five years after his death. Of the other Homilies delivered in praise of the Saints we shall treat afterwards.

[241] The first Homily against the Anomœans, after which he attacks the Jews, That St. Chrysostom's excellent contests against the Anomœans began in the year 386 I have already said, as also those against the Jews and against those who observed the feasts and fasts of the Jews. For the Saint interrupted the contests begun against the Anomœans in order to speak against the Jews. This is clear from the first Oration against the Jews in Montfaucon, tom. 1, page 587. For he thus begins it: What remained of the matter about which I lately discoursed to you — that God cannot be comprehended — I wished today to complete and to teach more clearly. For about this on the past Lord's day we made so many words and so copiously. Then he repeats some of his sayings which are contained in the first Homily on the incomprehensible nature of God against the Anomœans, especially at pages 449 and 450. But then he testifies that these wonderfully pleased his hearers, speaking thus: Accordingly the demonstration was made certain with great applause, the theater grew hot, the assembly of hearers was inflamed. Nor indeed did I rejoice that I was praised, but that my Lord was heaped with praises. For that applause and praise showed forth the love of your minds toward God, etc.

[242] whose feasts were at hand, After these things he renders the reason why he attacks other enemies, proceeding thus: I wished therefore today also to go down into that contest. For if no satiety of revilings against the Benefactor seizes the enemies of truth, much more does it befit us to burn with an insatiable desire of celebrating the God of all. But what shall I do? Another most grievous disease demands the medicine of our tongue, a disease implanted in the body of the Church. This must first be taken away; then care must be had of our own household before that of outsiders; afterwards account must be had of strangers. What is that disease? The feasts of the wretched and miserable Jews are continuous and frequent and at hand: Trumpets, Tabernacles, fasts: and many of our order, who say that they think with us, partly go forth to look at those feasts, partly even celebrate them with them and fast with them: which depraved custom I now wish to drive from the Church. For words against the Anomœans can be made at another time, nor will you suffer any loss on account of the delay: but unless we now cure those seized with the disease of the Jews, while their feasts are before the doors and near at hand, I fear lest perhaps some, by an untimely custom and by great ignorance, become partners in their wickedness, and lest thereafter we make words about these things in vain. For if, hearing nothing, they shall today fast with them, the sin being perpetrated, we shall apply the remedy in vain. Wherefore I am impelled to anticipate. This same thing physicians also observe in urgent and most acute diseases, which they determine to cure first. But altogether this contest is akin to the former: for since the impiety of the Jews and of the Anomœans has something akin in it, contests also akin to the former now offer themselves to us.

[243] But on what occasion Chrysostom's zeal against the Jews, and against Christians communicating with the Jews, and against whom he was inflamed with zeal on account of a singular event, blazed forth the more, he declares in the same Oration at page 591 in these words: For three days ago — believe me, I do not lie — I saw a certain matron, honorable, freeborn, modest and faithful, whom a certain impure and stupid man, a Christian in reputation (for I would not call one who dares such things a sincere Christian), was compelling to enter the building of the Hebrews and there to give an oath about matters in dispute between them. But when she implored help and desired to ward off the wicked violence — for she said that it was impiety for her, who had been made partaker of the divine mysteries, to approach that place — I, inflamed and burning with zeal, rose up, and did not suffer her to be drawn further to prevarication, and snatched her from that iniquitous abduction. Afterwards I asked him who had dragged her whether he was a Christian. And when he confessed it, I pressed him gravely, reproaching him with his folly and utmost madness, and denied that he was in anything superior to asses, if, professing that he adored Christ, he dragged anyone to the caves of the Jews who had crucified him. And, drawing out the discourse at greater length, I taught first from the sacred Gospel that it is altogether unlawful to swear, or to incite anyone to an oath. Then, that not a faithful and initiated woman — nay, not even one who is not yet initiated — ought to have been drawn into that necessity. After I had spoken long and much and had freed his mind from the error of his opinion, I inquired the cause why, leaving the Church, he had dragged her to the assemblies of the Jews. But he said that many had told him that an oath given there was more to be feared. At which I groaned and was inflamed with anger, and thereafter again laughed. For discerning the craft of the devil, I groaned that he could persuade men of it; but considering the sluggishness of those who were being deceived, I blazed out; and, reckoning with myself how great was their madness, I laughed.

[244] Further, from the feasts of the Jews which were at hand when Chrysostom delivered this Oration, [he attacks them toward the end of August or the beginning of September: seven days before] it can be gathered that it was delivered toward the end of the month of August or the beginning of September. For the Trumpets, or the feast of Trumpets, was on the 1st day of the month Tishri, the Scenopegia or feast of Tabernacles on the XV day of the same month, and in the same month were the various fasts of the Jews, namely on the X day was the solemn Expiation, and for that feast's sake an exact fast. But that month Tishri begins in the month of September, now earlier now later, that is, with the new moon of that month. And so, since the Oration was delivered some

at least on the days before the feast of Trumpets, it must have been

delivered toward the end of August, or in the month of September.

But seven days before this one, that is, on the preceding

Sunday, was delivered the first Homily against

the Anomoeans, already mentioned. Since the number of these Arians

was not small at Antioch, where

they had even had a bishop, Dorotheus, who by the emperor Theodosius'

command was sent into exile in the year 381, Chrysostom had long

desired to dispute against them;

and in the same Homily he indicates on what occasion

he had deferred this, and at last had begun it, writing thus

on page 450: I wished to treat the matter at greater length:

but since I have now for the first time come down into these contests,

I think it will be to your advantage if you are content with what has been

set forth already, lest the abundance of what remains to be said,

coming on with great force, take away the memory of the former.

Assuredly, if God permit, we shall treat this

subject at length.

[245] For my own part I have long been desiring to deliver these

discourses to you: but I hesitated and put it off,

because I saw many who labored under that disease

lending us their ears with pleasure: and since

I did not wish to drive off the prey, meanwhile I restrained my tongue from

these disputations, the first Homily against the Anomoeans is delivered: so that, having held them

more firmly, I might then come down into the arena.

But since by the grace of God I have heard them urging me

to come down into this contest, I have at last

confidently girded myself for the fight, and have seized those weapons

which purge the reason, and every height

that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.

Moreover I have taken up these weapons, not to strike down adversaries,

but to raise up those who lie fallen. To these he

adds other things, by which he shows that it is not out of hatred but out of love

that he disputes against the Anomoeans, and that he is solely concerned for their

salvation. On this occasion it is worth observing

that Chrysostom attacks the Jews with far harsher words

than the Anomoeans; for no other reason,

I think, than that he was disputing chiefly against

the Jews, in order that Christians who mixed themselves in their feasts

and fasts might, by the recollection of the crimes of the Jews,

be more powerfully deterred from that transgression;

whereas he hoped that the Anomoeans would be more readily

converted by moderate disputation. Yet not even the Anomoeans

does he treat so gently in the following Homilies especially

as not to prick them sharply from time to time.

[246] the second Oration against the Jews: others perhaps lost. Ten days or more after the first Oration

against the Jews he delivered another, five days

before their fast, and begins it thus on page 601: Now that iniquitous

and unclean fast of the Jews is at the doors… Their iniquitous

fast, then, is imminent after five days more:

But I addressed an exhortation to you ten days ago or more,

that I might forearm your brethren. Then he intimates

that he had delivered that Oration so many days beforehand

so that each one might be able to turn Christians away

from that fast of the Jews, and that for the same

reason he delivers this second one. Further, that this was spoken ten

days after the first is clear from these words

in no. 3: Have you not heard how clearly it was demonstrated in argument

in the earlier treatise that the very souls of the Jews

and the places in which they gather are inhabited

by demons? For this he showed in the first

Sermon, no. 6. There seems, then, no room for doubt

that these two Sermons followed one another, and are the first

of those which the Saint delivered against the Jews.

But Chrysostom delivered several other orations also in the month of September

against the Jews, as he himself intimates

in the Homily on the Nativity of our Lord,

which we shall see was delivered in the same year, tom. 2

page 361, speaking thus: But it was then the time

of the feast of Tabernacles and of the Fast,… and this was celebrated by the Jews

toward the end of the month of September.

For then we employed long and copious orations

against the Jews, accusing their unseasonable fast.

Hence it is clear that many Sermons on

this subject were then delivered by Chrysostom.

Nevertheless I judge that all the rest which are extant belong to the

following year. Hence with Montfaucon I

suspect that some of them have perished,

or still lie hidden.

§ XIX. The remaining contests of Chrysostom against the Anomoeans, interrupted from time to time by other sermons of the year 386.

The Saint, after various hindrances, probably in the month of November, After those contests against the Jews, and certain

other sermons concerning the Martyrs, the holy Presbyter took up his arms again

against the Anomoeans, and begins the second

Sermon against the Anomoeans thus:

Come, let us once more enter the contest against the faithless Anomoeans…

For lately, when we came down into the arena of this

disputation, as you remember,

and entered upon these same contests, the battles against the Jews

at once took us up, because it was not

safe to neglect our own ailing members. For

Sermons against the Anomoeans are always seasonable.

But at that time, unless by anticipating we had

straightway snatched certain of our brethren, who were sick

and laboring under the Jewish disease, out of the Jewish conflagration, no

admonition afterwards could have helped, once they had committed

that sin concerning the fast. After

the battles waged against them, the throng of spiritual fathers

arriving from various places took us up

again. For it would not then have been fitting,

while they were flowing together like rivers into this spiritual

sea, that our Sermon should be extended.

After their departure, the frequent commemorations of the martyrs

came on: the praise of such athletes

was not to be neglected.

[248] But I say and enumerate these things lest you should think

that we deferred those contests out of some sloth and idleness. he resumes the disputations against the Anomoeans: Now therefore, since we are

free from the fight with the Jews, and the fathers have returned to their own

country, and the praises of the martyrs have sufficiently

delighted us, come, let us fulfil your long-standing desire

of hearing. So Chrysostom, by

spiritual fathers, whose arrival had increased the delay,

doubtless designating bishops, since the honor

of speaking to the people was given to them. Moreover the hindrances

recounted have the effect that this second

Sermon against the Anomoeans appears to have been delivered only

in the month of November: for after this we find only three Sermons

against the Anomoeans before the twentieth of December,

on which day we shall see that he spoke of St. Philogonius. Yet

after the fifth against the Anomoeans perhaps two other

Homilies were delivered, as we shall see in §52.

[249] But those four Homilies against the Anomoeans

seem to have been delivered consecutively without many others intervening. four Homilies against them having been delivered, In all of them there shines out the Saint's wonderful charity,

and a most fervent zeal for destroying the heresy.

In the second of them, that is, in the third Homily against

the Anomoeans, page 462, Let us pray God, he says,

to send forth upon us the Spirit of grace, that, rushing on more violently than any

wind, He may tear up the heresy by the roots,

and make our labor lighter. To

similar prayers he strongly exhorts on page 470. After the fifth

Homily against the Anomoeans, and perhaps two others

to be mentioned in §52, on page 492 concerning St. Philogonius,

bishop of Antioch, who is venerated on the twentieth day of December,

he begins thus: I indeed had determined today also

to strip off my garments to wrestle against the heretics,

and to pay you what remained of my debt;

but the day of the blessed Philogonius, whose feast we celebrate,

has summoned our tongue to the recounting of his good deeds.

[250] That this Homily was delivered five days before the Nativity

of the Lord on the twentieth of December he speaks in praise of St. Philogonius. Chrysostom intimates

in it at no. 4, page 498, when he says: For the space

of these five days suffices, namely for

purging the conscience, so that they might worthily celebrate

the Nativity of the Lord. The contests against the Anomoeans, therefore, were

again interrupted, not only

by that single sermon on St. Philogonius, but also by many

others, and, as I judge, right up to February

of the following year. We shall wonder at this the less, if we consider

that the disputation on the incomprehensible was here

concluded.

[251] The disputation against the Anomoeans being resumed, Nevertheless the Saint afterwards resumed his disputations

against the Anomoeans by a Homily which

he began thus on page 501: Again the Circensian games, and again

our assembly has been diminished for us: nay rather,

so long as you are present, it cannot be diminished.

Moreover that this Homily was not delivered very long after

the preceding ones against the Anomoeans, Chrysostom

sufficiently intimates at no. 2, where he teaches that hitherto

he had shown against the Anomoeans that the nature of God is

incomprehensible; but that now he would show that the Son

is Consubstantial with the Father. From the opening, namely that

the Circensian games (in Greek ἱπποδρομίαι, which is literally rendered "horse-

races") were then being held, Tillemont in art. 19 judges

that it was delivered on the third day of January,

because on that day games are noted in the Fasti in

Bucherius, page 281. Montfaucon too, in the

Monitum on page 492, says that the Circensian games were celebrated

on the fifth day of January. The same writer in another Monitum,

page 966, says: on the third or fourth or fifth of January,

for on these days the Circensian games were held.

[252] not on the earlier days of January, as some would have it, But these things seem to be said without foundation:

for I do not think it can be proved that they were

Circensian games rather than others, which are

assigned to those days in the Calendar in Bucherius. Indeed

Games are so often noted there in each month, that

it is ridiculous to investigate the day on which a Homily was delivered

from the games noted there. Let the studious reader look at that Calendar

reprinted by us together with another likewise

ancient one in tom. VII of June, page 178; and he will see

that the Circensian games are there distinguished from the games. There is noted

a private circus on the second day of January; again Circensian games

are noted on the fifteenth of January, the twentieth, the twenty-fourth, and lastly

on the last day of that same month; but games on other and

more numerous days. And so Tillemont's observation, adopted by

others, is plainly useless for assigning a certain day

to that Homily, especially since extraordinary Circensian games

were also celebrated.

[253] [but a little later; by the Homily whose beginning is, Again the Circensian games:] Yet it cannot be doubted that that Homily

was delivered at no such long interval after the earlier ones against

the Anomoeans on the incomprehensible nature of God, that

the memory of these had faded. The one which follows

that first Homily on the Son as Consubstantial with the Father, or on the

Glory of the Only-begotten, as the Saint frequently calls these,

seems to have been delivered on the following day, and Montfaucon

believes this certain, because on page 513 it has this beginning:

We returned yesterday from the war, etc. But

those words prove only that the Saint on the preceding

day had discoursed against the heretics or Anomoeans; but they

cannot prove that that particular Homily was delivered

which Montfaucon placed before it. Nay rather,

Chrysostom seems to intimate the contrary in the

same Homily on page 514: for, being about to explain an objection

of the Anomoeans, which they drew from Christ's answer

to the request of the sons of Zebedee, and which

he undertook to resolve, he speaks thus: Since LATELY

we discoursed about the power of the Only-begotten, etc. The

Saint designates the preceding Homily, which is the first on that

subject. But he would not seem likely to say lately,

but rather yesterday, if that one had been delivered the day before.

I judge therefore that there was another

intermediate between the two. Moreover a certain Homily against the Anomoeans was

published by Montfaucon in tom. 6, page 255: for he believed

it to have been delivered later. But to me at least it seems

rightly to fit this period.

[254] [this seems to have been followed by another, published in tom. 6, whose beginning is: O what violence:] I transfer its beginning here: O what violence! O

what tyranny! our teacher (Flavian the bishop,)

who spoke before us, though he had a full

flask, offers us the cup to be tasted only with the very

tips of the lips. And he did this, not from a poverty

of doctrine; for he is wont to gush forth like a fountain;

but, as I have said, to make manifest the tyranny

of your love, which you are wont to display toward our

slenderness. For that reason

he fell silent quickly and concluded his sermon, in order to gratify your

desire; and he has made us liable for the whole

debt to be paid. Since therefore he has yielded to us the place

of speaking, and I see you hanging upon our lips,

it is at last necessary that we strip for the contests.

After a few words in which he begs for the prayers and attention

of his hearers, he sets forth the subject he has proposed to himself

thus: In the earlier sermon, then, when I had brought forward this

evangelical saying, "My

Father works until now, and I work,"

and had shown from it His equality with His Begetter,

… I thus closed my discourse. But today it is necessary

to resolve those things which the heretics object

against these. Then he takes up for elucidation the words objected by the

heretics, John 5, verse 19: The Son cannot do

anything of Himself, etc., and eloquently repels

the objection, and at last resolves it. Now indeed those words

which he says he had used he did in fact bring forward in Homily

1 on this subject, page 503. But he cited many other

passages of Scripture in that same place, so that it is not

certainly established whether he was pointing to that Homily,

or to some other now lost. This only seems to me

to need saying, that the Homily in question no less

than the rest against the Anomoeans seems to be fixed

toward the end of January or rather in the month of February:

for we shall see that many other Homilies were delivered in the month of January.

What Montfaucon says, that that Homily was

delivered when Chrysostom possessed great authority,

is useless: he would rather

have said, when he was gladly heard: for

that alone the Homily proves. But Chrysostom lacked

neither, after a year of preaching.

[255] Further, that Homily whose beginning is: From

the war we returned yesterday, then three others, published in tom. I. from the war and the fight

with the heretics, etc.; and which could have followed the one already

mentioned no less than preceded it, resolves another

objection of the Anomoeans, drawn from Christ's words

in Matthew 20, verse 23: But to sit at My right hand

or on My left is not Mine to give you, etc.

In Montfaucon this is followed on page 525 by another,

which resolves an objection of the same heretics,

which they drew from the prayers which the Lord

used when He raised Lazarus. Lastly

the final one against the Anomoeans, of those which were delivered

at Antioch, is read on page 529, and it resolves at once many

objections of the Anomoeans. This was delivered

not a few days after the others, as is clear from its beginning,

so that it seems to be fixed after the middle of February.

That it was nevertheless delivered before Lent

of the year 387 is shown from what is repeated at no. 2

in summary from the Oration on the Glory of the Only-begotten, whose beginning is, Again the Circensian games. Montfaucon appended

two other Homilies against the Anomoeans,

but delivered at Constantinople. For the rest, those Homilies,

as to be numbered among the most excellent Works of the holy Doctor,

Montfaucon deservedly praises in the Life,

page 100.

§ XX. The fervent Homily against the Quartodecimans,

called the third Against the Jews, upon which various things are observed: the Saint's remaining

Orations against the Jews.

The third Oration against the Jews, Having now dispatched those things which the Saint solidly argued

against the Arian heretics, who denied that the Son

was equal to the Father, and were on that account called by the Greek word

Anomoeans, I shall return to those contests

which with equal zeal he waged against the Jews, in order that

he might powerfully tear Judaizing Christians away from their feasts and fasts.

Of the two Orations delivered in the year

386 about September against those transgressors

we have treated in §18. To these Montfaucon added a third

on page 606, and he contends that it likewise was delivered about September,

or at any rate not long after.

But Tillemont in Note 25 more rightly believes that it was spoken some

time before Lent of the year 387.

Yet here too he observes various things in the same place

which seem to proceed solely from the title and mind of Chrysostom being wrongly

understood, such as I also

find in Montfaucon, and in Ceillier who follows him, tom. 9, pages 86 and following. For these

reasons I shall explain the matters pertaining to this Homily at somewhat greater

length. For the writers named have invented difficulties for themselves

which are in truth only imaginary.

[257] whose title has been badly expounded, The Greek title is this: Εὶς

τοὺς

τὰ

πρῶτα

πάσχα

νηστεύοντας, and Montfaucon renders it into Latin thus:

Against those who fast the first Pasch.

But these words do not clear up the obscurity of the Greek

title. The aforesaid Tillemont believes that by the words of the title

it is signified that those men against whom the Saint

argues celebrated the Pasch later than the Catholics,

and for that reason were compelled to fast during the Pasch

of the Catholics. But this exposition is false,

since the case is against those who began the fast earlier.

Tillemont himself acknowledges the greatest difficulty

in his own opinion, because in the year 387 the Pasch

of the Christians was celebrated on the twenty-fifth of April. This

Montfaucon too acknowledges in the Life, page 102,

adding these words: But according to the Paschal tables

in the year 387 the Pasch fell on the twenty-fifth of April,

that is, as late as it can possibly occur.

How then could those Judaizers in this year

fast during the Pasch, since the Pasch of the Jews

can never occur beyond the twenty-fifth of April?

On account of that argument, which can be framed for each

year, and from which he ought to have learned

that the title must be expounded in another way, he at last

suspects that the Antiochenes in that year did not follow

the calculations of the Alexandrians, and that the Pasch was celebrated

earlier at Antioch.

[258] [it was delivered against the Quartodecimans, who celebrated the Pasch with the Jews,] But these things are said gratuitously, and can in no way

be of use. For on whatever day at last

the Christians celebrated the Pasch in that year, they certainly

did not celebrate it before the Jews; since these

celebrate their Pasch on a fixed day, namely the fourteenth

moon of the month Nisan, that is, at the full moon; whereas Christians

never celebrate their Pasch before that

day, but keep it on the first Sunday

after the full moon, with the exception of the Quartodecimans, who

celebrated it with the Jews, and whom in this Oration

Chrysostom attacks. And so Tillemont and Montfaucon

misunderstood the title of the Oration,

and from that fell into various errors.

For the Quartodecimans, against whose followers

the Saint proceeds, were never compelled to fast

during the Pasch of the Christians, since they always celebrated the Pasch

with the Jews on the fourteenth moon, before the feast of the Pasch

of the Christians, and consequently the fast

of the Quartodecimans was ended before the end of the fast

of the Catholics. These things are so certain, and commonly known

to the learned, that I wonder that the writers named did not attend

to that observation. From what has been said, therefore, it is established

that Chrysostom is not proceeding against those who fast

during the Pasch of the Christians, and that the title of the Oration

has been wrongly expounded.

[259] But since Chrysostom most clearly proceeds

against the Quartodecimans, and therefore who begin the forty-day fast before the Catholics. the title signifies this:

Against those who fast forty days

before the Pasch of the Jews. The Greek words do not

contain all of that; but the Oration itself shows that Chrysostom is

treating of that matter, and that the Quartodecimans are being assailed,

who celebrated the Pasch with the Jews, and

before their own Pasch kept forty days

of fasting, just as the Catholics also fasted forty days before

the Pasch. That some Quartodecimans survived in his own time

at Antioch, the Saint affirms in various

places in the Homily in question. Indeed

at no. 3 he even admits that that custom of beginning

the fast forty days before the Jewish Pasch

had formerly been common among the Antiochenes,

namely before the Council of Nicaea, by whose decree

Chrysostom presently shows that the custom of the Quartodecimans

was abrogated and condemned.

There is no doubt, then, that the Saint is proceeding against

the remnants of the Quartodecimans, who celebrated the Pasch on the same

day as the Jews, and therefore began their own Lent

before the Catholics. But since

in the year 387, as he teaches on page 613, the Pasch of the Jews

fell on a Sunday, it was celebrated a full seven

days before the festival of the Catholics,

and likewise the Lent of the Quartodecimans

preceded the Lent of the Catholics by just as many

days. From what has been said I observe two things: first,

that Pasch in the title signifies the Jewish Pasch,

which in that Homily he frequently distinguishes from the Pasch of the

Christians; secondly, that the case is not against those

who fasted during the Pasch itself, but against those who by a preliminary

fast prepared themselves for the Pasch before the others.

[260] These things being observed concerning the whole Homily, let us see

with what zeal Chrysostom burned Against these, kindled with wondrous zeal, the Saint to

bring the Quartodecimans back to the Church. In the exordium

of the Homily he immediately teaches that he is interrupting the disputation

begun against the Anomoeans, in order to turn the Quartodecimans

away from beginning the fast before the Catholics,

speaking thus: Again, a certain necessary

and urgent business, interrupting the sequence of what was lately said,

draws the discourse to itself,

and today withdraws us from the contests

undertaken with the heretics. For we indeed

were prepared to speak again to your charity about the glory

of the Only-begotten; but the unseasonable contention of those

who fast the first Pasch, (in Greek τῶν

τὰ

πρῶτα

πάσχα

νηστεύειν

βουλομένων, which may be rendered:

those who wish to fast the Pasch as soon as possible)

compels all our teaching today to be wholly

occupied in caring for them. Then he briefly shows the evils of that discord,

and continues thus: And I know indeed by God's

grace that the better part of this flock is free from this

sickness, and that the disease has invaded few:

yet not on that account is the cure to be neglected.

For even if there were only ten, even if five, even if

two, even if only one sick man, not even so

ought he to be neglected. For though even one be

cheap and abject, he is nevertheless a brother, for whom

Christ died, and Christ takes great account of the

cheap. I cannot grasp why Montfaucon

believed that that business concerning the fast and the Pasch

was so urgent about the month of September.

But it was urgent at the end of February or the beginning

of March, lest those contentious men should again begin their own

fast before the others.

he argues sharply, and teaches, It is worth adducing now some of the matters disputed.

Chrysostom on page 608 speaks thus of the Quartodecimans:

Whom indeed I would gladly ask,

what the Pasch is, what Lent is? and what

is Jewish, and what is ours: or for what

reason the one is celebrated once each year, but the other

at every assembly: what the unleavened breads

mean, and many other things besides these which pertain to

this subject. Then indeed you will rightly know

how untimely is the contention of those

who cannot even give an account of the things

which they do. These things and others Chrysostom says to rebuke them;

and by the Pasch of the Christians,

which is celebrated at every assembly,

he understands the Sacrifice of the Mass and the communion of the Body

and Blood of Christ, as often below, according to

that saying of the Apostle: Christ our Pasch is

sacrificed, 1 Cor. 5, verse 7. Hence he says at no.

5: Certainly a catechumen never celebrates the Pasch,

although he fasts every year, since

he does not communicate in the oblation, just as also

he who does not fast, if he approach with a pure conscience,

celebrates the Pasch, whether today, or tomorrow, or at any

other time he becomes a partaker of the communion. This

manner of speaking Chrysostom keeps throughout the whole Oration,

and he argues much to this end on page

611, where he says: For the Pasch and

Lent are not the same: but the Pasch is one thing, Lent another.

Since Lent takes place once in the year,

but the Pasch three times in the week, sometimes

even four times, or rather as often as

we wish. For the Pasch is not a fast, but

an oblation and a Sacrifice, etc. So speaks the Saint,

not disapproving our custom by which the solemn day

on which we celebrate the Lord's Resurrection

we are wont to call Pasch, but because the Jews and gentiles

seized from it an occasion for carping at Christians,

as he says a little below.

[261] nor ought Christians, nor are they able, to celebrate the Pasch on that day But an occasion of arraigning Christians

could arise for the Jews from the name Pasch, because Christians

celebrated the Lord's Resurrection on a different day

from that on which God had commanded the Jews to celebrate the Pasch.

Hence on page 613 the Saint shows that Christians cannot,

even if they wished, celebrate the death of the Lord and then His Resurrection

on a fixed day of the month Nisan,

and he proves this evidently, supposing that the death

of the Lord must always be celebrated by Christians on a

Friday, and the Resurrection on a Sunday. I append

Chrysostom's words, which were badly understood by Montfaucon:

For that not even we, he says, even if

we vehemently desire and strive for it, are able to observe at all

that day on which He was crucified, is established from this.

For even if the Jews had not been transgressors,

nor ungrateful, nor stupid,

nor slothful and contemptuous, nor had fallen away from their ancestral

rites, but still observed them diligently;

not even so could it come about that we, by treading

in their footsteps, should attain that day on which He was crucified

and celebrated the Pasch.

But in what way, I shall say. When He was crucified,

then it was the first day of the Unleavened Bread, and the Parasceve:

for it cannot be that these two perpetually

coincide. For behold, the first day of the Unleavened Bread

this year fell upon a Sunday,

and it is altogether necessary that we fast the whole week,

and that, when the Passion has gone by, and the Cross has come,

and the Resurrection, we should still remain

fasting. And this often happens, that after

the Cross, after the Resurrection, the week not yet

completed, we keep the fast. Thus there is no

observation of time; namely with respect to the days of

the month Nisan, otherwise with respect to the days of the week after

the full moon of that month.

[262] Now various things come to be observed upon the words

alleged, on which the Lord suffered, which strangely tormented Tillemont,

and which Montfaucon thought should be alleged in the Life,

page 102, where he adds this observation: These things

are said against those who kept the fast in the Jewish manner,

and who sometimes fasted during the Pasch itself,

namely when the Jews' calculation

assigned the Pasch after the Pasch of the Christians.

For then those Christians who kept the fast by the Jewish

rite fasted on that day on which

the other Christians were celebrating the Pasch. Let the reader pardon me

if I say frankly that there are here as many errors as

assertions. For first, the Saint, although he is proceeding against

Judaizers, does not say those things about Judaizers,

but about Catholics, whom he shows to be unable to celebrate the Pasch

with the Jews, because there is not always the same

concurrence of the days of the month with the days of the week.

Thus, then, he argues. The Lord's Resurrection must always

be celebrated by us on a Sunday: but this

part of the argument, as well known, he assumes. But

that day of the month Nisan on which the Lord rose

does not always fall on a Sunday. We cannot

therefore always celebrate the Resurrection on the same day of

that month.

Then he takes the example of the year in which he said these things,

and by that example confirms his argument

in this way. as is clear from a simple exposition of his words. The first day of the Unleavened Bread fell

on a Sunday. On that day we cannot yet celebrate

the Lord's Resurrection, since on that day He had not yet

risen; but that festivity must be deferred to

the following Sunday. And so, since we fast until

the festivity of the Resurrection, on those days

of the month Nisan on which the Lord died on the Cross,

and then rose again, we must still be fasting.

Thus the Saint shows that the Pasch cannot be celebrated by Christians

according to the laws of the Church at the same time

as the Jews, after he had before shown that the Jewish

Pasch was abrogated equally with the rest of

their rites. Secondly, therefore, he does not say that the Quartodecimans

fasted during the Pasch of the Christians,

which could never happen, since they always kept the Pasch

before the Christians; but he says that Christians

must fast during the Pasch which those men celebrated with the Jews

on the fourteenth moon of the month Nisan: for the festivity

of the Resurrection by the calculation of the Christians

is always celebrated later, unless an error had been admitted

into the calculation. For the rest, from the words alleged it further

appears that that Oration was delivered in the year 387,

in which the first day of the Unleavened Bread fell on a Sunday,

and in which consequently the Jews were going to celebrate

the Pasch a whole week before the Christians.

[263] Let us now hear what account of their custom

the Quartodecimans alleged, the Saint recites and refutes the reasons of the Quartodecimans, and in what

way the Saint refutes it, acknowledging nevertheless that that

custom of celebrating the Pasch on the same day as

the Jews had once flourished at Antioch also. But what

wise speech is theirs? he says at no. 3:

Did you not, they say, formerly observe this fast?

But it is not for you to say this to me:

rather I may with right say this to you, that we too fasted

so formerly, but nevertheless judged that concord

was to be preferred to the observation of times. How

fair this was, he proves by the example of the Apostle,

who cast off the rites of the Old Law, and further from the decree of the Council

of Nicaea concerning the Pasch, continuing thus: Three hundred

Fathers or even more, when they had assembled in the region of Bithynia,

decreed these things, namely

that the Pasch should be kept at that time at which the

Christians celebrate it. And after a magnificent eulogy of the

Nicene Fathers, And yet, he says, from these athletes

the whole synod had then been gathered, and by a common

definition of the faith they decreed this also, that

this feast should be celebrated together and with one consent…

See what you do, when you condemn such great Fathers,

so brave and so wise. He presently adds

other arguments against Jewish rites, answers

an objection drawn from the example of Christ,

who celebrated the Pasch with the Jews, teaches

what the true Pasch of Christians is, why the forty-day fast

was instituted, and finally

shows, in the words already given, that the Pasch of the Christians

cannot altogether coincide with the Jewish one.

[264] and he exhorts them to enter into concord with the Church. Presently he exhorts them to lay aside the evil custom,

speaking thus at no. 6: Let us not therefore

contend, nor say this: I have fasted so long a

time, and shall I now change the custom? For

this very reason change it, that you have been so long a time

divided from the Church: return at last to your mother…

For it is a shame and a disgrace not to be changed

for the better, but to persist in unseasonable contention.

This destroyed the Jews also, who, while

they always sought after the ancient custom, sank down into

impiety. To these he adds much about

the good of concord and the evil of discord, much against

the observance of Jewish rites, which he teaches to have been abrogated,

as we have demonstrated, he says,

when many sermons on this matter were delivered by me

(namely against the Jews about September

of the year 386) but I seek this one thing, that we do

all things in peace and concord, lest, while we fast

and all the people, and the priests pour forth prayers for the

world (in Holy Week) you give yourself up to drunkenness at home. Here he reproves them

for being about not to fast, just as before he had reproved them for being about to fast,

namely because they began the Lenten fast

before the Church, and before the Church

ended it. This schism of theirs he reproves with the gravest words

right to the end of the Oration.

[265] That Homily was delivered some days before Lent of the year 387. For the rest, as regards the time at which the Oration

was delivered, everything intimates that it was spoken at least eight

days before Lent of the year 387.

For in that year, as we have said, the first day of the Unleavened Bread

was a Sunday. In that year Chrysostom

had gone on in the month of February to assail the Anomoeans,

that is, to preach on the glory of the Only-begotten, as he says at the beginning of this Oration

that he had been doing at that time. The argument which Montfaucon

draws from this, for fixing

this Oration about September of the year 386,

is utterly inept. For in the month of September Chrysostom did not

speak against the Anomoeans; but he delivered the first Homily

against them before September;

the rest long afterwards, namely in November and December,

and lastly in February: for he does not seem to have

laid those contests altogether aside, although often interrupted,

except after the outbreak of the Antiochene sedition,

which gave other matter for preaching. Equally

inept is another argument of his, drawn from this very

Oration, and from the Oration on the Nativity of the Lord,

where he says that in the month of September he had delivered many and lengthy

sermons against the Jews. For

of these he makes mention in this very Homily as

of things long past. Finally, from what has been said it is gathered

that the Homily in question was delivered toward the end of February

or the beginning of March: since the Pasch fell

on the twenty-fifth of April, and Lent consisted of six

weeks, as I shall afterwards prove by sure arguments,

while the Quartodecimans wished to begin their Lent

one week earlier, that is, on the seventh or eighth of

March.

[266] From this Homily, which he delivered against Judaizers

in the Paschal season, The book against the Jews and the Gentiles I pass to

others by which the Saint wished to correct those who imitated other

feasts and fasts of the Jews. They are five

in number, all delivered against the Jews, all about

September of the year 387 in all likelihood, as Montfaucon rightly

notes and shows in the Monitum, page

586. Moreover the Saint prefixed to these Homilies a notable

book, written against the Jews and the Gentiles,

to prove that Christ is God.

This is published in Montfaucon, tom. 1, page

558, and that it was written before those five Homilies

Montfaucon shows from the words which are read

near the end, page 582: But Daniel narrates all these things

openly; namely that all were to be taken away — the victim,

the libation, the anointing, the judgment. But

these things, when we shall set up a discourse against the Jews,

we shall explain more clearly and at greater length. What he here

promises he will show, he shows in an altogether notable way

in those five Homilies. And so Chrysostom,

who in the year 386 had come down into the arena against the Jews

on the occasion related at no. 243, afterwards

returned to the contest better prepared and equipped,

and prefixed a fairly lengthy book, by which he might teach

both Jews and Gentiles the divinity of Christ.

This book he did not deliver as a sermon, but only

gave it to be read, as is clear from its length and manner

of writing.

[267] Further, the Saint says in his preface that he will take care

for brevity, to show the Divinity of Christ. and will use a style without meretricious ornament,

so that his words may be easy of grasp for the servant, the maidservant,

the widow, the shopkeeper,

the sailor and the farmer. But first, he says, let me join

hands with the Gentiles. Against these he uses the argument of the world

converted through Christ and His disciples,

though tyrants and kings and emperors resisted in vain.

Then he begins to show against the Gentiles and

the Jews that all things which pertain to Christ

were foretold in the Old Testament, namely

that He would be God, and would be born as man in

Bethlehem, and the rest in order, not only concerning Christ,

but also concerning the Church, the Apostles, and the

obstinacy and miseries of the Jews. He adds the predictions

of Christ, the glory of the Apostles, the destruction of the Jewish

temple, and the frustrated attempt of Julian the Apostate

to restore it. More may be read in the

Work itself.

[268] After the publication of this book against the Jews

and the Gentiles, Then again he begins to preach against the Jews, which could have taken place in the month of August or

at the beginning of September, in the same month Chrysostom delivered the first

of the five last Orations against the Jews, that is, the fourth,

on account of their impending feasts,

and began it thus on page 616:

Again those unhappy men, and of all mortals the most wretched,

the Jews, are about to fast: again it is necessary that we fortify

the flock of Christ. And after a few words: Nor

let it seem strange to you if, though that fast

will come after ten days and more,

we from this very time fortify and arm

your souls. Then he gives the reason for this,

and afterwards shows at length that the fast of the Jews is impious

and contrary to the will of God, and that their rites

have been abrogated. Yet at no. 7 he says: Today

we have only skirmished against them with javelins from afar, speaking only

as much as sufficed to drive off

danger from our brethren, indeed even much

more. These words assuredly promise another Oration

against the Jews, to hear which a great

multitude flowed together. For that one, which is the fifth

against the Jews, he begins on page 627 with these words:

Whence has a fuller assembly been made for us

today? You have plainly come together to demand what we promised…

Blessed be God, who has inspired

in you so great an ardor for hearing spiritual discourses…

Wherefore we too

with more eager zeal set about what we promised;

and what we pledged we most gladly perform.

And so the fight undertaken by us with the Jews

has obtained the issue it ought. The trophy has been raised,

and the crown has been won by us, and we have carried off the prize

from the earlier sermon. Since

we had undertaken to do this, to demonstrate

that the things which are now done by them are a certain

transgression and prevarication of the Law, and nothing other

than a fight and war waged by men against God:

and this, with God's help, has been most accurately

demonstrated by us. Then he continues a most lengthy

and most eloquent Oration to refute the Jews

further.

[269] neither by hoarseness of voice nor by the feast of the Martyrs, In the following Oration, the sixth against the Jews,

page 649, he teaches that by the very contest against

the Jews his ardor for refuting them had grown, presently

nevertheless adding: But what shall I do? You see that my

voice has become weaker, and cannot be equal

again to so great a length of discourse, and that the same thing

now happens to me as if some soldier,

having cut down some of the enemy, and having with great spirit

made an onset upon the enemy's serried line,

and laid many low, should presently, his sword broken, in dismay

betake himself back to his own… What then? Shall we too

flee? But the tyranny of your charity does not permit this.

I fear both the presence of my father *,

and I fear your eagerness: therefore I shall attempt what is

above my strength, committing all

to his prayers and to your charity. He adds an excuse

for delivering, on the feast of the Martyrs, an oration against the Jews

and not in praise of the Martyrs: For to

the martyrs themselves, he says, this discourse is more desirable.

Yet he briefly touches on a few things concerning the martyrs,

and then continues a lengthy Oration against the Jews.

Moreover that this Oration was not

delivered before the year 387 is clear from what

is read on page 659 about the statues thrown down at Antioch:

for we shall see that this happened before Lent of the year 387.

At the end, finally, of this Oration

he intimates that it was delivered at the time of the fast of the Jews.

[270] interrupting this disputation, Not long after followed the next Oration,

the seventh against the Jews, about the feast of Tabernacles,

or perhaps during that very feast of the Jews, as

is clear from its beginning, which is as follows, page 662: Has

a surfeit of this fight undertaken with the Jews

seized you? Or do you wish that today also we should treat

the same matter again? For although many things

have already been said, yet I think you are so disposed

that you desire to hear again about the same things.

For he who is not sated with love toward Jesus will never

be sated with the fight undertaken against those

who hate Jesus. Besides, this discourse is

necessary for us: for there still remain the leavings of the feasts

of the Jews. But just as

their Trumpets were far more wicked than those which*

sound in the theatres, and their fasts were baser than any drunkenness

and revelry: so also the Tabernacles

which are now pitched among them are in no way

more honorable than the lodgings in which harlots

and flute-girls ply their trade. When he had given the reason for these sayings,

and had shown at length the abrogation of the Jewish

ceremonies, he most gravely exhorts all

to restrain those who run to the Jewish feasts: For on account

of this, he says on page 671, do we undertake so great

a labor; not that we may speak in vain,

nor that we may carry off applause and noise; but

that we may bring back those who have been torn away to the way of truth.

[271] The eighth and last Oration, finally, which

is entitled Against the Jews in Montfaucon,

page 673, but what was begun in the year 386 he completes in the year 387, was delivered some days after the feasts of the Jews,

since it has this beginning: The fast

of the Jews has passed, or rather the drunkenness of the Jews.

Yet this Oration is not properly delivered against

the Jews, of whom only a few things are said, chiefly at the beginning;

but almost the whole of it looks to the correction of morals,

and to the relieving of those who had fallen at the feasts of the Jews.

The Saint wishes their sins to be corrected,

not divulged. Now a few words about the time of these

Orations, in which the Saint's zeal shines out

wonderfully. I observed at no. 269 that the sixth cannot

be fixed before the year 387; and that all were delivered

consecutively is clear from their connection. And so, since

we know that Chrysostom in the year 386 about the month of

September began to preach against Judaizers

and Jews; and since he assails the same fasts and feasts of Trumpets

and of Tabernacles again in these Orations;

we can scarcely doubt that

what he had begun in the year 386 he wished to complete in the year 387.

[272] These five last, therefore, he began in the month

of September, in the months of September and October. and finished about or after the middle

of October. That they were all delivered within less than twenty

days, Montfaucon says on page 586. But

I cannot find this to be so. I rather believe that nearly

a whole month was spent on them. For there are fourteen

days between the feast of Trumpets, which is celebrated on the first

day of the month Tisri, and the feast of Tabernacles, which is celebrated

on the fifteenth day. But the Jews begin to fast

before the feast of Trumpets. Hence it is clear that the first

of these Orations was delivered at least ten days

before the feast of Trumpets. But the last

was delivered some days after the feast of Tabernacles was over.

Anyone who cares to make the reckoning will easily find

nearly thirty or more days intervening between

the first and the last. For the rest, someone may ask

for what reason I said that the sermons against the Jews

in the year 386 were begun toward the end of August,

while for the year 387 I put off their beginning as far

as nearly the middle of September? I answer that the feasts of the Jews

began much earlier in the year 386

than in the year 387, as is gathered from the Pasch of each

year. For the later the Pasch of the Jews

is celebrated, the later also are the rest of their

feasts.

* i.e. the bishop Flavian.

* i.e. the feast of Trumpets.

§ XXI. The Homilies on the Anathema, on the Nativity of Christ, and certain others delivered toward the end of the year 386 and the beginning of 387.

The Homily on the Anathema, delivered in the year 386, Since I have reviewed most of Chrysostom's writings

which we know to belong to the year 386, and some

also of the year 387 on account of their connection with the preceding;

it remains now to treat of some Homilies

delivered toward the end of the year 386 and in the earlier months of the following

year. Among these, in the first place, must be

mentioned the Homily on the Anathema, or on not anathematizing

the living or the dead. It begins thus in tom. 1, page

691: Lately, discoursing to you about the knowledge

of the incomprehensible God, I said many things,

and proved both by the words of the Scriptures and by natural

reasonings that the comprehension of the Godhead is utterly

inaccessible even to the invisible

powers themselves, etc. These words altogether

prove that that Homily was delivered when

the Saint was preaching against the Anomoeans concerning the incomprehensible

nature of God. But of the five Homilies

which Chrysostom delivered on that subject,

the first was delivered in the month of August of the year 386;

the other four in November and December of the same year;

so that there seems no room for doubt that in the month

of November or December the Oration on the Anathema was delivered.

But since he says that he had shown that the nature of God is not comprehensible

even to the angels,

and had treated this chiefly in the third Homily against

the Anomoeans, I judge that this one on the Anathema

is intermediate between the third and the fourth against the Anomoeans,

and is to be fixed at the end of November or

the beginning of December: for the two others against the Anomoeans

followed before the twentieth of that month, and perhaps also

others.

[274] it is briefly set forth on what occasion the Saint treated Someone has doubted whether the aforesaid Homily

is a legitimate offspring of Chrysostom. But that

doubt Montfaucon has sufficiently refuted in the prefatory

Monitum. Tillemont too in Note 106 suspects

that the beginning was stitched on to this Homily, and

that the Homily was delivered later, of which he judges this to be only

a part. But those suspicions Montfaucon likewise refutes:

for no indication of any hiatus or lacuna is found in the whole

Homily; nor is it so short

that various shorter ones are not to be found. That the reader may understand

Tillemont's argument, it must be briefly set forth

what matter the Saint is treating. The Catholics at Antioch

were divided, and each party had its own

bishop, as will be more fully set forth in §42: the Eustathians

had Paulinus, and on his death substituted

Evagrius. The Meletians, who had earlier followed Meletius,

then had Flavian as bishop.

To these Chrysostom speaks: these he

sharply reproves, because they unskilfully

and petulantly condemned the followers of Paulinus, and used grave censures

against them, so that they struck them no less

than the followers of Apollinaris with anathema.

How rash this levity of an ill-advised multitude was,

the Saint sets forth at length, and gravely reproves that

rashness. Indeed he even seems to reprove

those who struck the Apollinarists, whose

bishop at Antioch was Vitalis, with that ill-advised

anathema. For although these were in truth

heretics, the Saint preferred that they should be brought back to the Church

by gentle charity, rather than that without

any profit they should be further exasperated: and he could

especially fear that the unskilled might anathematize Catholics

for heretics.

[275] of that matter, and what faults he censures. These things being briefly set forth, I subjoin an

obscure passage, on account of which Tillemont judges

that the Homily was delivered after the death of Paulinus, the bishop

of the Eustathian Catholics. But what

do those men say, who are bold for every wickedness? He has become

a heretic, they say: he has the devil dwelling within him,

and he speaks wickedness against God,

and by persuasion and empty deceit he leads many away into the depth

of destruction: and therefore he was cast out by the fathers,

especially the master of this man, who cut off a part

of the Church — thus speaking either on account of Paulinus, or on account

of Apollinaris. For concerning the difference between each of these,

the discourse * finely escapes for many the mark of novelty,

showing that the error had grown strong in the inner chambers of a preconceived

opinion. These things are read

at no. 3, and Tillemont believes that Paulinus is

mentioned in those words as dead, and as the master

of the man whom they were anathematizing while alive.

But neither did Montfaucon so understand the words alleged;

nor do I think they can be legitimately expounded

thus. I rather believe that Apollinaris is called the master

of Paulinus: for his doctrine had in truth long been

condemned, and Apollinaris himself also in

the Council of Constantinople. Some of the Meletians, therefore,

calumniated Paulinus, as though he had become

an Apollinarist, and were seducing many; and this Chrysostom

sharply reproves, and rightly indeed: for

Paulinus was thoroughly Catholic, and presided as bishop over those Catholics

who had never communicated with the

Arians. Perhaps some of the Meletian Catholics

had gone over to the church of Paulinus:

perhaps also some Apollinarists had returned to Paulinus.

The first could exasperate the Meletians;

the second could give occasion for calumny. Whatever the case,

Paulinus was alive, and the whole argument of Tillemont

rests on nothing but a faulty interpretation of an obscure

passage.

[276] In the same year was delivered the Homily on the Nativity

of our Lord Jesus Christ, The Homily on the Nativity of the Lord, delivered at that festivity, which was spoken

on the twenty-fifth day of December, and is printed in Montfaucon,

tom. 2, page 354. Chrysostom's purpose

in that Homily was to persuade the people of Antioch

that Christ was truly born on the twenty-fifth of December,

and that therefore the festivity was rightly instituted on that day among

the Antiochenes, on which at Rome and in the West it had long

before been celebrated, and by ancient tradition,

as he affirms on page 355. The Romans,

he says, have now transmitted the knowledge of it as far as us. That new

institution was not approved by all the Antiochenes.

For many, he says, I well know are even now disputing among themselves

about this very thing: and some indeed

blame it, others defend it: everywhere there is much

talk about this day, partly of those who accuse it

as being new, partly of those who champion it

as ancient and of long standing, since

both of old the prophets foretold His nativity,

and from the very beginning it has been manifest and famous to those

dwelling from Thrace itself as far as Gades.

[277] And so both these disputes stirred up a man who loved concord,

and the very dignity of the festivity stirred up a man most loving of Christ, recently instituted at Antioch, to be more approved by the people. so that by this Homily he might strive to establish

among the Antiochenes both the festivity itself and concord about it. The novelty of the institution

he acknowledges, saying: It is not yet the tenth year

since this very day became manifestly known to us.

Yet, just as though it had been handed down to us long ago for many

years, so by your effort it has become famous

in its celebration… Come then, let us begin our discourse

on these matters. For if this very day, still

under dispute, enjoys so great an inclination of your mind;

assuredly, if it should become better known and indeed

manifest, it will without doubt reap a far greater

fruit of this zeal of yours. From these things

it is clear why Chrysostom took pains to show

that Christ the Lord was born on the twenty-fifth day of December.

That the Homily was delivered on that day appears most clearly from the Homily itself.

But that it was delivered in the year 386 is gathered from

what he says at no. 7: To that which lately I exhorted

you, to that even now, and hereafter

always, I shall not cease to exhort you. Then

follows an exhortation that they should approach worthily to the divine

Mysteries, that is, to holy communion, such as

is found also in the Oration on St. Philogonius, which

had been delivered on the twentieth of December of the year 386, so that he seems

altogether to be designating this one, especially since there he had already

begun to say much about the feast of the Nativity. That Homily

may be seen in tom. 1, page 497 and following.

[278] The Homily against those who misuse the words of the Apostle, About the same time at which the Saint celebrated

the Nativity of the Lord, he delivered a Homily against

certain persons who did not think rightly concerning the faith, and who misused

those words of Paul, Whether in pretense or in

truth, Christ is announced, etc. The aforesaid

Homily is published in Montfaucon, tom. 3,

page 300, where it has this beginning: When lately

we made mention of the Pharisee and the Publican, and

yoked two chariots, one of virtue and one of vice,

we showed both how great is the gain in humility,

and how great the loss in arrogance. These words,

as Montfaucon rightly observed, most clearly

designate the fifth Homily against the Anomoeans,

in which toward the end he exhorts to humility, as also

at the beginning of this one, and where in tom. 1, page 489, he speaks thus:

But that you may learn how great a good it is not to

be high-minded, imagine two chariots, yoke righteousness

with arrogance, and sin with humility,

etc. Then he brings forward the Pharisee and the Publican,

and in both places shows that the Publican, although

otherwise a sinner, was set by God before the Pharisee

who boasted of his good works. And so, since that fifth

Homily against the Anomoeans is to be fixed in the month of December,

and at least some days before the twentieth of December,

as I showed at no. 249, this one is rightly fixed about

the Nativity of the Lord, and most probably between

the Nativity and the beginning of the following year.

[279] in which humility is much commended and Paul is extolled. Moreover in this Homily the Saint shows

the evil of pride, and on the other hand the good of humility.

For the foundation of our philosophy is humility,

he says on page 301. Though you build countless things above,

though you heap up almsgiving, prayers, fasting,

and all the virtues, unless you have laid this as a foundation,

you have built everything in vain and to no purpose,

and they will quickly fall, just like that building

erected upon the sand. For no

good work is without need of it, none without

it will be able to stand, etc. Then he takes up for exposition the words

of Paul alleged, and shows that they cannot

profit the heretics. And on this occasion he took upon himself

to proclaim at length the praises of St.

Paul the Apostle, whose words he was expounding, so that this forms a great part

of that Homily. Take a few lines: For who did not

then stand astounded, he says on page 306, seeing the man

bound with a chain? Then most of all did the demons

flee, when they saw him dwelling in prison.

For a royal diadem does not make the head so

conspicuous, as the chains made his hands,

not indeed by their own nature, but through the grace

that flowered in them. Hence great consolation

to the disciples. For they saw the body bound,

but the tongue by no means bound; the hands bound,

but the word loosed, which ran through the whole world more swiftly

than the sun's ray, etc. At the end

of the Oration he elegantly exhorts to the perpetual pouring forth of prayers.

[280] [After this, the Homily on the Kalends, delivered on the first day of the year 387:] Now the exceptional praises of St. Paul which are found

in the preceding Homily seem to me to suggest a probable

reason for fixing the Saint's Homily

entitled On the Kalends, which was delivered on the first day of the Roman

year, that is, the first of January,

after the preceding one, that is, on the Kalends of January

of the year 387. For in this Homily, printed in tom.

1, page 697, near the beginning Chrysostom speaks thus:

But lately, when we were celebrating the blessed Paul with encomia,

you so exulted, as though you had seen him

present… But I wished

to descend today also to the same subject,

but our discourse is carried on to certain other matters which press more urgently,

in which today the whole city

sins. For those who desire to hear the praises of Paul

must first be emulators of Paul's virtue,

and worthy of such a sermon. Many things together persuade

me to believe that Chrysostom is here speaking of

the preceding Homily. For first, he there said so many

and such excellent things about St. Paul, that he scarcely seems to have said more

about him in any sermon, even in those

which he afterwards delivered solely for the celebration of St. Paul.

Secondly, the adversaries acknowledge that the preceding

Homily was delivered not long before the Kalends

of January, which cannot be shown of any other

delivered in praise of St. Paul. Thirdly, the very matter

of the Homily increases our suspicion; for Chrysostom

in the first year of his preaching was chiefly intent

on cutting away by his sermons every kind of most evil custom,

and composed whole Homilies to

that end: but afterwards he took more pains

to reprove abuses of that kind in some part of his

Homilies, and at the same time to pursue

the exposition of sacred Scripture.

[281] Hermant believed that Chrysostom

was speaking of the Homily against the Anomoeans to remove the abuses of that day, which arose from heathen superstition. in

which the request of the sons of Zebedee is expounded. Tillemont

assigned that one which in tom. 3, page 211, has the title

What sort of wives are to be married. But in

each Paul is only briefly praised; and

the former was delivered long after the Kalends of January, indeed

more probably in the month of February: as for the other, it is not even

known that it was delivered at Antioch. Montfaucon

in the prefatory Monitum, page 966, rejects their conjecture,

and judges that the Saint intimated

one of those Homilies whose hypothesis

or subject was the praises of Paul. But Chrysostom does not

say that he had the praises of Paul alone for the subject

of the Homily; nor do we know whether any

of those Homilies was delivered a little before the Kalends

of January, nor is that at all likely, since

at that time no festivity of St. Paul is celebrated.

Wherefore I rather judge that the Homily designated is

the one just spoken of concerning the words and the praises of the Apostle;

and consequently I refer the Homily on the Kalends to

the first day of the year 387. In that Homily the Saint

directs his discourse strongly against the profane rites

customarily practiced on the Kalends of January, partly

heathen, partly left over from the superstition of the heathen.

Confidently therefore, he says on page 698, let us go forth to the fight.

For to us too war has today

been declared, not by Amalekites invading, …

or by other barbarians making incursions; but by demons

leading a procession in the forum. For the diabolical

all-night revels which take place today, and the jests

and reproaches, and the nocturnal dances, and this ridiculous

comedy make our city captive worse than any

enemy, etc. These and other vices

the Saint there so reproves that by the same work he teaches

excellent virtues.

[282] On the following day the Saint delivered a Homily,

which also follows in Montfaucon, page

707, On the following day the Saint … the jests of certain persons and in its very title is said to have been delivered at Antioch

on the day after the Kalends. Its beginning is this: Yesterday,

though it was a feast of Satan, you made

a feast of the Spirit, because with much zeal of soul you received

the things that were said by us. And page

708: Come then, today also let us arm our tongue

against drunkenness, and let us lay low that sodden and

dissolute manner of life… But if even after our

admonition they persevere in the same vices,

not even so shall we desist from them,

from counselling what is right… Since this law

has been prescribed to us, who have undertaken the administration of the sacred word,

by the kindly God, that we should never

grow weary of doing what lies in us.

Then he brings forward the example of Jeremiah, who did not

keep silent even though he was assailed by the jests of some; and

presently he adds: Persuaded in my own mind,…

whether anyone attends or does not attend, to do

the things that are commanded. But since

there are some who unnerve the hands of many,

and, not content that they themselves bring no profit

to our life, cool also the zeal and fervor of others

with sneers and jests, saying, Cease

to give good counsel, cease to admonish: they will not listen to you:

have no dealings with them.

Since therefore there are some who say these things, wishing to shake

this inhuman opinion and these diabolical snares

out of the minds of many, I discourse at some length

on this matter. The Saint goes on to relate the jests

of certain persons who had seen some men entering a tavern

after they had been at the sermon; and he shows

that his sermon was on that account not without fruit; and

lastly, that if it had lacked fruit, the gain of the sermon

would not be lacking to himself.

[283] [he strongly refutes them, and begins to preach on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man:] These jests seem to have stirred up Chrysostom,

full of divine fervor, to weave

a very long Homily, and one wholly tending to the correction

of morals, such as this is, both that by his own example no less

than by his word he might teach his hearers

not to desist from good admonition on account of the jests of certain men;

and also that he might take away all hope from those pernicious triflers. Probably for this reason he began

to treat in this Homily, at no. 6, the parable

of the rich feaster and the poor Lazarus,

fitted to strike even the softest souls, where he has this:

Yesterday indeed we set Paul against them, saying:

Whether you eat, or drink, or do anything else,

do all to the glory of God. (See these words in

the Homily on the Kalends, page 706.) But today

we shall bring forward against them Paul's very Lord, not only

counselling or admonishing them to abstain from delicacies;

but even insulting and punishing him

who had lived in delicacies. For the story of the rich man *

declares nothing other than this, and of Lazarus, and of

the things that befell each of them. Here therefore the Saint

began to treat that story or parable at length,

that he might deter men from delicacies, and he drew out his discourse

so long that the Homily would be a long one, even if

all that went before were cut away, which could

make a Homily of moderate length.

[284] the second and third Homily on Lazarus Moreover the Saint was not content with this single

sermon on Lazarus and the rich man; but after some

days he added another on the same matter, and then

a third and a fourth, as is clear from the beginnings

of each. I admired your charity,

when lately I was speaking about Lazarus, because you both

praised that poor man's endurance, and detested the rich man's

savagery and inhumanity,

he says, beginning the second. And presently: Since

therefore you received those discourses with much good will

of soul, come, let us pay you also what remains. Then he adds many lessons,

especially pertaining to morals, which can be drawn from

the parable of Lazarus alleged, and at no. 3 he declares

how far he is from the applause of his hearers,

saying: I have far greater thanks to give you for

your silence than for your applause: because

applause and praises indeed make me more splendid,

but this silence makes you more modest.

I know that these things which are said are burdensome:

but they bring much gain and unspeakable fruit. This usefulness moved the sacred Orator

to add a third Homily on Lazarus, which

he begins thus on page 736: By no means small

was the profit the parable of Lazarus brought us, both

to the rich and to the poor, since it taught these

to bear poverty easily, and did not suffer those

to be puffed up and to please themselves on account of riches…

Come therefore, today too let us treat the same subject afresh.

But in this Homily he much exhorts

to the reading of the sacred Scriptures, and hands down other

moral lessons.

[285] After three Homilies on the parable of the rich man and

Lazarus, [and then he celebrates St. Babylas, and presently also SS. Juventinus and Maximinus.] Chrysostom did not yet abandon

that subject, but the feasts of the martyrs, namely of St.

Babylas bishop of Antioch on the twenty-fourth of January, and of SS.

Juventinus and Maximinus, martyrs, falling in the same month,

persuaded the Saint to defer the fourth

Homily on Lazarus for that reason. There is extant

2, page 531, and it has this exordium: I wished

indeed on this present day to pay the debt

which lately I promised you when I was here.

But what shall I do? The blessed Babylas has come in between

and appeared, and has called us to himself. There is extant there

also a Homily on SS. Juventinus and Maximinus,

which followed not long after, since it begins thus on page 578:

Lately the blessed Babylas with the three children gathered us

here: but today a pair of holy soldiers

sets in array the army of Christ. Lately a four-horse chariot

of martyrs, today a pair, etc. Although Chrysostom probably

spoke of those Saints on several occasions;

yet it is most likely that these two

Orations followed one another, because in the latter, making mention

of Julian the Apostate, he adds these words:

Of whom lately too much was said by me. For in truth much is read about Julian's impiety

in the Homily on St. Babylas.

[286] It is equally likely that these are the two Homilies

on whose account the Saint deferred the fourth on Lazarus.

The fourth Homily on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Its beginning, tom. 1, page 751, is of this kind:

What remains of the parable of Lazarus,

we must pay today. For you

perhaps believe that the whole has been finished by us. But

I shall not use your ignorance as an occasion for deceit,

nor shall I desist before I have treated the whole

that seemed good to me… I ought indeed

to have discharged this debt at the previous assembly.

But we did not think it safe to pass over the illustrious deeds of the blessed

Babylas and of the pair of holy martyrs who had

come after him: and so we put off

the payment, deferring it to the present

day, that we may discharge the whole debt, etc.

This debt he had intimated, not so clearly yet obscurely,

in Homily 3, page 736, where at the same time he gives the reason

why he dwells long on the same subject,

and often announces beforehand the matter of the coming sermon,

speaking thus: Accordingly, lest what has been handed to you

should likewise flow away from you, we have not poured out for you

the cup of doctrine all at once, but have divided it over several

days, allowing you meanwhile on these days*

to rest a while from the labor of hearing, whereby at once

both the things we have deposited may be so fixed in the mind of your

charity that they cannot fall away; and the things

that shall be said you may receive with settled and vigorous minds.

And for that reason we often announce to you many

days beforehand the subject on which we are going to speak,

so that during the intervening days you may take up the book, and, having weighed

the whole substance of the matter, after you have understood

what has been said and what remains to be said, you may render

your mind better instructed for hearing

what shall afterwards be discussed. Thus the Saint took care not

only to teach useful things, but also that they should be

deeply fixed in the minds of his hearers.

[287] Thus far I have reviewed those Homilies on Lazarus

together with those which Chrysostom himself teaches were interposed

among them. Yet I would not deny

that two others were probably delivered between the first and the second

on Lazarus. In the year 387 are probably to be placed the Homily on the Epiphany, Certainly Montfaucon after

Tillemont probably judges that the Homily

on the Epiphany and the Baptism of Christ, which Chrysostom delivered

on the sixth day of January, belongs to the year 387.

Their reason is drawn from a certain kind of

similarity between this Homily, which is read

in tom. 2, page 367, and the Homilies delivered not long before

on St. Philogonius and on the Nativity of the Lord. For

in those three Chrysostom much exhorts his hearers

to take care to approach worthily to the divine

Mysteries. Wherefore it is altogether likely that the Homily

on the Baptism of Christ was delivered in the year 387,

especially since otherwise only two Homilies would be found

between the second and the twenty-fourth of January. Now the Homily

on the Baptism the Saint begins with a moral exhortation

that they should attend frequently the divine offices

and sermons, in this manner: You are all in

joy today, but I alone am in sorrow.

For when I turn my eyes upon this spiritual sea,

and contemplate the immense riches of the Church,

and then consider that, as soon as

this solemnity has passed, that multitude will again

spring back and depart, I am tormented and racked with grief of soul;

because, though the Church has borne so many

children, she cannot enjoy them likewise at every assembly, but

only at the feast, etc.

[288] and on the following day the Homily on St. Lucian. On the day following this Homily was delivered

that panegyric on St. Lucian, martyr and

presbyter of Antioch, which is printed in tom.

2, page 524. This is clear from this beginning: What

yesterday I greatly feared has happened, and has now

been brought to effect: namely that when the feast had passed,

the multitude also at once departed from us, and a smaller

assembly has been made for us. This indeed I knew would altogether

happen: yet not for that reason did I desist

from exhortation. For although not all who heard

yesterday complied, yet not all failed

to obey either: and this avails not a little

with us for consolation.

Wherefore neither on this present day shall I desist from this admonition,

etc. And when that exhortation to attend

sermons is finished, he begins thus to speak of St. Lucian

at no. 2: Yesterday, then, our Lord

was baptized with water, but today

the servant is baptized with blood, etc. Let this suffice concerning those

two Homilies. Let us therefore come to

the month of February, from which the fourth Homily on Lazarus mentioned

above was not far distant.

[289] The Homily against excessive mourning at the funerals of the dead: After this, in Montfaucon, tom. 1,

page 762, follows the Homily On those who sleep, upon

that saying of the Apostle, 1 Thess. 4, verse 12: But we would not

have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them that sleep. The whole Homily

tends to this, that Christians should not grieve excessively or

behave unbecomingly at the death of their kinsfolk,

and give scandal and offense to the heathen.

I am ashamed, he says on page 765, believe me, and

I blush, when through the forum I see crowds of women,

behaving unbecomingly, tearing their hair, lacerating their arms

and cheeks; and that in the presence of the heathen,

etc. Both to remove this abuse and to mitigate excessive

mourning the Saint strove by this moral Oration,

and that probably at the beginning of February:

for from its beginning it is clear that it followed after the fourth on Lazarus,

since it begins thus: We have spent four

days in expounding to you the parable of Lazarus,

and have drained the treasure which we found

in a body teeming with sores. And presently

he says that he could dispute from that parable against the Manichees also,

but that he is turning to another subject,

lest his discourse bring satiety and disgust upon his hearers.

For, he says, a table furnished with food of one kind

breeds satiety, but one plentifully supplied with various

dishes stirs the appetite. By this

reasoning too I judge the Saint was moved

to defer the second part of his contest

against the Anomoeans, in which he proved that the Son of God is consubstantial

with the Father. For I judge that the sermons on that

matter were only begun after the one aforesaid,

in the month of February.

[290] Hence I judge that the Homily on the Resurrection of the dead,

which is printed in Montfaucon,

tom. 2, page 422, another delivered in the month of February, on the Resurrection of the dead, was likewise delivered in the month of February of this

year, after two or more on the Consubstantial

against the Anomoeans. Take the beginning of the Homily:

Of the doctrines of our faith, and of the glory

of the Only-begotten Son of God, we discoursed among you some time ago,

stopping the mouths of the heretics who take away His glory

and say that He is alien from His own

Begetter. Today we have determined to bring forward a discourse

on morals and on the ordering of life, and to admonish

in general. Nay, the discourse will be not only moral,

but also doctrinal: for I am prepared

to descend to the matter of the resurrection.

This subject indeed is manifold and copious:

for it both directs us in matters of faith, and

orders our life, and vindicates the divine providence

from all calumniators, etc.

All these things Chrysostom treats in this truly lengthy Homily.

Montfaucon acknowledges that it was delivered before Lent of the year

387; but he judges the Homilies

on the Glory of the Only-begotten to have been finished at the beginning of the

year, whereas I believe them finished later, namely before

Lent, if indeed they were finished at all, and were not

rather broken off on account of the Antiochene sedition.

[291] To the month of February I refer with Tillemont

in art. 22 also the Homily on Widows, upon

that saying of the Apostle: as also another lengthy one on Widows: Let a widow be chosen not less than sixty

years old. This is published in tom. 3, page 311, and there

the exordium is this: Opportunely, by the disposing of the divine Spirit's

grace, it has come about that that passage of the Apostolic

Epistle which today you have heard

should be read. For it has with what

we lately said no small kinship and connection,

if not in words, certainly in sense.

For this is what was lately read:

But concerning them that sleep I would not have you ignorant, brethren:

and much was then said by us concerning the resurrection,

etc. From these things it is certain that this one on Widows

was delivered not long after the Homily on those who Sleep

mentioned above. But since he here says

that he said much about the Resurrection, it is likewise probable

that by those words is designated the Homily just spoken of

on the Resurrection: for he did not say so much about

the Resurrection in the Homily on those who Sleep

that he should seem here to be speaking of that one alone. For the rest, in the aforesaid

Homily on Widows the Saint gives excellent moral lessons,

profitable not only to widows, but also to married women,

and to every class of men.

[292] There remain two other Homilies which we can probably

fix in the same month of February, two other Homilies to be fixed in the month of February,

because they seem to have been delivered when among the Antiochenes

the memory of the Homilies on Lazarus was fairly recent,

to whom the Saint again recurs in these.

Hence the former in Montfaucon, tom. 1, page 772,

is entitled: On the earthquake and the rich man and Lazarus.

The other in the same place, page 790, has a longer title,

in which mention is also made of Lazarus. But that the memory

of what had been said about the rich man and Lazarus was still fresh

when Chrysostom was delivering the former Homily

is gathered from it at no. 4, where he speaks thus: Now I wish

to show him who enjoys delicacies here and

is punished there. "There was a certain rich man." From this

beginning of the parable the hearers presently understood whither he was tending,

and indicated this by signs. Hence, omitting the following

words of the parable, he addresses his hearers in this way:

But although you anticipate the narration of the story,

await the end of the discourse: for this is

my praise and your commendation, that already,

while the beginnings are being brought forward, you gather the harvest:

constant hearing of sermons has made you teachers.

But since some strangers also have come in with you,

do not run, but wait for those who limp. In the following Homily likewise, at no.

3, he intimates that his hearers had been steeped in that parable.

Therefore, he says, bringing forward before you one

of those who entered by this wide gate, and one of those who

walked by the narrow and strait way,

let us show the truth of what was said by the Lord,

and let us use again the same

parable of the Lord. Presently the hearers understood

that the rich man and Lazarus were intimated by those words,

as Chrysostom testifies. For these words immediately follow:

And I know indeed that you, being now perspicacious men,

understand what we are about to say, etc. And so

those two Homilies also belong to the month of February.

[293] namely the former, on the Earthquake, Occasion for the former was given by an earthquake, from

which the sacred Orator draws his exordium, speaking thus:

Have you seen God's power? have you seen God's kindness?

His power, in that He shook the globe of the earth;

His kindness, in that He steadied it as it fell: nay

rather, in both His power and His kindness…

But the earthquake indeed has passed: yet let fear

remain: that storm has gone by, but let fear

not go by: we performed supplications for the space of three days;

nevertheless let us not quench our zeal,

etc. The Homily is quite lengthy, and tends chiefly

to showing the vanity of worldly things,

the gravity of sins, and to drawing sinners

to penance and a better life.

Moreover of the earthquake which supplied matter for this

Oration the Saint doubtless speaks

in Homily 3 to the people of Antioch, tom. 2,

page 46, where he says: For when earthquakes had rather often

laid hold of us, and famine and drought, after three

or four days of being moderate and gentler

we returned again to our former ways, and on that account

these things have happened. Chrysostom was speaking

of the Antiochene sedition, in which all were in the utmost

fear, about the beginning of Lent of the year 387,

so that he seems altogether to be designating those shakings

of the earth, on whose account supplications had been appointed

for three days.

[294] in which the Saint displays an admirable zeal, Chrysostom feared that many of his hearers would draw

but little lasting fruit from his sermon on the earthquake,

yet he hoped for the amendment of some.

Hence at no. 2 he sets down this

objection: But, you will say to me, what do you gain

by speaking? I gain, if anyone hear me: I do

what is my duty… And indeed

now, seed cast into so great a multitude

cannot but bring forth harvests for me. Although

not all hear, half will hear:

and though not half, a third part: and though not

a third, a tenth: and though not a tenth, though one

out of that multitude is going to hear, let him hear: for it is

no small thing that even one sheep be saved… I do not

despise a man, though he be but one… Though

he be a slave, he does not seem to me to be despised: for

I seek not rank, but virtue: not lordship

or servitude, but a soul. Though

he be one, he is a man, … for whom the Only-begotten

Son of God became man. My Lord

was sacrificed, and poured out His Blood for man,

and shall I despise him? … For my part

I shall not cease to speak, though there be none who hears:

I am a physician, I apply remedies: I am a teacher,

it is commanded me to admonish, etc. These things more at length,

and more to this purpose, he pursues with admirable zeal.

[295] Chrysostom saw plainly, before the other

sermon, in the other likewise gravely reproving those who run to the profane games. that his warnings were neglected by many. Hence

he took those words of Christ, Matt. 7, verse 13, Enter by the narrow

gate, etc., to be elucidated by the example of the rich man and Lazarus.

But he drew his exordium from a most vehement

reproof of those who had given themselves to the satanic

spectacle of the Circus after so many exhortations,

after so many admonitions and

chastisements. For we have not ceased, he says,

to recall to your memory that dread

tribunal, those inevitable punishments, that fire

which is never extinguished, and the worm which never

dies. Yet he warns that he is not accusing all,

and at no. 2 he softens the reproof with these words:

We have perhaps used a rather harsh reproof:

if indeed this fatherly love of ours be regarded, a harsh one;

but if the gravity of the offense be regarded, not even

a sufficiently worthy one. Nevertheless, since a hand

must be stretched out to the fallen, and toward those who have been so

negligent a fatherly good will must be shown,

not even so do we despair of their salvation:

provided only that they be unwilling to fall back again into the same things,

… and that they forbid themselves entrance to the Circus

and to every satanic spectacle of that kind.

For we have a kindly, merciful, and provident

Lord, who, since He knows the weakness

of our nature, when, tripped up by negligence, we have

slipped into some sin, requires this one thing

only of us, that we do not despair, but

spring back from sin, and hasten to confession.

Well indeed did the prudent Physician know both

how to cut wounds, lest they putrefy, and how to soothe

the excessive pain of the cutting with sweet fomentations.

* concerning the rich man and Lazarus etc.: nothing else etc.

* you

λόγος, otherwise ratio*.

§ XXII. Certain other Homilies are assigned, which seem to be bound to the year 386.

The second Homily on Ozias, or on the Seraphim, Thus far I have pursued those Homilies which

in about the first year of his preaching

Chrysostom delivered, or rather which it is shown by certain

or highly probable reasoning that the Saint delivered in that year.

For there is no doubt that he delivered others also

between Easter and the month of August of the year 386;

but these we are not able to assign with equally distinct marks

of time. Yet quite probable seems to me

the opinion of Tillemont, who in Note 17 judges

that some of the Homilies which treat of Ozias and of

the Seraphim, and which are found in tom. 6, pages

95 and following, were delivered in the first year of his preaching;

but that they were not all delivered in the order in which they are found

published. Certainly in the second, page 106, Chrysostom still acts

modestly, and seems to be praising his own first

Homily. I rejoice, he says, seeing

you running together to hear the sacred oracles, and this

I judge to be the greatest indication of your progress in the

worship of God and in piety… And so, although our

table has much poverty, not even so

shall we conceal it: but bringing forward all that is ours,

we shall set it before you. And if these things are

few and cheap, yet we shall provide them…

[297] You heard lately, when this honor was given us,

in which the first Homily of all is clearly alleged, that we should discourse before your charity,

when we read that psalm which, casting the sinner

out of the sacred enclosures, exhorted the angels and the powers above

to praise the God of all

He is speaking of Psalm 148, about which

he said much in his first sermon, when he had been ordained

presbyter, as may be seen in tom. 1, pages 438

and 439. And so Tillemont rightly gathered that that Homily

is one of the first which Chrysostom delivered.

Montfaucon indeed, in the prefatory Monitum

to the Homilies on Ozias, or on the Seraphim, tom.

6, page 94, rejects Tillemont's arguments as most trifling;

but I do not see why he speaks so. To me indeed

they seem so clear that nowhere for the dating of Chrysostom's

Works do I find clearer ones in Montfaucon.

It will be worth while to show this in a few words.

The Psalm which had been read, when the honor

of preaching among the Antiochenes had been conferred on Chrysostom,

as is here said, exhorted the angels and the powers

above to praise the God of all.

The same Psalm cast the sinner out of the sacred enclosures,

by the same testimony.

[298] it must altogether be fixed among the earlier ones of the year 386, Let us now hear some things from Homily 1, tom.

1, page 439. The Saint had there said: Praise is not comely

in the mouth of a sinner. He had said that in Psalm

148 each creature is invited, both that which is above

and that which is beneath; but that the sinner is by no means invited

to praise God. Then at no.

2 he adds: But that what I say may become

more evident to you, we shall read out the Psalm itself to you from the beginning.

"Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise

Him in the heights. Praise Him all His angels,

praise Him all His powers."

Presently he reads other things also from the same Psalm, and observes

that nowhere is the sinner invited to praise

God. It is therefore clear and manifest that the first

Sermon of all of Chrysostom's is praised, as lately delivered,

in the second Homily on Ozias, especially

since the Saint himself says this too in these words:

When this honor was given us, that we should discourse before

your charity. In Greek it reads

ὅτε

…

διαλεχθῆναι

κατηξιώθημεν, when we were deemed worthy of the honor

of discoursing (among you). He is speaking

of the honor of preaching first conferred upon him. Hence,

because he had lately begun to preach, near the end of the Homily

he compares his discourse to wine which has been freshly

drawn beneath the winepress. Unless these things are clear

for fixing the Homily in question among Chrysostom's earlier ones,

it will be vain, in my judgment, to dispute about order.

[299] Montfaucon opposing in vain. Yet Montfaucon objects those words

which are found at no. 3: But of names I shall discourse at another

time. These are said on the occasion of the change of

the name Abram to Abraham. But since there are four

extant Homilies on the Change of names, tom.

3, Montfaucon infers thus: I hold it therefore certain

and ascertained that this Homily was delivered in the same year

in which those on the Change of names

were spoken, in which also the sixty-seven Homilies on Genesis

were, etc… But what that year is,

I have not yet been able to reach by probable conjecture. All

these things might perhaps be conjectured to fall in the year 388.

But this conjecture is too slight to be able

to come into comparison with the arguments brought forward.

For I suspect that in that year the Saint wished to speak

on Genesis, as in fact he began to do, and there to treat of

the change of Abraham's name. But that exposition

Chrysostom could defer, because more urgent

and more necessary matters offered themselves for treatment.

Secondly, those Homilies in which names are treated

were not all so certainly delivered later

as it is certain that the second on Ozias was delivered at the beginning

of his preaching. And so there is no room for doubt

that before Lent of the year 386 Chrysostom

delivered the second Homily on Ozias.

[300] Moreover that Homily, although it is printed in the second

place, Three others followed on the same passage of Isaiah, is the first of those which Chrysostom

delivered on the passage of Isaiah, I saw the Lord: for Tillemont and Montfaucon rightly

observed that those which are printed in the first and fourth place do not

cohere with the rest, and were perhaps delivered at Constantinople.

The second, then, on that subject is the one

which is printed in the third place, page III. This Chrysostom begins from the martyrs,

of whom the bishop Flavian was going to speak,

and he adds: But we ourselves shall now

discourse of Ozias, reckoning out a debt long since owed,

and discharging the long-continued struggles of your hearing. These things indicate that not a few days

ran between the one and the other. In this Homily again the Orator

modestly makes little of his own, when he compares the table of the poor

with them, and near the end says: For

our things indeed, such as they are, have the marks of youth. The third of them is that which is printed in the fifth

place, page 131, and which he began in this way:

Come, let us today put an end to the exposition of Ozias that has been begun. The fourth, finally, on the same passage of Isaiah,

which is printed in the sixth place, page 137, and is entitled

On the Seraphim, has this exordium: Scarcely

at last have we traversed the sea of Ozias. And scarcely

have we traversed it, not on account of the length of the voyage,

but on account of your desire to learn, who sail with us.

[301] In that Homily, therefore, he speaks of the Seraphim,

of whom in the first Homily he had already begun

to speak. all delivered before Lent: But at what time of year it was delivered is intimated

at no. 3 by these words: But behold, the fasts

are coming on, which make the wings of the soul light, etc. Easter

in the year 386 fell on the fifth day of April: but Lent,

consisting of only six weeks,

began on Monday the twenty-third of February, so that this

Homily was probably delivered on the day before Lent,

that is, on the Sunday which was the twenty-second of February.

If now we suppose that Chrysostom spent four or

five weeks on those four Homilies,

and that no others ran between these and the first of all,

as none seem to have intervened,

the whole chronological arrangement will accurately cohere. For

he will have been ordained and begun to preach in the month of January,

and, the exposition of the passage of Isaiah being completed in the month of February,

he will have passed to the Homilies on Genesis, of

which I treated at no. 237. All these things cohere so aptly

that there seems no room for doubt that the four

Homilies in question followed immediately after the first

of all. And indeed I would already have reckoned these among the more certain

in §18, had not Montfaucon's opinion made me then

less attentive to examining the matter.

[302] Tillemont in Note 18 acknowledges that the four

Homilies mentioned aptly correspond to one another. an answer is made to Tillemont's scruples. But he raises a scruple

for himself from the third, published in the fifth place, in

which at no. 3 these words are read: But what is this?

What we were long ago inquiring from the beginning: why, when in

external matters and in prophecies all are wont to designate

the times by the lives of kings, does he here, passing that over,

take the time at which Ozias died? For

he does not himself find this question proposed. In a twofold

way this scruple can be answered:

for at the beginning of the same Homily he clearly proposes that question

to himself, and answers it near the end after the words

alleged. Secondly, he proposed that question to himself,

but more generally, in the first Homily,

published in the second place, at no. 2, page 109, in these

words: It is worth while to inquire first,

why the prophet designated the time for us, for he does not

do this by chance or at random. Here he proposes the question,

and by the words alleged above he explains it further,

and at last resolves it. Tillemont's other scruple

is that in these Homilies Chrysostom

seems to speak more freely than in the Sermons

on Genesis, which he delivered in that Lent. I answer

that I do not find greater freedom

in these on Ozias than in those on Genesis: for

in the former the Orator speaks more frequently of his own

slenderness than in the latter. He speaks otherwise, however,

and much more freely in those two printed in the first and

fourth place, which we have already observed do not belong to this series,

and were delivered much later.

[303] Two Homilies on the obscurity of the Prophets, I showed in §18 that eight Sermons on certain passages

of Genesis were delivered at the beginning of Lent of the year 386.

To the same Lent I believe two

excellent and lengthy Homilies on the obscurity of the Prophets belong.

These are found in tom. 6, page 168, but

Montfaucon assigns them no year. Take

the beginning of the former: I wish today to spread a prophetic

table for you, and I am minded to launch my discourse into the sea of Isaiah's wisdom.

But what shall I do?

I hesitate and fear lest, when we have gone out of the harbor

and have come to the depth of the prophet's

meanings, what happens to sailors

who are not accustomed to voyaging should happen, and we labor with

dizziness… Yet it is not from the nature of the sea,

but because those who sail are inexperienced, that

dizziness arises. This comparison with inexperienced sailors,

and that fear of the Orator, although he compares not only himself

but also his hearers to inexperienced sailors,

sufficiently intimates that the Oration was delivered in the first year

of his preaching: for afterwards he was not wont to intimate

so much fear or trepidation.

Thus near the beginning of Homily 2, page 181, he speaks with the modesty

then customary to him about the preacher's poverty,

and says that he will pay the remaining debt concerning the obscurity of the Old Testament,

Because, he says, you do not despise even the things

of a poor and beggarly man like me. This

so great modesty of the Saint also fits the first year

of his preaching: for although he was always adorned with wondrous

humility, after some years he would not have

spoken thus about his own sermons, but used greater authority.

[304] delivered chiefly against the Manichees: The matter of both Homilies also conforms to this

year. In the former he disputes much against

the Jews, and something also against the Anomoeans, so that

he seems to have played a prelude to those contests which he waged against

both, especially since nowhere does he say

that he had disputed against them before. The Manichees Chrysostom had already

attacked in the Sermons on Genesis.

These he attacks again from time to time in these Homilies,

or rather he directs whole Homilies against the Manichees,

since these alleged obscurity among their reasons

for calumniating the Old Testament. But the causes

and reasons of that obscurity the Saint brings forward, and thus

refutes the objection of the Manichees. We shall see the Manichees likewise

assailed in the Homilies which

followed after these. And so it seems to me not to be doubted

that the Homilies on the obscurity of the Prophets,

which Montfaucon shows were delivered at Antioch,

were spoken in the year 386; and consequently

they can be attached to no month more aptly than to April,

May, or June, on account of others that followed before the end of August.

They followed one another after some days, as

is clear from the second, page 181.

[305] a third against the same, But this one was taken up after some days by that Homily

in which the blasphemies of the Manichees are refuted,

and whose title is this: Against those who

say that demons govern human affairs, and who bear God's

punishments with an unfair mind, and are scandalized at the prosperity

of the wicked and the adversities of the just.

In this many things are repeated in summary from

the second on the obscurity of the Prophets. Yet Tillemont

in Note 31 observes that those words of St. Peter,

Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, which

are alleged with others from that Homily, were not found

in it. But that observation, which was then accurate

no longer holds good, because Montfaucon

found the said words in an ancient Manuscript, and

inserted them in the Homily in their place, as may be seen in tom. 6,

page 195. Moreover the Homily whose title I have given

is printed in tom. 2, page 246, and it affords a splendid

testimony of the remarkable zeal with which the Saint

approached his speaking, and of the incredible eagerness with which

he was heard. Take then its beginning, reader: I feared

indeed that the constancy of my treatment might create in you a distaste

for my words: yet I see that the contrary

has happened, and that constancy has not created

distaste in you, but has increased your desire, and has added not satiety

but pleasure: and that the very same thing

has happened which is wont to happen to drunken men

at profane banquets. For they too, the more unmixed wine

they pour in, so much the more do they kindle their thirst: and we,

the more lengthy the teaching we impress upon you,

so much the greater desire do we kindle, the greater

appetite, and the more vehement love do we stir up.

[306] Wherefore, although I am conscious of my own utmost

poverty, from which we understand the people's eager zeal toward the Saint: I shall not cease to imitate generous banquet-givers,

and shall set before you a constant table,

and shall place a full mixing-bowl of doctrine. Since

I see you, when you have drained the whole of it,

depart thirsty again. And this indeed

has been known from all time, but especially

since last Sunday. For that day above all showed

that the divine oracles never breed distaste

in you, on which I taught that you ought not to curse

one another, at which time also I offered you

the safest occasion of accusation,

when I exhorted you to assail your own sins with curses,

not to investigate other men's too curiously. Thus the Saint,

going on to repeat more from

that Homily, and presently adding: Then indeed,

then did you display an insatiable love. For

since our discourse was drawn out to length,

and to an immense length, and such as never

was, so that many feared lest by the multitude

of words the eagerness of your minds should be quenched,

the very contrary happened. For your heart grew

warmer, your desire blazed up more.

Whence is this established? Greater indeed certainly

were the plaudits toward the end and the acclamations clearer,…

At the beginning indeed this assembly was not much

moved for me: but when the discourse was drawn out

further, and had entered upon all the parts of the subject

proposed, and a fuller doctrine was sown abroad,

then indeed you blazed up to a greater desire of hearing,

and a more vehement applause broke out.

Whence it came about that although I had prepared myself to say fewer things,

I then exceeded measure:

nay rather, I never exceeded measure: since

I am wont to measure the quantity of doctrine not by the multitude of the things

that are said, but by the disposition of those

who hear… But since it sometimes

happens that in so great a people there are some who are weak

and can by no means follow the length of a discourse,

I have determined to exhort them to this, that

when they have heard as much as they can take in, … they should withdraw,

lest they impose on us the necessity of ending the discourse

before its time. After this the Saint begins learnedly

to discourse of God's providence, and shows the powerlessness

of the demon.

[307] This Homily, which is quite lengthy,

was followed two days later by another sufficiently long one on the devil,

against the sloth of men a fourth against sloth; who allow themselves to be deceived

by the temptations of demons. For of the three which

are published in Montfaucon, I altogether judge, from a careful

collation, that the second was the one

which is published on page 267 in the third place. For in that one,

which he published in the second place, the other two seem to be alleged

clearly enough, as I shall presently show. This second one

has this title: That from sloth wickedness arises, and from diligence

virtue: and that neither wicked men,

nor the devil himself, can harm a watchful man.

But the demonstration is drawn both from many

other passages, and from the things which befell Adam and Job.

And thus the Orator begins: The day before

yesterday indeed a discourse on the devil was set up by us before

your charity. But others

on that same day, while we were discoursing here on that matter,

were sitting in the theatres watching the pomp of the devil…

Who then made them go astray? Who

separated them from the sacred sheepfold? Did the devil deceive

them too? Both you and they are men — I speak

according to nature: you are both endowed with the same nature,

with the same natural desires:

how then is your zeal and theirs not the same?

Thus he goes on to show that man has free

will, and that it is by an evil will that men sin. For examples

at last he brings forward Adam conquered by the devil,

and Job the conqueror of the devil.

[308] a fifth on the devil the tempter, in which the preceding are praised, Both this and the first Homily on the devil

is praised in the third, which again followed two days later,

and which is published on page 260 under this title:

To those who object, why the devil was not taken

out of the way; and that his malice in no way

harms us if we are attentive; and on penance.

For the Saint, after some things said at the beginning about the bishop's

presence, proposes the matter to be treated

in these words: But truly it is now time that

we set out the table. And what is that? The leavings,

namely, of the things which were lately said to your

charity: for still, still, I say, we have a discourse

on the devil, which we set up two days

ago, which we delivered also this morning to those

who are being initiated in the mysteries, when we discoursed among them about the renunciation

and the enrolment. But this

we do, not because it delights us to speak about the devil,

but because the doctrine that is set forth about him is safe.

For he is our enemy and foe:

and this brings great security, if

the affairs of our enemies are plainly known to us. We said

lately that he does not conquer by violence, nor

by tyranny, nor by bringing necessity,

nor by compulsion: since, if it were so, he would surely

destroy all: and as an argument for this we brought forward

the swine, upon which the demons could do nothing

before it was permitted by the Lord; the herds

and flocks of Job; for neither did the devil

dare to destroy these, until he received power

from above. These things are read in the first Homily, pages 255

and 256, that is, at no. 6.

[309] so that these five against the Manichees were delivered in that order. This one thing, then, we have first learned, that he

does not conquer by force or necessity. A second

thing after that we added (namely in the other Homily)

that although he conquers by frauds, yet

not by this means does he prove superior to all, and again

we brought forward the athlete Job himself,

against whom, though he brought a thousand engines, yet

by this means he did not overcome him, but departed conquered.

That example of Job see in the Homily published in the third

place, no. 5, where Job's contests are eloquently unfolded.

But let us return to the Saint, who goes

on thus: One question now remains. And what at last is that?

That although, they say, he does not conquer by force,

yet he conquers by frauds: and therefore it would be better

that he had been utterly destroyed: for although

Job proved superior, yet Adam was deceived

and tripped up. These things again are referred to the same Homily.

For in it, at repeated turns

at no. 3 and following, Adam and Eve are treated as conquered, and

then Job as conqueror. And so, although in

this one, which Montfaucon wrongly placed second,

more things are cited than are found in the first alone,

we shall not on that account rightly doubt whether all

three were delivered within a few days, but shall only

change the order. In the first Chrysostom shows

that the world is ruled by divine providence, not

by the tyranny of demons. The second teaches that the devil

does not harm any but the slothful, and establishes free will.

The third at last repels the objection, and teaches

why the devil was left, and at the end commends

penance.

[310] Since the sequence of the two Homilies on the Obscurity

of the prophets seems clear, It is shown by various reasons that those five Homilies

and of the three on the devil, that is, of those five on divine

providence and against the errors of the Manichees;

I add a few words about the time. That the last was

delivered when the Saint had in the morning instructed the catechumens

is clear from the words given at no. 308. Hence

we gather that it was delivered in Lent. And so

the four preceding also fell in Lent.

But that this was the Lent of the year 386 I conjecture

for the following reasons. First, Chrysostom

compares himself with inexperienced sailors. But this he could not

do in the year 388 or later, when

he had already preached for more than two years with the applause

of all. In the year 387 he could not have delivered these Homilies,

since for almost the whole time of Lent he was occupied

with other sermons. They were therefore delivered

in the year 386, as is also intimated by the modest depreciation

of his own faculty in speaking, which is observed

in these Homilies.

[311] There is added the perpetual praise of the Antiochenes,

and the greatest moderation in reproving, were delivered in the Lent of the year 386.

so that at the beginning of the Homily on Sloth, page 267, he indeed intimates

that some had been absent on account of the games being celebrated

and had acted badly; but he does this as though

doing something else, and abstains from all open reproof.

He did not proceed thus when he had preached for nearly a

year: but he was wont to inveigh with sharp discourse against those who went off to the games.

Lastly, what he says at no. 306,

that the second Homily on the obscurity of the Prophets was longer

than any other, was true in the year

386: for all the preceding are much shorter.

But he would not truly have said that in the year 388, since

the fifth Oration against the Jews is much longer. Add

the other things already said, and you will rightly be unable to doubt

that the Homilies related belong to the year 386.

We have therefore thirteen Homilies belonging to his first

Lent. But in the following years we shall see

that many more were delivered by the Saint in Lent.

Perhaps in that first year Flavian the bishop

sometimes spoke to the people. Perhaps also Chrysostom himself delivered

others which have not come to our

knowledge.

[312] Yet perhaps there is another cause also why we have fewer

Homilies of that year. Another Homily probably delivered in the same year, For it is certain

that the whole time from Easter until August was not, by those just

reviewed, sufficiently filled out.

But since nowhere do there appear Homilies

which seem to fit that time, save a very few,

I suspect that Chrysostom in that very Lent

or afterwards was seized by illness,

especially since I find the Saint's illness in a Homily

which from its beginning I judge to belong to this

year. It was first published by Montfaucon

in tom. 6, page 278, where the Saint begins

to speak in this manner: I am indeed weak and needy,

and unskilled at speaking, but when I look upon your

assembly, I forget my weakness, I do not know my poverty,

I am unacquainted with my unskilfulness: so great, namely,

is the tyranny of your charity. And of this

magnanimity you are the authors to me, while you raise up

the fallen, because you are inclined to hearing, and

hang upon our lips.

[313] which shows that the Saint had been ill. All these things fit the first year, especially

what he says about his own unskilfulness, and

about the eagerness of his hearers: for nowhere have I found

that the Saint spoke thus about his own unskilfulness in speaking

in the Homilies which are established to belong to later

years. Rarely too would you find in them

the hearers so generally praised for their zeal in hearing.

Wherefore I judge that this Homily was delivered in the year 386 by a man

who was ill. Nay, I further suspect that he was again

afterwards compelled to abstain from speaking,

since at the end he says: I should wish to say more, but the weakness

of my body scarcely permitted me to bring out these things, by which

I have been torn away from you for a long time. The time has been long

for me not by the number of days, but according to

the measure of my soul's affection, etc. This illness had not yet

been so long-lasting that it could fill out the whole

time of the year 386 that is empty of Homilies. Hence it is probable

that the infirmity afterwards also continued. Yet it is

sufficiently probable that some other Homilies were delivered in the same

year.

§ XXIII. The Antiochene sedition before Lent

of the year 387: Easter in that year was celebrated on the twenty-fifth of April. Lent consisted of only

six weeks.

[The grave sedition, in which at Antioch the statues of the emperor Theodosius were thrown down,] We have brought the holy Preacher on to nearly

Lent of the year 387. But before we proceed

further, the time must be fixed of the

famous Antiochene sedition, which supplied matter for many sermons

of that Lent.

The cause and the various circumstances of that sedition

I shall not investigate too curiously, because they contribute little

to our purpose: but the time must be more accurately

traced out, both because writers disagree about the year,

and because knowledge of it is altogether necessary

for rightly arranging the chronology of Chrysostom's writings.

Take the fact briefly from

Sozomen, book 7, chapter 23: Meanwhile … it seemed good

to the magistrates … for the public interest that tributes

heavier than usual should be exacted from the provincials. For this

cause the people of Antioch, roused to sedition,

threw down the statues of the emperor and of his wife,

and dragged them through the city with a rope thrown over them,

adding besides insulting words, as is wont to be done by an exasperated

multitude. Moreover, when the emperor

wished on that account to put many of the Antiochenes to death,

at the mere rumor of that thing the people were stupefied.

And now, their fury being calmed, they repented of the deed:

and as though the evils which were announced were already present,

all groaned and mourned, and prayed

God to appease the emperor's mind.

He adds that Flavian the bishop performed an embassy

to the emperor Theodosius on behalf of the people, and that by his

patronage the emperor laid aside his anger. And

assuredly, he says, a huge slaughter would have followed,

had not the emperor restrained his anger, revering the priest's

intercession out of his piety.

[315] Tillemont in tom. 5 of the Emperors, Note

27 on Theodosius, it certainly happened in the year 387 or 388, discourses at length on the time of this sedition,

and first shows by sure arguments

that it happened in the year 387 or 388. Then

he brings forward various reasons for each year, and

judges that the former year is to be chosen, not without doubt.

For one or the other year Chrysostom's words will suffice me.

In Homily 16 to the People of Antioch,

tom. 2, page 162, he says: Behold, this is the second

year since I have been discoursing to your charity.

So spoke the Saint in Lent,

when the people's fear on account of the sedition had not yet been

wholly removed. But Chrysostom began to preach

in the year 386, or at any rate not before the year 385 was

nearly over. The second year of his preaching

therefore cannot fall in any other Lent than

that of 387 or 388. Since the matter seems thus far certain,

I allege nothing more to this end, though more

alleged may be seen in Tillemont.

[316] Moreover I do not see that it can rightly be doubted

that the sedition happened in the year 387. nor is it to be doubted that it arose in the year 387, The first reason

is supplied by the words of Chrysostom just alleged.

For the Saint was ordained presbyter before Lent

of the year 386, since at the beginning of that Lent

he delivered the Sermons on Genesis, as was said

in §18. Nay, already before that Lent

he delivered four Homilies on the words of Isaiah,

I saw the Lord, etc., as was shown in §22. All these

were preceded by the first Homily and the Saint's consecration,

so that this seems to have taken place in the month of January

of the year 386. Wherefore, since about the middle of Lent

he said that it was the second year of his preaching,

he could not say that except in the year 387: for

at that time of the year 388 the third was long since running.

To this reason, which is clear and solid, another

of no less weight is added.

[317] Pagi at the year 388, no. 3, shows at length

that the emperor Theodosius at the beginning of the year

388, since this is clearly shown and specifically in the month of March, was not

at Constantinople, but at Thessalonica in Macedonia.

Tillemont observes the same in the place assigned. But Flavian

found Theodosius at Constantinople, when

he came to him to intercede for the Antiochenes, and Theodosius was there

from the time at which he first

received news of the sedition, until he pardoned the Antiochenes,

as sufficiently appears from the whole account of this sedition

in Tillemont, tom. 5 of the Emperors, in

Theodosius I, articles 30 to 38. Pagi, just

cited, at no. 3 alleges three Orations of Libanius,

who was then living at Antioch, and who asserts that Theodosius

was at Constantinople at the time of the sedition.

Chrysostom clearly enough intimates the same in Homily

21 to the People, tom. 2, page 216, speaking thus of the arrival

of Flavian before the emperor: But when

he went up to that great city, and entered the royal

halls, etc. No other city in

which Theodosius could have been would he have called great

when speaking to the people of Antioch, save Constantinople,

in which too was the emperor's court, which Flavian entered.

So in Homily 17, page

174, Constantinople is designated by the same name,

when the Saint speaks thus: The emperor shall hear,

the great city shall hear, and the whole world shall hear.

[318] Again, where in Homily 21, page 223, Chrysostom relates

Flavian's departure from the emperor after pardon had been obtained for the Antiochenes,

by sure reasons. he so celebrates

Theodosius' clemency that it may be gathered from the words

that Flavian departed from the emperor at Constantinople:

For the most pious emperor did not then stop there,*

he says, but even after the priest (Flavian) had gone out from

the city and had crossed

the sea, he sent certain men to him, inquiring and taking pains

lest perhaps time should be wasted, and it should diminish

the city's joy, if he were celebrating the solemnity (of Easter)

outside the city (Antioch).

Flavian had crossed the Bosphorus when Theodosius

sent messengers, that he might hasten his journey to Antioch.

He was therefore departing from Constantinople, situated on

the Bosphorus, a strait so narrow that messengers

could find a man delaying beyond the strait. But this could not

take place at Thessalonica, or in any other

great city of the East. More things could be brought forward to

show that Theodosius was at Constantinople at that

time: but more is not needed, since the matter is thus

by no means doubtful. It appears certain therefore that that sedition

did not happen in the year 388, since in that year

Theodosius was not at Constantinople, at least at that

time of the year at which Flavian pleaded for pardon for the

seditious.

[319] [A difficulty proposed against the date given, drawn from the decennalia of Theodosius,] It remains, then, that we examine the opposing reasons,

by which even great men, such as Baronius,

Petavius, and Valesius, were led away into

the contrary opinion for the year 388, and to which

Tillemont himself too, although he had seen the reasons already brought forward,

deferred so far that he everywhere intimates some kind of

doubt. Pagi at the year 388, nos. 2 and 5, reviews their chief

arguments, and strives to resolve them, since he follows our

opinion. The first is this. The exaction

of money, from which the sedition arose, was made because

Theodosius wished to celebrate the quinquennalia of his son

Arcadius, and his own decennalia. To prove that cause

of the exaction these are adduced as

the words of Libanius in Pagi: The prince had need of money

for the necessity of the empire, especially

since for himself the tenth, and for his son the fifth

year of the reign were going forward. At which time

emperors are wont to bestow gold upon the soldiers. But the tenth

year of Theodosius was only beginning on the nineteenth of January

of the year 388, although the fifth year of Arcadius began

in the year 387. Pagi answers this argument

by saying that an error crept into the numbers, and that nothing

can be concluded from that passage. Tillemont, however,

observes that in the Chronicles of Marcellinus and Idatius the quinquennalia

of Arcadius are noted as celebrated in the year

387: and for that reason he judges that Theodosius at the same

time celebrated his own decennalia, although his tenth

year was only beginning in the year 388,

on the nineteenth day of January. Pagi's answer is that of a man despairing

of the true solution. Better is Tillemont's observation,

yet uncertain, since it cannot be proved that Theodosius

really celebrated his decennalia before the tenth year of his reign had

begun.

[320] seems imaginary rather than real; Let us suppose therefore that Theodosius wished

to celebrate his decennalia at the beginning of the tenth year, as

was commonly done, that is, in the month of January of the year

388; I do not see what disadvantage would arise from that

against our opinion. Was the money perhaps,

which was being collected to meet the expenses and

to make the distributions to the soldiers at the very festivity,

to be collected after all those things

had been carried out? So indeed our adversaries reason,

as though they were of that persuasion. For the sedition

arose in the month of February or March. If then

it arose in the year 388, the exaction of money which gave

occasion to the sedition was set on foot after the festivity

was over and the distributions to the soldiers had been made.

Wherefore I find in the cause of collecting the money

no difficulty against our opinion:

for the money had to be collected in the year 387,

that it might be of use in the month of January of the following year,

and thus that passage of Libanius confirms our

opinion. Libanius alleges three reasons for exacting money:

the necessity of defending the commonwealth, the decennalia

of Theodosius, and the quinquennalia of Arcadius. If

the quinquennalia of Arcadius were celebrated in the month of January

of the year 387, that necessity ceased in the month

of March of the same year, but held rather in the following year.

The same is true of Theodosius' decennalia. Wherefore these

very words of Libanius altogether intimate that the sedition

must be fixed in the year 387, whether in this

or in the following year Theodosius celebrated his decennalia.

[321] For the rest, what Pagi suspects in the

Hypatical Dissertation at the year 387, and that the words of Libanius, rightly expounded, confirm the date given. that distributions

could have been made to the soldiers after the solemnity was

over, when it was anticipated, seems to lack all

foundation: for those distributions were

a great part of the solemnity itself, as Tillemont also notes.

With greater foundation one might suspect

that the exactions of emperors were sometimes

made only after the solemnity had been celebrated,

so that the treasury, drained by the distributions, might be filled up.

Indeed it does not appear improbable to me that Theodosius

at the same time exacted money for the quinquennalia

of Arcadius celebrated a little before, and for

his own decennalia to be celebrated the following year. The very

Greek words of Libanius, which are not correctly recited

in Pagi in the Dissertation cited, page 263,

afford a foundation for this conjecture: for he does not speak

in the same way of the tenth year of Theodosius

and of the fifth of Arcadius. He says that money was

necessary to the emperor πρὸς

τὴν

τῶν

ὅλων

σωτηρίαν

καὶ

μάλιστα

δὴ

τῷ

μὲν

εἰς

ἔτος

δέκατον,

τῷ

παιδὶ

δὲ

πέμπτου

τῆς

βασιλείας

προἳούσης etc., for the safety of all*

(that is, of the commonwealth) and especially for him for the tenth

year indeed, but for his son the fifth year of the reign going forward.

Libanius speaks of the fifth year of Arcadius

as present, and of the tenth of Theodosius as future,

just as in fact the fifth of Arcadius began

in the year 387, the tenth of Theodosius in the year 388, each

in the month of January. Neither in Greek nor in Latin are the words

which I have given from Libanius, tom. 2, page 526, correctly

expressed in Pagi. But in whatever

way the words of Libanius are taken, they will always indicate

that the exaction was made in the year 387, and

consequently that the sedition arose in the same year.

[322] Tillemont objects to himself another passage of Libanius.

For he in his own Life, page 73, says: Another difficulty of Tillemont's, with many circuitous

Moreover that inveterate disease of the head, which had been

stirred up by a thunderclap, and had been intermitted for sixteen years,

had settled upon me anew, etc. Then

Tillemont observes that the intermission of that pain is fixed by

Libanius, page 48, at that time at which Valens came

to Antioch, that is, in the year 372, as he adds.

Hence he believes it must be inferred that the sedition cannot be fixed

before the year 388, especially since between

the renewal of the head-pain and the sedition of the Antiochenes

Libanius relates certain other things. Tillemont made so much

of that difficulty that chiefly for that reason

he seems to have held our opinion not for certain, but

only for the more probable. But I answer

that Tillemont's reasoning is wholly useless,

and that nothing can be concluded from it for the chronology,

even if we were willing to admit as true all the words of that most vain Libanius,

who attributes his own healing to Aesculapius.

Libanius relates so few other things

between the arrival of Jovian and the arrival

of Valens at Antioch, that he speaks almost only of his own disease, the gout

and the head-pain, and since

he seems to begin from the arrival of Jovian, that is, from the year

363, down to the arrival of Valens, that is, the year

372. Between the two lie eight years

and some months. Yet he seems to circumscribe his disease

within seven years, that is, from the fiftieth year of his age,

which he attributes to himself on page 46,

when he begins to narrate his disease, to the fifty-

seventh, when he asserts on page 48 that the disease was taken

from him.

[323] ways involved, but bringing forward nothing certain for either opinion: Then he relates that he delivered an oration to Valens

as he came to Antioch. But he does not assert that he was healed at the same

time, or a little before. For nothing

prevents his being believed to have been healed a full year and some

months earlier. Besides, a little

before he says: This flood grew strong for four years.

Then he asserts that he was somewhat restored by a medicament,

but that the evil was not altogether expelled.

Who now can say whether he afterwards counted the sixteen

years in which the force of the evil was less

from the true healing by the medicament, or from

that which, being a liar, he attributes to Aesculapius. Certainly

he himself testifies on page 5 that he was never wholly free

from the head-pain once contracted

in his youth. And so he could easily count those sixteen years

from the time when the evil was lessened by the medicament.

But not even that is necessary, that we may understand that those

sixteen years do not conflict with our opinion.

For if he was healed only one year before the arrival

of Valens, that is, in the year 371, we already have those sixteen

years. For Libanius does not so connect the intermission

of his evil with the arrival of Valens

that a year could not intervene between the two.

From the whole of that reasoning of Tillemont's, therefore,

nothing certain is elicited.

[324] two other objections are resolved. Two other objections of lighter weight

Pagi brings forward in the Critica at the year 388, no. 5.

The first is drawn from Theodosius' answer to Flavian

the bishop, who was asking that he send his son to Antioch.

The emperor answers him in Chrysostom,

tom. 2, page 223: Pray that these obstacles

may be taken away, that these wars may be extinguished, and I shall come

by all means. Pagi adds: Whence it may seem possible to infer

that the Antiochene sedition happened in this year (388)

while the war against the tyrant Maximus was being prepared. But he answers

that Theodosius waged various wars, and that those words

are to be understood of another war.

Nay, even if the words were to be understood altogether of the war against

Maximus, they would prove nothing

for our adversaries. For it can scarcely be doubted

that the destructive designs of Maximus were already then

somehow known to Theodosius, or at least strongly

suspected. For Theodosius said these things in the month of April.

But Maximus in the month of August crossed the Alps against

Valentinian. Valentinian too, before war broke out openly,

had sent various embassies to Maximus,

that he might preserve peace. The other objection

is that Chrysostom says of the bishop who had gone

to the emperor, He betook himself to the camp.

Pagi answers that the words are to be understood of the camp

which was near Constantinople. But more rightly

Tillemont observes that by the Greek word σρατόπεδον (camp) is understood the emperor's court.

Certainly to go to the camp, especially among ecclesiastical men,

was frequently the same as to go to the court

in which the emperor was staying. And so no reason of any

weight has been brought forward against our opinion;

nor does there seem any doubt that the Antiochene sedition

happened in the year 387.

[325] Easter in the year 387 was celebrated on the twenty-fifth of April. Before we proceed to assign the month in which

the sedition arose, two other matters must be examined.

Easter in that year is fixed in the Paschal tables

on the twenty-fifth of April: nor have I found anyone doubting

that it was celebrated on that day, before Montfaucon.

But he at repeated turns in his prefatory Monita

and in the Life of Chrysostom asserts that Easter

in the year 387 was not celebrated at Antioch on the twenty-fifth day

of April, and adds from time to time that this has been demonstrated by him.

But I have already shown at no. 257 that the whole foundation of that

opinion is plainly ruinous,

and arose from a passage of Chrysostom badly understood. I shall

adduce only that very Oration of Chrysostom

from which he took occasion for erring, namely

the third against the Jews, in which, tom. 1,

page 613, Chrysostom speaks thus: For behold,

the first day of the unleavened bread this year (387, as

Montfaucon himself observes) fell on a Sunday

(the eighteenth of April), and it is altogether necessary that

we fast the whole week, namely until the following

Sunday, that is, the twenty-fifth day of April, on which was the Easter

of the Christians, or the feast of the Lord's

Resurrection. I do not know what Chrysostom could have said more clearly,

that we might understand that the Antiochenes in that

year celebrated Easter a whole week after the Pasch

of the Jews, and consequently celebrated it according

to the Alexandrian tables received in the Church.

[326] It cannot be said so easily to how many weeks

Lent extended at Antioch

in Chrysostom's time. Lent was a fast of forty days, He indeed in the Oration cited

at repeated turns counts forty days

of that fast before the paschal festivity; nor does it seem difficult

at first sight to say how many weeks

are necessary to fill out forty days;

and yet the resolution of the doubt is not easy. I shall therefore give

first those things which are certain from Chrysostom;

then I shall explain the cause of doubting. It is certain

first that Lent was a fast of forty days.

For Chrysostom not only frequently names that fast

Quadragesima; but in the Oration cited also, page 611, he speaks

thus: For what cause then do we fast

through these forty days? Then he says that many formerly approached

the sacred Mysteries rashly, and adds:

When therefore the fathers understood how much harm was taken

from a rash approach, coming together

they appointed forty days of fasting, of prayers, of hearing

the word of God, and of assemblies,

etc. The same in Sermon 1 on Anna, tom. 4, page 699,

comparing the fast now past with a traveler

who has gone away, speaks of it in this manner: For when

it had stayed among us forty days,

we received it kindly and dismissed it. And so that fast

was of forty days, and thence

it is called Quadragesima.

[327] Secondly it is established from Chrysostom that on two

days of the week there was no fasting at Antioch, in which on Sundays and Saturdays there was no fasting.

namely on Sunday and Saturday. It is known

from other sources that on those days there was no fast among the Orientals.

For the church of Antioch Chrysostom comes forward as witness

in Homily 11 on Genesis, tom. 4, page

84, saying that in the time of holy Lent,

in which he was speaking, something of rest is likewise granted from time to time,

as in other matters. So now too, he says,

those who have undertaken the course of the fast in Lent, …

to these the Lord has granted these two days of the week

as rest, so that, both remitting to the body a little

of the labor of fasting and refreshing the soul,

when those two days are past, they who have undertaken it

may go eagerly forward on the journey so well begun. Come

then, since today is a day of remission, etc. From

this remission of two days a doubt arises, whether

these ought to be counted among the forty days,

or whether the number of forty

days had to be filled out, apart from those days of remission, by those days alone

on which the fast was strict. If anyone attends to

today's almost universal custom, he will at once

exclaim that only the days of fasting were to be reckoned.

For today the Latin Church has forty

days of strict fasting, the Sundays not being counted,

on which there is no fasting. But the Greek Church,

in order to have forty days of fasting, the Saturdays

and Sundays being excepted, draws out the fast to eight

weeks. But we are not asking what is done now;

but what was done at Antioch in Chrysostom's time.

[328] [But some, with Sozomen, will have it that seven weeks were fasted at Antioch, others six, others eight.] Tillemont, and Montfaucon following him,

attribute seven whole weeks to the Lent

of the Antiochenes. But Hermant in

the Life

of Chrysostom, book 2, chapter 17, eight weeks.

His opinion, as destitute of the authority of all the ancients,

Tillemont rejected in Note 28 on

Theodosius, saying: Thomassin in his Treatise

on fasts did not find that in any place of the East Lent

was then extended beyond seven weeks.

Hermant took his argument

from Homily 18, delivered after the middle of Lent,

in which it is said on page 187 that it was not yet twenty

days since the baths had been closed by the emperor's order.

But those words prove nothing, as we shall see from the order

of the Homilies, and the Saint could have spoken thus

even if we believe that Lent was of only six

weeks. Of small weight too

is the authority of Sozomen, whom Tillemont

alleges for his opinion. He writes in book 7, chapter 19,

about the variety of the Lenten fast in this manner:

But Lent, which immediately precedes this feast (Easter),

in which the people are wont to fast, some indeed

reckon as six weeks of days, as the Illyrians and the Westerners,

and all Africa and Egypt and Palestine. But others

reckon seven weeks; as at Constantinople

and through all the provinces round about as far as

Phoenicia. These words of Sozomen count the Antiochenes,

as lying midway between Constantinople and Phoenicia,

among those who fasted seven weeks.

[329] Six weeks agree with forty days, seven do not, But the authority of Sozomen cannot be great

here, both because he affirms in the same place certain other things

that are little probable, and because seven weeks cannot

be reconciled with the forty days

which Chrysostom attributes to Lent.

For if we count all the days of seven weeks,

we shall have forty-nine days;

if we subtract from the number the Saturdays and Sundays, on which

there was no fasting, we shall have only

thirty-five days. On the contrary, if we attribute only six

weeks to Lent, we find forty

days without difficulty. For Lent

seems to have begun on the Monday

sixth before Easter, and to have ended on Good Friday,

so that the Saturday, or the vigil of the Lord's

Resurrection, was not reckoned to Lent,

although on that day there was a fast, certainly among

all the Latins, because it was the vigil of Easter.

Moreover let no one object that on this opinion the fast

was of only thirty-six days among the Latins,

who in each week gave only six days to the fast;

while among the Orientals, who also excepted Saturdays,

there were only thirty days of fasting;

for I believe that the days of Lent were reckoned otherwise

by the ancients.

[330] because forty continuous days seem to be understood. Forty consecutive days were appointed for the fast,

just as Moses, Elijah, and lastly

Christ the Lord had fasted forty continuous days.

But human frailty could not

imitate them perfectly, that is, be without all food

for that whole time. It could however for that whole time

abstain from certain foods otherwise lawful. Hence the law of abstaining

from flesh was given, and is in force through all forty

days, even on Sundays and Saturdays. And so,

just as Christians could rightly be said to fast

for forty days, although each day they took

supper; so also they were properly enough said

to fast for forty days, although some of these

days were appointed to a less severe fast, that is,

to abstinence alone from certain foods. The Fathers, therefore, who

say that Christians had to fast the whole forty days

can conveniently be expounded thus. Among the Works

of St. Jerome, tom. 4, we have three Paschal books

of Theophilus bishop of Alexandria, a contemporary of Chrysostom.

In these the beginning and end of Lent

are assigned at columns 705, 716, and 726. In

each, moreover, forty days are assigned, excepting

the vigil of Easter, which was the forty-first

day. Let the curious reader consult the places assigned,

and he will see that everywhere a month and

eleven days are assigned, that is, forty-one days,

since the months of the Egyptians are of thirty days.

[331] Cassian in Conference 21, chapter 24, sufficiently intimates

that in his time six weeks were fasted in

most churches, [because at least for that whole time abstinence had to be kept from various foods.] and in some a seventh was

added. What is the reason, he says, that Lent

is celebrated for six weeks, although in certain

provinces a perhaps more inclined care of religion

seems to have added a seventh week also,

when neither number, the Sunday and Saturday

being subtracted, fills up the sum of forty

days? Those weeks do not fill up the sum

of forty days of strict fasting, and for that

reason the Greeks afterwards added an eighth

week; while most of the Latins added four days, and

thus both found those forty days. But

Chrysostom frequently says that Lent

was of forty days, and for that reason I judge

that at Antioch it was of six weeks,

as it was in Palestine, in Egypt, and in the whole West,

and as is still observed in the church of

Milan. Certainly this opinion appears to me the more probable:

for even if we believed that a seventh week

had been appointed for the fast among the Antiochenes

when Sozomen was writing, that custom could have been

received after the year 387, of which we are treating:

for he wrote easily fifty years later.

And so the chronology must be arranged according to this

opinion. Nay, this very opinion will be wonderfully strengthened

from the Homilies on Genesis delivered in the Lent of the year

388. Consult what is to be said in §27.

[332] Concerning the time at which the Antiochene sedition arose,

it must be determined thus. The Antiochene sedition is to be fixed at the beginning of March. From Chrysostom it is clear

that it arose about ten days before Lent,

as Tillemont has already observed, and

the order of the Homilies intimates. For in the first Homily

after the sedition, which is the second among the Homilies

entitled To the People of Antioch, tom.

2, page 20, the Saint, beginning to speak of the sedition,

says: We were silent for seven days, as also were the friends of Job.

And so seven days had then passed since the sedition arose,

unless perhaps he reckons those days from his last

sermon. This is not altogether improbable, although he intimates the contrary

by the comparison with the friends of Job,

who, seeing his calamity, were silent for seven days.

But in whatever way we understand the words, that Homily was delivered at least four

or five days after the sedition. But the third again was delivered at least two

or three days after the second,

and on the very Sunday which preceded Lent,

as we shall see. We have therefore

nearly ten days before Lent, and thus the sedition

falls in the week of Sexagesima, as we call it,

that is, between Sexagesima Sunday and Quinquagesima;

and consequently, since Easter in that year

was on the twenty-fifth of April, the sedition must be fixed at the beginning

of March.

Read substitit*.

* I should think we must read προΐοντος.

§ XXIV. The order of Chrysostom's Homilies from the one which preceded the sedition to the second week of Lent.

[The Homily delivered before the sedition, in which the Saint proceeds against blasphemers,] Before that famous sedition arose, Chrysostom

delivered a quite lengthy Homily

on those words of Paul to Timothy: Use a little

wine, etc. This is published before the remaining

Homilies to the People of Antioch, tom. 2. The Saint's

purpose was to show how many and various

lessons are drawn from a few words of sacred Scripture;

and this he performed admirably, correcting various

vices, and commending the virtues opposed to them.

One thing, however, before all others he began here to inculcate,

namely that they should beware of blasphemous words,

and with wondrous zeal he commends to all that in the city

they should not only correct blasphemers but even chastise them.

This Homily the Saint himself mentions in

the second, page 24, in these words: I lately extended a long

sermon before your charity, and saw all

attentive, and none returning from the middle

of the way: I give you thanks for that

zeal of soul, and I have received the wages of my labors: but

I then also exacted another wage from you. Perhaps you know

and remember. And what was the wage? To punish

and chastise the blasphemers of the city who treat God

with insult, and to restrain the frenzied.

[334] and again in the following: in this too he describes the misery of the city I do not think that I said such things of myself;

but that God, foreseeing what was to come, put the words

into our mind. For if we had punished those who dared such things,

such things would not now have happened as have happened…

Therefore I did not cease to cry out and to protest,

let us punish the frenzy of blasphemers, let us chastise

their mind, … lest we neglect the common Lord's

being treated with insult. A great

evil will it breed for the city to despise such things. These things I foretold,

these things have now happened, and we are paying the penalties

of that torpor. You despised God treated with insult:

behold, He has permitted the emperor to be treated with

insult, and the peril of extremities to hang over all,

that in this fear we may pay the penalties of that

negligence. From these things it is clear that the sedition was

intermediate between these two sermons. Moreover in this

second one, which was delivered a few days before Lent,

and before Flavian the bishop had set out

for Constantinople, the wretched aspect of the city

is expressed in living colors.

[335] arising from the sedition, Take, reader, the beginning: What shall I say,

or what shall I speak? The present is a time for tears,

not for words; for mourning, not for discourses; for prayer,

not for preaching. So great is the magnitude

of what has been done, so incurable the wound, so vast

the blow, and greater than any remedy, and needing

help from above… Grant me to mourn

the present things. We were silent for seven days, … allow me

today to open my mouth, and to mourn this common

calamity… Whence has so great a change come about?

Nothing was more venerable than our city:

nothing is now more wretched. A people so composed

and gentle … has now suddenly so sprung back upon us

that it has done as many evils as it is not lawful even

to tell. I lament and mourn now, not on account

of the magnitude of the expected threat, but on account

of the excessive madness of the deeds done… Nothing was formerly

more blessed than our city, nothing is now more joyless…

For, destitute of the highest help, it has remained

solitary, stripped of nearly all its inhabitants…

All flee the earth that bore them as though

it were a snare; they desert it as though a pit,

they spring back as from a fire… Our misery has now become

a riddle: flight without enemies, migration without

battle, and captivity without the city's destruction.

Much more on these matters the Homily itself will give,

from which it is clear how great was the fear of the Antiochenes,

since he says on page 23: A city so great and

the head of the Orientals is in danger of being taken away

from the midst of the world.

[336] Yet Chrysostom's purpose was not

to frighten the Antiochenes further, yet he consoles the people as best he may. but to console them, that

after their wonted manner they might run to the sermons. Wherefore

on page 23 he addresses them thus: But give me your

soul, give me your ears a little:

shake off sadness: let us return to our former custom:

as we have always been accustomed to come here with

gladness, so let us do now also, casting all

upon God. Then he wove a long

sermon on that word of Paul to Timothy,

Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded,

showing the vanity of riches and of all worldly

things, and handing down other excellent

lessons. But those who applauded he restrains on page 25

with these words: The church is not a theatre, that we should hear

for delight… What profit have I from these plaudits?

what from praises and tumults? My praise

is that you should show forth in works all that is said.

Then am I to be held happy and blessed;

not when you receive it with applause, but

when you do with eagerness all things whatsoever

you hear from us. Perhaps one or two days

after this Homily Flavian departed, that he might intercede

with the emperor for the Antiochenes.

[337] Certainly Flavian had departed before

the third Homily was delivered, The third Homily on the statues, after which on the following days which he begins from the praise of that

bishop, speaking thus on page 35: When I look upon

this seat deserted and empty of its master,

I rejoice and weep at once: I weep indeed,

because I do not see my father present: but I rejoice,

because he has gone forth and departed for our safety, to snatch

so great a people from the emperor's fury. Presently

he shows the charity of Flavian, who, being an old man, and at such

a time, when his only sister too was gravely ill,

had not refused to undertake so great a journey. Then he teaches

with what words and reasons the bishop would use to appease

the emperor, whom he calls most kindly and

most mild, seeking arguments from every side

to instil good hope into them. Meanwhile he commends

that they should persist in prayers and good works,

and call also the impending fast to their aid

for obtaining by God's favor a happy issue of that

peril. The Homily is lengthy, and filled with the best

warnings and lessons. That it was delivered on the

Sunday before the fast that was to begin the next day is

gathered from the two following. In the next, that is, the fourth,

page 58, he speaks thus: Behold, today we have passed the whole day

of the fast, and in the evening we shall set out a table,

not like yesterday's, but changed

and more decent. This one, then, was delivered on the first day

of the fast. But the fifth, page 70, has this: For although

yesterday and the day before I spoke to you on this

matter (on the avoiding of oaths), yet neither

today shall I desist, nor tomorrow, nor the day after,

from admonishing the same things. These words prove that the Saint

had preached on the two preceding days.

This fifth, then, was delivered on Tuesday the sixteenth of March,

the fourth on Monday, the third on Sunday the fourteenth

of March: for he is not speaking of other Homilies.

[338] were delivered the fourth, the fifth, At the beginning of the fourth he at once declares that the consolation

was not useless by which he had striven to refresh his hearers

in the third, beginning thus: Blessed be

God, who has consoled your grieving souls,

and has strengthened your wavering minds. For that

you have taken fitting consolation, you have demonstrated by this zeal

and readiness in hearing. And

presently, page 49, of the huge concourse to the church:

In the city indeed we long to see men,

as though dwelling in a desert; but fleeing into the church

we are pressed by the multitude. More on these matters

the Saint records, and he goes on in this Homily

partly to console, partly to instruct the people with excellent

warnings. He does the same again in the fifth Homily,

in which, page 66, he addresses his hearers with these words:

I am not indeed a prophet, nor the son

of a prophet: yet I clearly know what will be, and with a great

and clear voice I proclaim that if we change,

and take some care of our soul, and stand off from

wickedness, nothing burdensome or sad will come upon us:

and this I clearly know from God's clemency,

etc. At the end he adds a long exhortation against

oaths.

[339] the sixth, in which he goes on Another Homily of the Saint followed again the next day,

which is the sixth, and was delivered on Wednesday,

as is gathered from these words, page 84: Do

therefore what yesterday too I admonished, and today shall say,

nor in saying it shall I rest, appointing a fine

against those who swear. New grounds of good hope for the Antiochenes

he brings forward in this Homily, which he begins in this

way: Many days indeed have we spent consoling

your charity: yet not on that account

shall we desist from this matter; but so long as the wound of sadness

remains, we shall lay on the medicament of consolation.

Then he alleges the reasons for that counsel, and various

reasons for consoling. To this end also

he relates that the journey of those who had gone off to announce

the sedition to Theodosius had been delayed. And

consider, he says on page 75, the manner of providence,

how it both terrified and consoled: for on the very

day on which all those deeds were done, permitting them

to go forth, as though about to announce to the emperor all

that had happened, by the swiftness of their going forth

it terrified all. But after they had departed,

and had worn away two or three days; when now

we thought our bishop's setting out to be vain,

as being likely to be later; then it dissolved our fear

and consoled us, detaining them, as

I said, in the middle of the way, and bringing it about that those

who were setting out from thence to us should announce to us their

hardships on the road.

[340] to console the people; These things indeed the Saint says, to give his hearers hope

that Flavian would reach the emperor before those messengers, or at any rate

not long after. Yet

he does not say that this would be so; nor did it so happen.

For those who were sent to Antioch after the sedition was heard of

met Flavian in the middle of his journey,

so that the messengers of the sedition had probably reached Constantinople

some days before Chrysostom said these things.

Nor is this incredible:

for the sedition was about fourteen days past, and we shall see

that the whole journey was afterwards accomplished in six days.

These men, therefore, although they were delayed

by some hindrances, could have arrived there within eight days:

for they had gone out from Antioch as though winged,

as Chrysostom himself testifies. Wherefore on a more solid

foundation rested another reason which on page

76 he adds, from the humanity and clemency of Theodosius,

who once for the sake of the Paschal festivity had dismissed nearly all

who were dwelling in prison. He adds

moral reasons also, and teaches on page 77 that

on each day at that time the people were gathered in the church

to hear sermons, and he there again makes mention

of yesterday's Homily.

[341] The seventh Homily was delivered on the following day, that is, on

Thursday, likewise the seventh, in which he resumes the exposition of sacred Scripture, as is gathered from its beginning, page 84,

where he says: Many things indeed and about many matters did I discourse yesterday before

your charity. But about many matters, if it is not

easy for you to retain all, I ask you to remember this

most of all, that God has put sadness upon us for no other reason

than sin alone, etc. For

this subject he treats at length in Homily 5,

no. 4, and thence Tillemont gathers that the fifth

was delivered only one day before the seventh, and

consequently that the sixth, which comes between the two, was

delivered on Wednesday morning, on which the seventh was delivered after

noon. But the objection is more specious than solid:

for Chrysostom in the Sixth, no.

4, again taught that a man should not grieve except

for sin alone. A few lines from many I transfer here:

Do not therefore grieve on account of death,

for it belongs to nature: grieve on account of sin,

for it is a fault of the will. That objection, then, lacks foundation.

But on this occasion I warn the reader

that I altogether pass over several scruples of this kind,

lest this Commentary grow to an excessive bulk;

but that I shall not omit difficulties resting on solid reasons.

[342] After the seventh presently followed the eighth Homily,

which was delivered on Friday, as also the eighth, delivered on Friday: and that indeed without

any doubt of mine, though Montfaucon in

the Life, page 107, resists, and Tillemont raises many scruples for himself

before he embraces our opinion.

Chrysostom, being about to pursue the explanation of the beginning of Genesis

begun the day before, thus begins:

You heard lately how all Scripture brings consolation

and refreshment, though it be a historical

narrative. For that, "In the beginning

God made heaven and earth," was an exposition

of history: but the discourse demonstrated that it was also a saying full

of much consolation. These things the Saint had shown in the seventh

Homily. But that lately, on account of which

Montfaucon throws the eighth into Saturday,

is here the same as yesterday. For the same seventh

he alleges again on page 92, as delivered yesterday, in these

words: But now meanwhile we shall say what

was left yesterday. And presently he alleges words not expounded in the preceding one:

God walked in paradise, etc. Again on page 7, speaking of oaths,

he has this: This is the sixth day that I admonish you of this

precept: for the future I wish to make a compact with you

as though desisting, that you may beware. It was therefore

Friday on which he said these things, since he had begun to speak

about oaths on Sunday. Moreover in that

Homily he again defers the question promised in the seventh,

page 89, why the book of Genesis was not written from the beginning

of the world, alleging this reason:

This week has come to its end for us, and I fear

to touch the matter, being about immediately afterwards

to break off the exposition: for this subject has need

of many days. Namely, the fast of the week

ended on Friday; but Chrysostom,

although on Saturdays too and Sundays in Lent

he frequently spoke to the congregation, yet on those

days on which there was no fast he does not seem to have wished

to treat difficult passages of sacred Scripture,

but rather to have handed down moral doctrine,

perhaps because on those days more simple folk came running.

[343] but after this, on the next day, the fifteenth was delivered, Whatever be the cause why he preferred to begin that difficult

question on the following Monday in

the ninth Homily rather than on Saturday, I cannot doubt

that on this day too the Saint spoke to the people,

and that he delivered that Homily

which is printed as the fifteenth. Tillemont saw

that it had been torn from its place, as also

certain others are not set in their order. But he preferred

to believe that it was delivered on the second Saturday of Lent

rather than on the first. Montfaucon, however, in the Life,

page 108, contends that this one is to be left in its order,

as also the fourteenth and the sixteenth.

But that order seems to me by no means probable.

Take then, studious reader, three sufficiently manifest

indications for fixing the said Homily 15 between

the eighth and the ninth. Its beginning is as follows,

page 151: It behoved both today and last

Saturday (namely before Lent) to make a discourse

about fasting: let no one think this saying

untimely. For on the days indeed

of the fast there is no need of counsel and admonition, the very

presence of the days rousing even the most negligent to the contest

of the fast.

[344] and which on the first Saturday of Lent But since many men, being about to undertake the fast,

as though the belly were to be handed over to a long siege,

anticipate it by indulging in surfeit and drunkenness:

and again, coming out as though from

a long starvation, and loosed from the grievous prison of the fast,

with much dishonor run to the tables,

eager, as it were, to lose again by excess of surfeit the profit that had arisen

from the fast; it was worth while

both then and now to set up a discourse on temperance.

To these things I desire my readers to be attentive. On what Saturday

was it fitting to admonish those who, before the fast is begun,

are wont to give themselves to surfeit and drunkenness, if not on that

Saturday which precedes Lent? For afterwards

the admonition would have been too late. On what Saturday again do those come out for the first

time from the fast who, freed from the fast, presently

advance to intemperance, if not on the Saturday of the first

week? And so either Chrysostom reasons

ineptly, or he delivered that Homily on the first

Saturday of Lent; as the whole Homily also shows,

in which he shows that that fear in which the Antiochenes still

were was useful to them. Nay, he alleges this

fear also as a reason why he did not think it necessary

to speak about temperance and fasting.

[345] and after the eighth, and before the ninth No less clearly does it appear that that Homily

was delivered on the day after the eighth. In the Eighth

he has the words given at no. 342, where he says that he

wishes to desist from preaching against oaths. But to these

words he most openly looks back in that which is commonly

the fifteenth, when he says on page 158: And

indeed yesterday I settled with your charity that I would not

speak further about this commandment; since on all

the preceding days it has been sufficiently

discoursed of. But what shall I do? Until I see you

corrected, I cannot abstain from giving counsel.

He is speaking of oaths, he is speaking on a Saturday.

To what Homily then shall we look back, if not to

the eighth delivered on Friday; since no other is extant

to which the words alleged can be referred, as Tillemont

admits. Take now, reader, the third

indication, by which it is proved that the Homily in question was delivered

before the ninth. In it, page 158, against

oaths he cites the prophet Zechariah according to

the Septuagint, chapter 5, verse 1, in these words: Have you heard

the prophet speaking to us today about the oath?

"I looked up with my eyes, and I saw (he says).

And behold a flying sickle of twenty cubits in length,

and ten cubits in breadth. And he said

to me: What do you see? And I said: I see a flying sickle

of twenty cubits in length,

and ten cubits in breadth. And it shall enter

(he says) the house of him who swears by my name, and shall destroy

it in the midst, and shall dig out the stones and the timbers."

[346] This flying sickle he there at length brandishes eloquently

and terribly against those who swear.

To this, then, he looks back in the ninth Homily, page 105,

where he gives such counsel to those who swear: it is shown to have been delivered. But that your amendment

may be swifter, do this which I say. Write

on the wall of your house, and on the wall of your heart,

that flying sickle, and think that it flies to a curse;

and continually reflect upon it,

etc. No other explanation of the sickle is added here. How many,

then, would have known what sickle he was speaking of?

How would the hearers have understood what that flying

sickle signified, unless the explanation had preceded

which had been given a little before in the Homily commonly numbered 15,

but more truly the ninth. What is objected to these things in Tillemont

and Montfaucon is of no weight:

for they did not attend to the arguments already

given. And so no doubt remains for me that

Chrysostom delivered that Homily on the first Saturday of the fast.

But we know of no Homily delivered on the following

Sunday.

[347] But on Monday he began to treat the question

proposed in Homily 7, In the second week of Lent, on Monday, the ninth was delivered, and deferred until then,

in the Homily commonly the ninth, which I too

shall call the ninth. In this, page 98, he proposes it thus: Lately,

then, we were inquiring for what cause after so many years

the Scriptures were published, and on that matter he then discourses at length. This Homily is to be fixed on the Monday in the

second week of Lent. Its beginning is as follows:

Both lately I spoke to you and now I speak to you.

Would that it were always with you, if not by the body's

presence, at least by the force of charity: for I have no

other life but you, and the care of your salvation…

Therefore I carry you all about in my mind,

and not here only, but at home too. For although the people

are many, and the measure of my heart is small,

yet charity is broad, and you are not straitened in us:

but what follows I shall not add: for we are not

straitened in you. Then he praises the Antiochenes,

because he had understood that many were taking pains to root out the depraved

custom of oaths, and he adds:

Therefore I bear you continually in my heart,

therefore I do not feel the labor of teaching, being relieved by my hearers'

gain. Yet he complains that many

had not come to this sermon, because, when

through bodily infirmity they could not fast, they did not dare

to come to the church having eaten. This harmful

fear, therefore, he strives to remove, and teaches that one must not

abstain from sermons because the fast has been omitted from

necessity.

[348] The tenth Homily I judge to have been delivered on the following Tuesday,

probably the tenth on the next day. because near the end of the ninth the Saint

says that many other things could be said, but that he defers them to the

morrow. For in the tenth Chrysostom

treats the same matter, and at the beginning declares that his admonition

had been useful to those not fasting,

beginning to speak thus: I rejoice and congratulate

you all, that you have performed in deed our admonition, which lately

I made on behalf of those not fasting and therefore absent.

For I think that many who have already eaten

are present today, and fill up this fair

assembly for us: and this I conjecture from the fact that

a larger audience has been made for us, and a greater

gathering of hearers, etc. That lately, then, probably

extends only to the preceding day,

as in Homily 8, of which at no. 342: for there is no

reason why we should say that some intervening day

lacked a sermon, since it had been announced in the ninth Homily

for the following day. At the end of this

Homily he preaches against oaths, which in Lent

he had not yet intermitted. After the tenth Homily

a new terror disturbed the Antiochenes, and

compelled Chrysostom to be silent, as Homily 11

has, page 15. Hence arises a doubt whether that Homily

ought to follow, as the editions have it, or some other.

§ XXV. The continuation of the same Homilies down to Easter.

The terror of the Antiochenes on account of the messengers sent by the emperor, But that we may rightly establish the order, it is necessary

that we observe for what cause the Antiochenes

were so greatly disturbed that Chrysostom could not

gather and teach the people.

It was assuredly no other than that some men sent by the emperor

after the sedition was heard of had come

to Antioch, and that judges were expected who would inquire

into the sedition. Hence Chrysostom could not speak to the people,

because the Antiochenes, as he says

in Homily 11, page 115, were beaten all day long by countless

rumors, disturbed and driven about on every side,

and busying themselves each day, and curiously

inquiring: Who has come from the camp (that is, from

the imperial court)? And what has he announced on coming?

Is what is said true or false?

and passing the nights without sleep, and looking upon the city

with tears as though it were soon to perish.

Therefore, he says, we too were silent these past

days, since our whole city was

emptied, all had migrated into the wildernesses,

and those who remained were darkened by a cloud of sadness. Here

the Saint relates only the beginnings of the disturbance, and the lighter ones:

but the graver ones, which followed when the trials

had begun, are related in Homily 13,

and especially in Homily 17, which he delivered first

after the trials were removed, as far as I judge.

[350] who brought severe commands, and had preceded the judges who were to come: The very day on which those first messengers brought

the emperor's commands I trust I shall assign by a sufficiently probable

reasoning. What Theodosius did

when he heard of the sedition, Libanius sets forth

in Oration 13 to Theodosius, or tom. 2 of the Works

of Libanius, page 407, in these words: How then did this

prince bear himself? He chastises indeed with a certain

animadversion that contained a remedy… While

he sanctioned these things: namely that no horse-race should be held

in the circus; nor that anyone should go to the theatre;

nor that there should be one to give delight, nor one to be delighted:

and that the great city should be called by the name of a small town:

lastly that anyone should abstain from the delights of the baths…

But to pass judgment on certain persons he sends those of whose

justice he was aware and certain. These judges were Hellebichus and

Caesarius, both of whom had held various prefectures, as may be seen

in Tillemont, tom. 5 of the Emperors,

in Theodosius, art. 34. That the coming of these judges

became known to the Antiochenes a notable time before

they came into the city is clear from the same Libanius,

Oration 21, page 528. Some men, therefore, had come

before them bringing the emperor's commands, and this

is also gathered from the words of Chrysostom given about

the disturbance of the Antiochenes. But since their

arrival interrupted Chrysostom's sermons,

it cannot be placed after the Tuesday or Wednesday

of the second week of the fast, since he then

began to be silent.

[351] But that the emperor's first commands were brought to Antioch

on the Saturday of the first week these had come to Antioch on the twentieth of March,

I am the more persuaded, because I see that at least some

of them were already then carried into execution. Let us hear

Chrysostom in the Homily commonly numbered 15, which I have shown was delivered on that

Saturday. He says that he had spent many sermons in vain,

that the Antiochenes might give up profane theatres and spectacles: But behold now,

he says on page 152, while we are silent and say nothing about this,

of their own accord they have blocked up the orchestra, and

the circus has been made inaccessible. He was then indeed ignorant,

or dissembled, if perhaps he knew, for what

cause this had been done; because probably the magistrates

had not yet published the emperor's command,

lest the fear and flight of the Antiochenes should be increased.

But after all inquiry ceased,

Chrysostom taught the true cause in Homily

17, page 175, where he has this: But do the things that have proceeded

from the emperor sadden you? But neither are those

grievous: nay, they too have brought much

profit. For what burdensome thing, tell me, has

happened? That he blocked up the orchestra, that

he made the circus inaccessible, that he shut off

and buried the fountains of wickedness?… Are you saddened

on this account, dearest? Nay, for that reason you ought both to rejoice and be glad,

and to give thanks to the emperor: since his

vengeance was a correction, and his punishment an instruction, and his anger

a teaching. Is it because the baths have been closed to us?

But this is not intolerable… Is it because he has taken away

the city's dignity, and no longer permits it to be called

a metropolis? etc.

[352] We see that all those things were done by the command

of the emperor. as is shown both to have been done and to have been possible, But the orchestra and the circus were closed

on the Saturday of the first week, and doubtless

the baths on the same day. The emperor's command, therefore,

had come to Antioch on the first Saturday of Lent,

which fell on the twentieth of March, since I have said that Lent was

of only six weeks.

Many things contrary to these Tillemont wrote, and many

Montfaucon; but they alleged no reason against this chronology

which creates a difficulty.

Those who on the very day of the sedition had gone off to Constantinople

with the utmost speed could have arrived there within eight days.

Others could with the same speed set out from

Constantinople to Antioch, and bring Theodosius' commands:

for Caesarius, when the trial at Antioch was over,

reached Constantinople on the sixth day, as Libanius testifies, Oration 20, page 519. But

between the sedition and the first Saturday of Lent

at least sixteen days are to be counted.

And so it is uselessly that Tillemont in Note 31 on Theodosius

measures the distance between the two cities,

in order to show that the emperor's commands came to Antioch

later, since he himself admits that the whole journey

was accomplished by Caesarius in six days.

[353] In vain does he reason, when he observes

that Flavian the bishop met in mid-journey

Hellebichus and Caesarius, the contrary opinion being discussed. the judges delegated by the emperor,

in order to prove that these came to Antioch

only on the Monday of the third week: for

the middle of the way is not to be understood so strictly that from this

anything certain can be determined about the day of their arrival: nor ought

Tillemont to have supposed that no messengers of the emperor

came to Antioch before the judges themselves. Still less ought he

to have supposed that the emperor's command about

closing the orchestra, the circus, and the baths was carried out

by the judges themselves. For it was a matter no less of prudence

than of severity to close first those places in which

the people of so great a city gathered,

lest new seditions should arise against the judges themselves,

and lest the Antiochenes, from fear of punishment, should altogether rebel.

[354] While that terror lasted, Homily 16 was delivered. By the aforesaid terrors and rumors the Antiochenes were

agitated until the sixteenth Homily was delivered,

which is to be fixed on the Saturday or Sunday after

the second week of the fast, that is, the twenty-seventh

or twenty-eighth of March. This is clear from the Homily itself,

in which on page 168 it is read thus: We have dispatched the second

week of the fast. For the fast of the second

week ended on Saturday; but those words could equally

be said on the Sunday. The Homily was delivered at a time

of such great disturbance that on page 161 Chrysostom

says: Had I not been much compelled by force from the fathers,

I should neither have risen nor spoken,

darkened by grief at your faint-heartedness:

but neither now can I come back to myself: so does

indignation and sadness beset my mind, when

after so much teaching you have needed gentile

teachers to exhort and admonish you

to bear the present fear nobly. The title

and the beginning of the Homily somehow set forth the cause of the Saint's

so great indignation. The title is as follows: When the devastation

had been announced to the prefect, and all were consulting about

flight, and the prefect had entered the

church and consoled them, the present Homily was delivered.

The beginning is: I praised the prefect's providence,

since, seeing the city in tumult,

and all deliberating about flight,

he entered and consoled you, and brought you

to good hope. But on your account I was affected with blushing and shame,

that after so many and lengthy sermons you should have needed

consolation from outside.

This rebuke the Saint pursues most vehemently,

and presently inveighs against the custom of swearing, as

the cause of the evils. Then he extols at length the chains and tribulations

of St. Paul, that he may add courage to those who fear

chains. At no. 2 he briefly repeats much

from the Homily commonly numbered 15, and by name

that flying sickle, in this way: Out of all these

things, many indeed, remember for me especially those

which were said about the flying sickle, turning aside into the house

of him who swears, undermining stones and timbers,

and consuming all things. From these things it is clear

that that Homily was delivered while the Antiochenes were in the greatest

fear. Yet I think it was delivered before

the trials were held; and on that very day on which

the judges entered the city, so that that prefect

who consoled the people is probably one

of the judges, unless perhaps the prefect of the city wished

to console the people, disturbed at the imminence of their entry.

But I rather believe he was one of the judges.

[355] Presently the Saint was silent again on account of the severe trials: Whoever he was, after this Homily

Chrysostom was again compelled to be silent, because

all were stricken with the terror of the trials and with excessive fear of prison.

Those trials, with the arrest of many and

sharp examination, began in the third week of Lent

on Monday, and lasted for three or four

days, as far as can be gathered from Chrysostom.

In Homily 13, page 133, the Saint speaks thus of that time:

What a past four days have we seen,

and what a present do we now see?

How great was the darkness then in the one? how great now

the tranquillity in the present? That dread tribunal in the city

both shook the hearts of all, and made the day

nothing better than the night, not because the sun's rays

were extinguished, but because sadness and fear darkened

your eyes. Tillemont explains the word τετράδα, four days,

of the fourth weekday, that is, of Wednesday:

nor is that exposition improbable, since the Greek

word admits such an exposition, and the Homily

was delivered on a Wednesday, so that the opposition of the present

Wednesday with the past is at least as probable

as that of the present four days with the four days

past. For this reason it cannot be determined

whether the trials lasted three or four days.

But I suspect they were ended on Thursday, and that that Homily

which Chrysostom delivered first after the trials were ended

is to be fixed on the Saturday.

[356] Of the severity of those trials the Saint

relates much in the Homily already cited. the terror of those trials A few things

I transfer here: For after the greater part of the city

through fear and that threatening had migrated to the deserts and

the mountain gorges and hidden places,

fear driving them from every side; and the houses were empty

of women, the forum empty of men, and scarcely

two or three were to be seen going through the midst together,

and these too going about like animated corpses;

we went off to the court of judgment to see the end of what was being

done: and beholding the gathered remnants of the city,

we marvelled at this most of all, that,

though a multitude was waiting about the doors, as though

no one were present, there was the deepest silence, all

looking at one another, and none daring to question

a bystander or to hear anything from him.

For each held his neighbor suspect: since

many, beyond all expectation, had already been snatched from the midst

of the forum and were being confined within: and all

alike were looking to heaven, and stretching out our hands

in silence, awaiting help from above,

etc… And these things indeed were before the doors.

[357] But after we entered the inner hall,

we again saw other things more terrible than these, and severity. Homily 17, soldiers

armed with swords and clubs, etc. He adds much

about the pitiable spectacle of noble women pleading for their own,

about the scourges and beatings of those

who were tortured, so that he was compelled to exclaim on page

135: Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity, and

to recall to memory the severity of the last judgment.

And yet, he says, they were the leading men of the city who were then

being judged: and many were interceding for them.

Nevertheless none of these things then bent the judges

as they heard the cases within: but they looked to one thing

only, that a diligent inquiry into what had been done should be made.

Much more than this may be read in the same place in

Chrysostom, who is wont from such things to propound excellent lessons

about the vanity of worldly matters.

But let us now see by whose efforts chiefly

an end was at last put to so great severity. This

the Saint relates in Homily 17, which for this cause

I place first after the trials were carried out: for it is not likely

that Chrysostom treated of any other matter

before he had consoled the Antiochenes by that Homily.

The whole Homily too, and especially its beginning,

indicates this order. For it begins in this way,

page 170: Opportunely today have we all sung together:

"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, who

alone does wonders." For wonderful and beyond

expectation have the events been. A whole city

and so great a people, already to be submerged and

driven beneath the waves and utterly destroyed, He at once

in one moment of time freed from all shipwreck…

Hear the manner.

[358] Then, he says on page 172, the monks who dwell on the

mountain-tops displayed their own philosophy.

For, shut up for so many years in their caves, which teaches that monks and priests

with none calling them, none persuading them, after

they saw so great a cloud standing about the city,

leaving their tents and caves,

they flowed together from every side, like certain angels

come from heaven… Nor was this alone wonderful,

but that, approaching the rulers themselves, they spoke

with confidence on behalf of the accused, and all were ready

to pour out their blood and to lay down their heads, that they might rescue

the captives from the expected tribulations: and

they said that they would not withdraw before the judges

spared the people of the city, or sent them together with the accused

as envoys to the emperor. Religious is he

who rules our world, they said, faithful, living

in piety. We therefore shall altogether reconcile him:

we shall not permit you, nor grant

that you pollute the sword, nor cut off any man's

head. But if you do not abstain, we too

shall altogether die with them, etc. Then on page 175, of the priests,

of whom he himself was doubtless one, he speaks

thus: Not the monks only, but the priests also

displayed the same greatness of soul,

and dispensed our salvation. And one indeed

(Flavian) betook himself to the camp … But others,*

remaining here and displaying the same things as the monks,

restraining the judges with their own hands,

did not suffer them to enter before they promised

about an end to the trial. And when they saw them refusing,

they too in turn used much boldness. But when

they saw them assenting, embracing their feet and knees,

and kissing their hands, they showed both virtues

superabundantly, freedom of speech and gentleness.

[359] interceded for the accused, so that the trials should be ended, That intercession of the monks and priests

obtained on the same day an end of the trial, and brought it about that

no one was any longer punished with death; but that all things

should be referred to the emperor. Comparing the fortitude of the monks

with the faint-heartedness of the gentile philosophers,

he declares both on page 173: For

(the monks) spent whole days (nay,

the whole day: in Greek διημέρευον) sitting before the doors of the praetorium,

ready to snatch from the executioners' hands those who were to be led away.

From this fact, which we shall pardon in monks pious rather than

learned, it is sufficiently gathered that none was

killed from that time. The other point Chrysostom states more clearly

in these words: The monks … dissolved the evil

not in many days, but in a brief moment

of time… These in one day both came down (from their

mountains) and discoursed (before the judges) and

dissolved the calamity (of the trials) and returned to their own

tents. But let no one infer from this

that the trials lasted only one day, and on the second

were thus ended: for we do not know how many days

the judges had been occupied before the monks' arrival.

Besides, those who were in prison, or sent

into exile, were not then freed; but their

cause was left to the emperor, as is clear from Chrysostom,

page 179, where he commends that the Antiochenes should pray to God

for them.

[360] after those it was the first delivered, Moreover the monks wished to go to the emperor,

that they might intercede for the Antiochenes, as Chrysostom testifies,

page 174. But the judges, he says, revering their

wisdom (in Greek φιλοσοφίαν, that is, virtue)

and struck by the loftiness of their understanding , did not permit them*

to undertake this long journey: but they pledged that, if only

they might have their words in writing, they would depart with

the letters and would entreat the emperor

to lay aside all his anger, which

we also expect will come to pass. For when the sentence was being pronounced,

entering in, they spoke words of much wisdom *,

and by letters made supplication to the emperor, and after

these words were taken down in the letters the judges departed…

And what has now been done here, the emperor shall hear,

the great city shall hear, and the whole world shall hear, that

such monks inhabit the city of the Antiochenes

as display Apostolic boldness. Thus far

Chrysostom. But of the judges, Caesarius set out for Constantinople,

probably toward the evening

of Friday in the third week of Lent.

Certainly that he departed toward evening Libanius asserts,

page 519, adding that he used such speed

that in six days he reached Theodosius.

I only doubt whether on the very day on which the trials ceased,

he set out; or rather on the following day, so that all things

might be better arranged which had to be carried to the emperor.

Equally doubtful does it appear to me whether

Chrysostom delivered the Homily in question, which is printed as the

seventeenth, on the Friday or on the Saturday.

This latter, however, appears more likely, because the next one

I would rather fix on the Sunday, when Lent was

at its middle, that is, after the third week.

[361] This is printed as the eighteenth, and has this

beginning: and on the next day the eighteenth, delivered in mid-Lent: I saw many rejoicing, and saying among

themselves: We have conquered, we have overcome: half the fast

has been routed. But such men I exhort not

to rejoice on that account, that half the fast

has been routed, but to consider whether half of their sins

has been routed. Then he teaches what

the fast ought to be, and shows the vanity of riches and of all worldly

things, elucidating it thus by a present

example, page 182: For behold,

the poor indeed have all escaped, the people

has been freed from danger… But those who handled public affairs

… and administered other things, they themselves

now inhabit the prison, they fear extremities, …

and are now more wretched than all, not on account of

the magnitude of their perils, but because they spent the past

time in delicacies. For many, when

we were exhorting and admonishing them to bear adversity

nobly, said: We have never meditated any such thing,

nor do we know how to philosophize on such matters:

therefore we need great consolation. After

much about vanity, on page 187 he reproves those

who washed themselves in the river because the baths were closed,

and addresses them thus: You have not yet spent twenty days

shut out from the baths, etc. This passage was misused by

Hermant and Tillemont, the former to attribute eight weeks

to Lent, the latter to transfer the Homily

to the fifth week of Lent,

to which he ascribes seven weeks. But,

since the baths were closed on the first Saturday of Lent,

as I showed at no. 351 and following, on our opinion

the sixteenth day was running from the closing of the baths,

when Chrysostom said these things in the middle of a Lent of six

weeks; whereas on their opinion more than twenty days had passed.

And so these things cohere excellently with our chronology.

[362] After this Homily presently on the Monday followed

that one presently on the following days the eleventh, the twelfth, which is commonly placed as the eleventh. This

begins thus on page 114: When I consider the past tempest,

and the present tranquillity, I do not

cease to say: Blessed be God, who does all things,

and changes them, who made light out of darkness,

etc. In this the Saint resumes the matter treated in Homily

10 about the creation of the world, and then

interrupted on account of the disturbances stirred up at Antioch before the judges'

arrival, as was said at no. 348.

For this reason at no. 2 he renews the memory of what had been said before.

For about twelve days had passed after Homily

10 was delivered, when he delivered the eleventh,

which is probably placed in that order in the collection

of Homilies because of the connection of the subject

which is treated. The eleventh is followed by the twelfth,

delivered on the following Tuesday, as is clear

from its beginning, page 123, which I subjoin: Both yesterday

I said, Blessed be God, and today I shall say this same thing again.

For although grievous things have passed, yet

let not the memory of grievous things pass, not that we may grieve,

but that we may give thanks. In this Homily, however,

at no. 2, Montfaucon believes he has found some argument against Tillemont,

and consequently against the order of the Homilies

arranged by me, because the Saint says: In the three past

days, then, we were seeking one mode of the knowledge of God,

etc. But today, having philosophized a little on this

matter again, we shall pass to another

discourse.

[363] as is shown against Montfaucon, He observes, namely, on page 108 in the Life, that on those three

days were delivered the ninth, tenth,

and eleventh Homilies. Rightly indeed: for on that

matter no doubt can rightly be raised. Then he asks: Does

not Tillemont do violence to Chrysostom's words,

when he wishes the fifteenth and sixteenth to be inserted between the tenth and the eleventh? This argument,

if it were of any force, would also overturn our order,

since I have placed three Homilies, namely the sixteenth

and the two following, between the tenth and

the eleventh. But Montfaucon himself answers for us,

when he presently adds:

For the rest, when Chrysostom says, in the three past

days, it is not understood of the three last

days on which, namely, he had preached. These

words are contrary to the preceding, and far

better than they. But I confess that this does not seem to be Montfaucon's

meaning, but is probably a fault of the printing,

since in the preface to tom. 2 he will have it that Chrysostom

is speaking of the three last days on which

he had preached. But since he himself confesses that the tenth

Homily was delivered in the second week of the fast,

and the eleventh in the fourth week,

as also the two following, and indeed after those

terrible trials of which much is related in

Homily 13, Chrysostom's words are to be explained

of the three Homilies in which the knowledge

of God through creatures is treated. But that matter,

which he had taken up in order to show that it was not necessary

that the sacred Scriptures should be written from the beginning of the world,

he completes in this Homily, and adds some things against

oaths.

[364] and the thirteenth, which he ineptly placed before the trials. On the Wednesday followed Homily 13, in

which the Saint relates much about the severity and rigor of the trials

which had been carried out the preceding week,

and shows that calamities are useful to men

for salvation. He begins in this manner, page 133: From the same

beginning, and the same prefaces, with which yesterday

and the day before I began, today too I shall begin. I shall say

now also, Blessed be God, etc. Nearly similar is

the exordium of Homily 17, which we believe was delivered

on the preceding Saturday. But Tillemont suspects that it is

later than these three, because the Saint says

that yesterday and the day before he used such an exordium. This

observation would be apt, had not the eighteenth followed after Homily 17,

which Chrysostom begins in another way.

And so Tillemont rightly confesses

that the seventeenth seems to have been delivered immediately after the trials,

and he could have subjoined to it with us the eighteenth,

if he had known that the baths had been closed on the first Saturday

of Lent. But he thereupon disturbed the order,

because he did not notice this. Moreover, when I consider how

many things Chrysostom here relates about the trials, I cannot

sufficiently wonder by what reasoning at last Montfaucon could place

these three Homilies, delivered some days after the trials

were completed, before the arrival of the judges themselves,

Hellebichus and Caesarius.

If he wrote this awake, at least he did not

have his eyes open to consider everything. For who

otherwise would not see that before the judges' arrival

trials could not be carried out? Ceillier, tom. 9, page

117, saw that inconvenience, and believed that other judges

must be brought in, who before Hellebichus and Caesarius had held trials

at Antioch. But that is nothing

but to veil an all-too-evident error with another error:

for of other judges in that cause there is nowhere

mention in Chrysostom or Libanius.

On the contrary it is clear from Libanius, Oration 21 against Hellebichus,

that in his court were done those things which

Chrysostom relates in Homily 13, so that on that matter there is no

doubt. They object also that that order of the

Homilies which is in the printed editions is found

in the Manuscript codices. But that argument is of no

weight: for Montfaucon himself was compelled to change the order

in the later Homilies. The collectors

seem to have placed the eleventh immediately after the tenth

on account of the continuation of the same subject,

and perhaps they were ignorant of the order of time.

[365] Thus far we have found certain or at least most probable

indications of the time [Homily 14, delivered after the city had been disturbed the day before by false rumors,] at which each

Homily was delivered. But signs do not offer themselves equally clear for binding

the rest of this Lent to certain days.

The Homily which in the printed editions is the fourteenth was probably

delivered not long after the thirteenth; but

more probably not on the Thursday immediately following, but about

the end of the fourth week. For from its very beginning

it is probable that the Saint abstained from speaking at least one day

on account of a disturbance that had again arisen. Not a little,

he says on page 140, did the devil disturb the city for us yesterday;

but God too has again consoled us not

a little. The cause of the disturbance is explained

by the title prefixed, in this manner: When all the people

had been freed from distress, and established in confidence,

certain men again disturbed the city with feigned dreadful rumors,

and were convicted. On this

matter, then, the Homily was delivered, etc. In such titles I judge

not much trust indeed is to be placed, since they were probably

added later. Yet this title so aptly

agrees with the whole context of the Homily, that it is at least

probable. What sort of rumors were spread

Chrysostom sets forth also in Homily 21

(in Ducaeus, 20), page 214: For when many

after the departure of our common father were terrifying those

who dwelt in prison, and saying: The king is not softened,*

and is planning the overthrow of the whole city,

and were spreading abroad many other things besides these, the prisoners

were then made in no way more fearful by this report:

but when we said, These things are false, and works of the devil's

fraud, who wishes to dismay your souls, they said, We have no need

of the consolation of words,

etc. Those prisoners had been sent to prison by the judges.

And so those rumors were spread after

the trials had been carried out some time.

[366] Hence the Saint warns in the Homily cited,

the 14th, from which it is clear that another, or at least part of one, has fallen out. that at such fears the mind must not be cast down.

When therefore you see, beloved, he says on page 141,

the temptation now indeed extinguished, but again

kindled, do not fall in mind, nor flee away;

but hold good hope, etc. But that new

fear seems to have brought it about that the Saint again directed his discourse

more strongly against oaths than he had done

on the preceding days. For, he says on page 150,

when this misery which holds the city was arising, I began this

admonition. And that indeed ought now

to be ended: but we have not fulfilled a single commandment,

etc. Moreover from this Homily too it is gathered

that either some whole Homily, or part of one,

is unknown to us, since on page 141 he speaks thus:

For before I asked you, that taking John's head cut off*

and still dripping with warm blood,

each of you should so return to his own house, and should think that he has

before his eyes the head itself uttering a voice, and

saying: Hate my murderer, the oath,

etc. Chrysostom, then, said in some Homily

that the death of St. John the Baptist arose from Herod's

oath. But that is not now to be found.

And so some Homily has fallen out that was delivered not long

before this one, or at any rate from some of the preceding ones

that part in which he had treated that story.

[367] After an illness of some days, After this Homily an infirmity of some days

compelled Chrysostom to abstain from sermons,

and to remain at home. Meanwhile there was some festivity

of the martyrs at which he could not be present on account of his infirmity.

To this he himself testifies in Homily 19, which

he begins thus on page 188: You have been entertained at the banquets of the holy martyrs

these past days, and, filled with the spiritual festivity,

you have exulted with honorable exultations; …

but infirmity compelled us, even against our will, to remain at home.

Yet, although we were not present at the solemnity, we shared in the

pleasure… For such is the force of charity, that it makes those who do not

enjoy rejoice equally with those who enjoy. From these things it is clear that the Saint was ill

before he delivered Homily 19, and consequently

after he had delivered the fourteenth: for the nineteenth

followed this, as I shall presently show. He had not yet

wholly recovered when, on account of the arrival

of certain monks, I think, he came to the church

and delivered Homily 19. For to the words just

given he adds: Therefore, even sitting at home,

I rejoiced with you, and, not yet loosed from my disease,

I rose and ran to you, that I might look upon your

longed-for faces, and become a partaker of the present

festivity: for I think the present day

to be the greatest festivity because of the presence of our

brethren, who have adorned the city for us,

and have graced the Church. A people diverse from us indeed

in tongue, but consonant in faith.

[368] when many monks had come to Antioch, What sort of brethren those were, on whose account

Chrysostom, not yet well recovered, came to the church

and delivered this Homily, is not agreed between

Tillemont and Montfaucon. Tillemont

in his Chrysostom, art. 27, judges that they were bishops

and presbyters who had come from a distant region,

and therefore did not speak Greek. But Montfaucon

in the Life, page 110, says that they were rustics

or farmers who are in question. Both alike

appear to me improbable from the words of Chrysostom,

who clearly seems to designate monks.

For he praises them for their modest life, for chastity,

for labors, for the best philosophy, and for many

other adornments, which by no means fit ordinary

farmers, nor indeed all of them bishops or

presbyters, but monks alone, who joined those various

adornments in their own persons. A few things to

the purpose I transfer here. Each of these you would see,

he says on page 189, now indeed yoking plough-oxen

and drawing the plough, … but now

ascending the sacred pulpit and ploughing the souls

of their subjects: now indeed cutting out the thorns of the field

with the sickle, but now wiping away sins from souls

with a word… These are they above all who seem to us

to philosophize the best philosophy, displaying their virtue

not by their habit but by their mind.

And on page 190, where he had said that they are far wiser

than the philosophers of the gentiles, he adds: Their

mind is full of much spiritual philosophy.

Presently he praises their sobriety: Since they have expelled all

delicacies, and have put to flight the most wicked streams of drunkenness,

and eat only so much

as suffices for living. These things and others show that they were

monks: for such men he frequently adorns with praises of this kind.

Nor ought we to wonder if among the Syrian monks

many did not know the Greek language,

as he intimates about these.

[369] Now in a few words I shall show by what reasoning this

Homily is understood to have been delivered after the fourteenth. the Saint delivered Homily 19,

In the latter, page 197, arguing strongly against oaths,

he speaks thus: Have you seen the sickle? Have you seen the head

of John? Have you heard the story about Saul? Have you heard

the manner of the Jewish captivity? etc. That sickle

he had already brought forward in the first week from Zechariah,

and at no. 2 in this Homily he had repeated it.

The head of St. John the Baptist he had brought forward before, and had repeated

it in Homily 14. The story of Saul, by whose

oath Jonathan all but perished, he had treated at length

in Homily 14. In the same at no. 6 he says:

I might also relate another story, and from it demonstrate

that one oath caused a calamity heavier and greater than this.

He is speaking of the oath of King Zedekiah, and of the story of the capture and overthrow

of Jerusalem, and he there omits it, lest the Homily

should become too long. But the story there deferred he narrates at length

in Homily 19. And so it is clear that Homily

19 is as it were a continuation of the fourteenth,

namely for that part in which oaths are disputed against at length

in both places. Tillemont

suspects that Homily 19 was delivered on Passion Sunday,

that is, the second before Easter. But I do not doubt

that it was delivered later: for only one remains

before Easter, nor in that one does Chrysostom say

that he had been hindered by illness.

[370] Montfaucon in the Life, page 110, contends

that Homily 19 was delivered after Easter, to be fixed about Palm Sunday or on Palm Sunday itself. and indeed

on the fifth Sunday, that is, the Sunday before the Lord's

Ascension. For that opinion he brings forward the title,

which he expresses thus in Greek: τῇ

Κυριακῇ

τῆς

ἐπισωζομένης

πρὸς

τοὺς

ἀπὸ

τῆς

χώρας etc., and renders it in Latin

in this way: On the Sunday of the "preserved," to the men who till the fields, etc. Then he notes that by the word ἐπισωζομένη

among the Cappadocians the Ascension is designated, and that thence

among them the Sunday is named. But in Ducaeus

and elsewhere is read Ζωζομένης, of the preserved, as Montfaucon

himself rendered it in Latin. Wherefore I judge

that nothing certain can be had from the title, since

we do not know when those titles were added. Certainly

it is not even probable that the titles are Chrysostom's own.

What Montfaucon adds, that Flavian

is mentioned in Homily 19 in those words on page 188,

While this honorable leader conducts you about, etc., is improbable,

since he was absent the whole of Lent.

Flavian is everywhere called father by Chrysostom.

But anyone may be called leader who plays the chief part in some

festivity. And so Montfaucon has brought forward

two ambiguous words for his opinion, and

nothing besides; but the Homily, which is as it were a continuation

of the fourteenth, he separates from it by more than two

months, and finally brings Chrysostom, who

in the Paschal season ceased to speak against oaths, improbably back

after five weeks to the same matter. Homily 19, therefore,

must be fixed about Palm Sunday,

or on Palm Sunday itself, and thus we understand

why in the last two weeks of Lent

we have so few Homilies.

[371] After some days in which Chrysostom

probably abstained from speaking, Homily 20, fighting against enmities and oaths, on account of strength not yet

sufficiently firm, followed Homily 20 in Montfaucon,

which in Ducaeus is placed as the twenty-second.

This was delivered, not ten, as some will have it,

but two or three days before Easter,

as is gathered from its very beginning. The time is now hastening

to the end of the fast. Wherefore let us too with greater zeal

give our labor to virtue… No gain will be ours

from the many labors and sweats spent upon the fast,

unless with a pure conscience we can enjoy the sacred table.

For on this account the fast and Lent,

and the assemblies of so many days, the hearings, the prayers,*

and the teachings have been undertaken, etc. Presently he pursues at length

that not the fast alone suffices, but that the fast

and the other labors in Lent are undertaken

that vices may be amended, and that holy Communion at

Easter may be performed with a pure conscience. Then

he disputes against various failings, and especially against

enmities and quarrels; at the end too he discourses

briefly against oaths, but with great

severity. The forty days have now passed,

he says on page 213; if the sacred Easter also shall have passed,

I shall thenceforth grant pardon to none; I shall employ not admonition,

but the force of authority, and a severity not

to be despised… Now therefore I announce

and protest, that if I meet each one and take

proof, for I shall doubtless take it, that,

if I catch any who have not corrected these vices (in Greek, vice),

I shall impose a penalty: I shall order that they stand outside,

apart from the sacred Mysteries, and that not with the intention

that they should remain outside, but that, after they

have amended themselves, being received within, they may with a pure conscience

enjoy the sacred table. From these things it is clear first

that Flavian attributed much authority to Chrysostom.

[372] it was delivered a few days before Easter, Secondly, from the words alleged it also clearly

appears that Easter was near when the Saint

was delivering these words. For those words, The forty

days have now (in Greek λοιπὸν, thenceforth) passed,

signify the same as Lent has now passed,

especially since there follows, If the sacred Easter also (in Greek

τοίνυν, therefore) shall pass. Lent ended

on Good Friday, and the Saturday

was the vigil of Easter. From these things the Homily may seem

to have been delivered on Good Friday. Yet I do not wish

to take the words so strictly as to think that altogether certain:

for his hearers perceived the Saint's meaning,

so that he could speak thus even if some days of Lent

remained. Certainly he speaks in nearly the same way

at the beginning of Homily 30 on Genesis, tom. 4, page

293, although that was delivered at the beginning of Holy

Week. But in no way can I assent

to Tillemont and Montfaucon, who fix that Homily

ten days before the holy and life-

giving resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from

the dead, because these words were added to the title in some

codices. For I make so little of that addition

that I do not hesitate to call it false and contrary to Chrysostom.

The Saint mentions the end of Lent,

nor does he anywhere distinguish between Lent

and the forty days of the fast. But our adversaries

have really made a Quinquagesima out of Lent:

which I shall then at last admit, if anyone can

show me that Chrysostom distinguishes

between the forty days of the fast and Lent.

Take, reader, the beginning of Homily 30 on Genesis:

Behold, at last we have come to the end of holy Lent,

and have completed the voyage of the fast. So

he speaks, because the last week had begun,

and he speaks here of the forty days as ended in no other

way.

[373] but not ten days before that solemnity. Take, reader, another proof also,

that you may perceive that that opinion is improbable.

Chrysostom on page 210 addresses his hearers thus:

Since we have all these things known, let us free

ourselves from penalty and punishment, and let us reverence the PRESENT feast

with all that has now been said, and what

for its sake we hope to obtain from the emperor, let us

grant that also to others. For from many I hear

that the emperor, reverencing the Paschal feast, will receive

the city into favor, and will remit all offenses,

etc. He exhorts them to forgive one another's offenses

in reverence for the present Paschal feast,

as the emperor for the sake of that same feast was about to forgive the city.

Who now would not see that Easter was

near when he said these things, since he called it

the present feast? It was not, then, ten days off.

Besides, what he asserts about the emperor was doubtless

understood from a message sent ahead by Flavian.

For, as is read in Homily 20, page 23,

Flavian on the journey sent a messenger ahead,

that the Antiochenes might learn these things sooner. But since

Flavian could have departed from Constantinople

only about Passion Sunday, as we shall presently

say, that messenger could not have arrived except a few

days before Easter, and certainly could not have come

a full ten days before Easter. And so this last

Homily of Lent was delivered not ten, but a very few

days before Easter.

[374] Moreover, that we may omit nothing of the labors

undertaken by the Saint in this Lent, Two Catecheses in the same Lent there must also be reviewed

two Catecheses, or sermons

delivered to the Catechumens, which Tillemont

in his Chrysostom, Notes 30 and 33, banished to the following

year, Montfaucon doubting in

the prefatory Monitum, tom. 2, page 224. Tillemont's sole reason

for banishing the former elsewhere arises from the false

hypothesis that Lent had seven

weeks: for on that opinion the former

Catechesis really falls in the third week,

when on account of the terror of the trials there was no place

for sermons. But on our opinion it must be fixed in

the second week of Lent. For the Saint

on page 226 declares that thirty days remain

before the baptism of the Catechumens, and he repeats the same

on page 231. But he uses a round number, so that

perhaps two or three days remained beyond thirty.

And thus that Catechesis will have been delivered in the earlier days

of the second week: for the long exhortation to flee oaths

shows that it was delivered in the year 387.

[375] The other, as is clear from its beginning, page 234,

followed after about ten days, were delivered. so that it could have been delivered

on the Saturday or Sunday after the third

week of Lent. But that this likewise

belongs to the year 387 is gathered from these

words, page 241: For when those who had offered

insult to the emperor were being dragged to the tribunal,

and were in peril of the extreme penalty, then mothers and

wives, laying aside their golden necklaces and pearls,

and every ornament and golden garment, taking a cheap

and abject dress, … thus entreated the Judges.

These things Chrysostom records as most recently done.

For he prefaces: What profit will come to you

on that day from those pearls? And what need is there

to mention that day (of Judgment), when it is possible

to demonstrate all these things from present matters?

Then he adds the words just given about the precious garments cast aside by the women.

And rightly indeed he calls them present,

since they had been done a very few days before.

But he would by no means have called them present, if the Homily

had been delivered a whole year later. In this Catechesis

the Saint does not treat of oaths, nor is this to be wondered at,

since he was speaking to Catechumens, who had necessarily to be admonished

about many things at once, and had been sufficiently admonished about oaths

before.

[376] We have seen with what zeal and what constancy

Chrysostom in the Lent of which we have treated With how much fruit through that Lent he spoke against oaths, assailed the pernicious

custom of swearing.

It is fair, therefore, that we should also briefly

say what fruits he gathered from so great a labor.

He himself testifies to this in the Homily on the Debtor of ten

thousand talents, delivered in the same year, tom. 3, page

2, in these words: But we struck one chord

through the whole of Lent, while we recited to you the law

about oaths, and by God's grace it came about

that most of the mouths of our hearers

were so instructed in this melody of the law that, the depraved

custom being driven away, instead of formerly

swearing by God, they now carry nothing on their tongue but Yes, No, and

Believe me, and that

in every conversation, so that among a thousand necessities

of business they do not endure to go further.

Not this only had Chrysostom won,

but that other thing too which he had continually commended,

that they should strive to correct one another in the matter of oaths.

Hence all who thus far had not cast off the depraved custom

he hopes will be corrected, though he himself keep silence.

For I have found, he says, that there is so great

care of this matter, that both at home and at table men with

women, and slaves with the freeborn, contend in a contest *

over the observance of this precept, and I have called

them blessed who celebrate their banquets after that manner.

He adds more about these things, which may be read in the same place.

[377] and how much the Saint profited the people, to whom Theodosius granted pardon. Most happily too did that amendment of morals

turn out for the Antiochenes: for the emperor Theodosius forgave

them all the injuries, and received the city into

favor. Much toward this was contributed by Flavian

the bishop, who had set out to the emperor for this cause,

and much by Chrysostom himself, by restraining the people with his sermons

and by supplying hope and confidence,

lest they should slip into desperate counsels,

and also by pleading for them before the judges sent by the emperor.

News of the happy event was brought by Flavian, or

rather, on the journey, since he was going more slowly, he asked

another man skilled in riding swiftly to go ahead of him,

and to bring good news to the city, lest

by the delay of his return their sadness should be prolonged.

Flavian doubtless remained at Constantinople until

Caesarius had arrived there: for Libanius in Oration

20 attributes the emperor's reconciliation chiefly to Caesarius.

But Caesarius departed from Antioch only

one or two days before mid-Lent,

and accomplished the journey in six days. Wherefore the emperor could not

dismiss Flavian except one or two

days before Passion Sunday or about

that Sunday, especially if he studiously examined the letters

and trials brought by Caesarius. Yet

Flavian came to Antioch before Easter, perhaps

on the very vigil of Easter. Hence Chrysostom

delivered Homily 21, in Ducaeus 20, on the return

of Flavian at the very Paschal festivity, wonderfully

celebrating the bishop's charity and the emperor's

mildness.

* i.e. to the court.

magnanimity.*

of philosophy.*

the emperor.*

Gr. Πρώην, lately*.

* i.e. assemblies.

in a contest.*

§ XXVI. The Homilies of St. Chrysostom after Easter down to the end of the year 387, and the Lent of the year 388.

Some Homilies delivered after Easter and now lost, When the Paschal solemnity was over, Chrysostom

delivered some Homilies, either lost or

unknown. For at that time he both disputed against the gentiles,

and celebrated various Martyrs in oration,

and lastly admonished the rustic folk to flee

oaths. Afterwards followed the first Homily on

Anna the mother of Samuel, which is published in tom. 4,

page 699. This the Saint delivered in the month of May, perhaps on the

second or third Sunday after Easter:

in the exordium too he speaks of the fast as lately past,

and exhorts his hearers, ever mindful of it,

to show themselves sober and temperate. Then

he reviews the sermons delivered after Lent,

which he says were many, in this manner, page 701: For when

our father had returned from that far journey,*

it was necessary to recount all that

had happened in the retinue , and then to dispute

with the gentiles, that those whom the force of calamity had recalled to better

fruit, and who, deserting the error of the gentiles,

had betaken themselves to us, we might to the best of our power confirm

and teach out of what great darkness they had been freed,

and to how great a light of truth they had run. After

that again for many days we enjoyed the festivities of the martyrs:

nor would it have been suitable to the time

that we, who were tarrying beside the martyrs' tombs,

should depart without a share of the praises that are due to

the martyrs.

[379] There succeeded to these an exhortation to abstain from the oath;

the first Sermon on Anna the mother of Samuel, for when we saw the whole nation of the rustics

entering the city, we judged that they should be dismissed

furnished by us with that provision for the journey. We have here

the order of perhaps eight or

ten Sermons. But these could not have taken up many weeks,

since the Sermons on the Martyrs were delivered

on the several days on which their festivities

were celebrated. Moreover what is said of the Sermon to

the rustics, Montfaucon twists to Homily

19 to the People, as I observed at no. 370; but

quite improbably. For then monks had entered

the city, and on their occasion the Saint

was speaking to the people, not to the monks themselves,

who were a people diverse in tongue, as is there said;

but after Easter he received the rustics with the same exhortation

which through the whole of Lent he had addressed to the

Antiochenes. Besides, at the festivity of the martyrs

which preceded that Homily 19 the Saint had been

ill: but in these festivities of the martyrs he celebrated

their praises in oration, nor does he here mention any

infirmity. Another sermon to the rustics, therefore, is here

mentioned, and that delivered after Easter in the month

of May. For the rest, in this first Sermon on Anna

Chrysostom discourses at length on divine providence,

and gives other useful lessons.

[380] After the first Sermon on Anna followed

another, and five following, of which one has fallen out, perhaps on the following Sunday. This he begins thus, page

711: Nothing is equal to prayer, dearly beloved,

nor is anything more powerful than faith. Both

Anna lately declared to us (wrongly yesterday in Ducaeus), etc. Prayer, meekness,

and other virtues by the example of Anna in this Sermon

the Saint commends. After some days he delivered a third

Sermon on Anna, as appears from this beginning of it,

page 721: Unless I seem to some to be a weariness and

a burden, I wish to touch again upon the same subject

on which I lately discoursed to you: and to lead you in

to Anna, and to bring my discourse into the meadow of her virtues. A fourth Sermon on Anna

he also subjoined, in which he began to expound her Canticle,

1 Kings 2. But this Sermon we do not

have: yet that it was delivered is clear from the two

following, which are now numbered the fourth and

fifth on Anna. In the fourth, page 733, the Saint says:

What these words signify: My heart is confirmed

in the Lord, you know that I lately discoursed before your

charity. It remains that we now

interpret those that follow. Then

he begins to expound the following words, Her horn is exalted,

etc. In the fifth he says that he searches out all things little by little,

and explains the several expressions,

so that not even the least thing, he says, as far as

is possible, may escape us. Since for that reason we have spent two whole

dissertations on two of her sayings alone.

Then he brings forward the words of the Canticle already given, of

which he expounded the former in the lost Sermon, the latter

in the one which is now the fourth.

[381] as also the Homily delivered at Pentecost: Six Sermons, then, on Anna did Chrysostom

deliver, in which he elucidated at length the History of Anna, 1 Kings 1,

and the beginning of the following Canticle. Of

these Sermons only the fifth and last was delivered after

Pentecost, as is clear on page 741, where

Chrysostom says that he is returning to the subject interrupted

by the time of the festivity. For just as,

he says, at Pentecost it was untimely,

omitting the commemoration of the benefits conferred upon us at that season,

to continue the fabric begun before;

so now, Pentecost being past,

we shall opportunely pursue the history taken up again in our hands,

being about to treat the former subject of Anna.

Moreover that Homily delivered at Pentecost is not now

extant, since in it he had brought forward the example

of the prodigal son, as he here testifies on page 739; but

that example is nowhere found in the Homilies

which we have on Pentecost. Whether the later

Sermons on Anna have likewise fallen out cannot be certainly stated.

For I can scarcely doubt that Chrysostom

had purposed to unfold the whole Canticle of Anna little by little.

But I rather judge that illness intervened upon that plan

than that the whole was expounded. Certainly

that Chrysostom was seized about that time by a fairly long

illness we shall presently see.

[382] the last Sermon on Anna delivered on the twentieth of June: Before that it is worth observing that the Saint in the last

Sermons on Anna complained vehemently

of the fewness of his hearers, because many were running

to the circus games. Take the beginning of the fourth,

page 729: I do not know what words I ought

to use today: for when I see that the assemblies

are little frequented, that the Prophets are treated with insult, the Apostles

despised, the Fathers contemned, and that the insult

with which the servants are assailed passes over to their very

Lord, I should indeed like to accuse,

but those who ought to hear this accusation

I do not see here. You alone are present, who have no need

of this admonition. Yet not even so

must we be silent: for we shall both mitigate the indignation

which they have stirred in us, and shall cast it out together

with our words; and we shall drive those very men to blushing and

shame, by sending against them as many accusers

as you are now hearers. For if

they had come, they would have heard only our rebukes:

now, fleeing our reproof, they will hear all these very things

from you. Then he exhorts

his hearers to report all his words to the absent,

and argues sharply against those who prefer to come to the games

of the circus rather than to the sacred sermons.

[383] but afterwards he was seized by illness, and compelled Amid these things, on page 730, he says that assemblies

are held once in the week, namely on Sundays.

From this observation, moreover, it is gathered

that the fourth Sermon on Anna fell on the Sunday

before Pentecost, the fifth on the Sunday

after Pentecost, which was then the twentieth of June,

since Pentecost in the year 387 was on the thirteenth of June. From

these and from the following Sermon it is quite probable

that Chrysostom after the twentieth of June fell

into illness, and in that month preached no more,

and perhaps for the greater part of July. Wherefore

I judge that toward the end of July was delivered the Homily on

the Parable of the debtor of ten thousand talents,

which in tom. 3, page 1, he begins with a declaration of his past illness

and of his tender love toward his hearers, in this manner:

As though I had returned to you from a far journey,

so do I feel myself affected today: for when

there can be no companionship of friends,

their presence brings no advantage. Wherefore

we, who were staying at home, have in this respect been in no way happier

than those staying abroad:

namely we who in the past time could have no

conversations with you: but pardon must be given,

since that silence was not of sloth, but of infirmity.

[384] Congratulate me, then, that I have recovered from that infirmity,

for some time to abstain from speaking: and I rejoice that I have got back you who are most dear

to me. It was to me, while I was ill,

heavier than the disease itself that I could not be a partaker

of this beloved assembly: but now, my health being restored,

more desirable to me than health itself is this,

that I may safely enjoy the delights of your charity.

For fever does not bring so great a burning

into the bodies of the feverish, as the longing for absent friends

brings into our souls; and as they long for flasks

and cups and cold springs, so do these long for the faces

of friends. Those know it who have been accustomed

to love. Come then, since we have laid aside the disease,

let us be filled with one another, if only it be possible

that we find any satiety here. For the nature of love

knows no satiety, and from the

practice of friendship takes on greater flames: to which Paul himself,

the nursling of love, has left his testimony, who

said thus: Owe no man anything, but to love

one another. For that debt is indeed always

being paid, but is never discharged. Here to be perpetually

in debt is a fair thing, and set among things praiseworthy.

[385] Then he asserts that through the whole of Lent

he had spoken against oaths, after his illness he delivers the Homily on the Debtor of ten thousand, as we have seen was done in this

year, and that he is passing over to another precept,

which is about the contempt of anger, he says on page 3.

Your mouth has learned not to swear, he says, let it learn also

to oppose every reviling, and to apply greater care

to this precept, since

there is need of greater labor. This matter

he had already proposed for treatment on the Sunday before

Lent in Homily 3, tom. 2, page 47,

where he says that he wishes to propose three commandments, of which

he expresses the first two thus: Detract from no one,

have no man as an enemy. Both he had touched sufficiently

often in Lent and after Easter,

and from time to time had treated them at length.

But in the present Homily he began to inculcate the same precepts of charity

more and more studiously, yet in such a way

that in that lengthy Oration he elegantly mingles other lessons of morals

as well. But in order that he might instil

the precepts of charity more sweetly by examples,

he presently undertook to treat the history of David

and Saul, on which he delivered three Homilies,

printed in tom. 4, pages 748 and following. In the first, after

the beginning, he declares this order thus: Lately then,

narrating to you the Parable of the hundred denarii and the ten

thousand talents, we showed how great

an evil it is to remember injuries…

[386] But today we shall attempt to speak on a different subject.

and presently three consecutive ones on David: For it was fitting, if what was right should be done,

that one who speaks of humanity and gentleness

should furnish from himself examples of that excellent philosophy,

and thus at once both teach it by words

and instruct in it by deeds. But since

we are far distant from this virtue,

bringing forward into the midst some one of the number of the Saints,

and setting him before your eyes, we shall employ a clear

and powerful exhortation, so that as it were to the emulation of a certain archetype

we may exhort both you and ourselves. So

speaks the humble Man, who celebrated David's outstanding gentleness

excellently in three Homilies delivered consecutively,

namely on three Sundays toward the end

of July or the beginning of August: for the beginning of the second

shows that it is a continuation of the first,

and in the third, page 771, he says that he is returning to David,

that he may complete the picture begun. But why

he dwelt so long on one matter he declares at the beginning of the first

Homily, namely because the admonition of one or two days

is not enough for correction.

But, he says, we must treat this matter frequently and on several

days, if indeed we are to bear this office of preacher

not for ambition and pleasure, but for fruit

and profit…

For this seems to me to be the best manner of teaching,

if we do not desist from counselling

on any matter before we have seen the admonition

come to effect. At the beginning of the third he sharply,

and with great authority, reproves those who

were wont to run to the spectacles.

[387] not long after seems to have been delivered the Homily on the Love of enemies. Tillemont in art. 29 reviews the Homilies on David

in the same order: but after them he places two

others, one against the Anomoeans, the other on the Resurrection

of the dead. But since he alleges no reasons for that order,

nor has Montfaucon agreeing with him,

let it suffice to have said that both were given by me

in their place: for I do not think it necessary to repeat elsewhere

what has been said. After the Homilies on David I judge that one

or another Homily on the love of enemies

followed, before the Saint began again to assail

the feasts of the Jews. One certainly,

which is in tom. 3, page 157, seems to have been delivered not long after

the Homilies on David, although Montfaucon in the Monitum judges

that it was delivered at Constantinople, because

at no. 4 the imperial court and palace are brought in by way of

comparison. But that reason is of no weight, since

the court and magnificence of the emperors were sufficiently known to the

Antiochenes. Weightier indeed is the reason for which

we should believe it delivered after the Homilies on David. For

in it Chrysostom treats of the love of enemies

upon that passage of the Apostle, Rom. 12, verse 20,

If your enemy hunger, feed him, etc. But to persuade

his hearers to this virtue he adduces many

examples from the History of David, yet touching the deeds

only very briefly, as he is wont to do when he has

sufficiently expounded the history itself before.

Besides, it was summer and there was great heat when

Chrysostom delivered this Homily, as is said on

page 159. And this fits the time in which

we are engaged. Yet it is necessary that between this and

the third on David there should have been some intermediate one,

since on page 163 he says that in his previous sermon he had exhorted

his hearers that each should drag his brother with him to the church,

which is not found in that one.

[388] But when he had assailed the Jews in five Orations; Moreover, after finishing the matter of the love

of enemies, Chrysostom in the month of September

began again to dispute sharply against the Jews and the Judaizers,

as I showed in §20, no. 271 and following.

But in the first Oration of that time against

the Jews, the fourth of them all, tom. 1, page 616,

he says that the fasts of the Jews are again approaching, and explains the reason

for changing his subject by a beautiful comparison

thus: Since shepherds too, so long as

no harmful beast is troublesome, stretched out beneath an oak

or a poplar, play upon the pipe, allowing

the sheep to graze freely at their own will. But as soon

as they perceive that from somewhere an incursion of wolves

is threatening, presently, casting away the pipe, they seize the sling,

and, letting go the reed, arm themselves with clubs and stones,

and, standing before the fold, shouting with a great cry and huge

howling, often by that very shout

drive off the beast before it breaks in. In like manner

we too on the past days, sporting in Scripture as

in a meadow, and leading dances, touched nothing

of contentious discourse in our exposition; for

there was no one to trouble us or be

burdensome. These words show, first, that the Saint had not

spoken shortly before against the Anomoeans.

[389] From them we gather, secondly, that after the five

Orations against the Jews, he returns to moral matter, and speaks on Psalm 41. which were not finished before nearly the middle

of October, followed the Homily

on Psalm 41, which we have printed in tom.

5, page 130. For there he begins to speak of the preceding Homilies

and of his subject again changed

in this manner: You indeed were lately admiring us,

when we spoke about Melchizedek

(in the seventh against the Jews) on account of the length of what

was said: but I was admiring you

for your attention and wisdom in hearing,

and because, when a rather lengthy discourse offered

itself, you followed us to the very end.

And yet the discourse was not only long,

but had also great difficulty in it. But

neither the length nor the difficulty of the matter overcame your

eagerness of soul. Come then, let us reward you for that labor,

conversing with you today more plainly.

For the hearers' mind must not always be strained;

for it is easily broken: nor

again always slackened and relaxed; for hence

again it is rendered more idle. Therefore we must use

a varied kind of teaching; and now indeed we must use a more popular

discourse, more accommodated to delighting the assembly,

but now a sharper one,

and fitter for contending. As

then I said at that time (in the first, or fourth, against

the Jews) that while the wolves are attacking the flock, the shepherds,

leaving the pipe, take the sling in hand;

so now, since the feasts of the Jews have passed,

who are fiercer than any wolves, leaving the sling

again, let us return to the pipe; and, ceasing from the more contentious

kind of speaking, let us take up some other plainer matters,

taking David's own harp in hand,

etc. So Chrysostom, then elegantly

and piously discoursing upon those words of David:

As the hart longs, etc. From what has been said

this Homily must be fixed after the middle of October.

[390] Thus far we have striven to investigate almost the whole order

of Chrysostom. Thereafter the order of the Homilies is obscure and uncertain: But that investigation has now

become much more difficult: for I find no

Homily which I can show to have been delivered toward the end of the year 387 or

the beginning of 388. Many

conjectures indeed can be formed, namely

about certain Psalms expounded at that time, about an illness

by which the Saint may have been hindered, about some lost

Homilies of this period, and several others;

but these will appear sufficiently uncertain. For the Saint could indeed

then have commented on other Psalms which we do not now have,

and have spoken on them to the people.

But a continuous exposition of the Psalms seems to have been begun

later. Of illness we have no sufficiently probable indications.

And so more probable than the rest will be this conjecture,

if we judge that some Homilies of that time have fallen out,

and that others are extant. Certainly I find not a few

Homilies in Montfaucon, tom. 3, which can be bound to no

year more aptly than to the period between

October of the year 387 and the Lent of the year

388. These, then, lest they remain unmentioned, it is well

to review in this place.

[391] First occurs the Homily on Almsgiving,

tom. 3, page 248, The Homily on Almsgiving, which at least was delivered in winter

time, because in various places in it mention is made

of cold. It was delivered at Antioch too, as is gathered

from the passage at no. 6, where money is said to have been sent

in a time of famine to Jerusalem by the inhabitants of this city

… through Paul and Barnabas, as the deed is narrated

of the Antiochenes in Acts 11, verse 30. And so I subjoin

the beginning of the Homily, that from it the reader may perceive

the Saint's diligent charity: A certain embassy

just, he says, useful, and suitable to you,

I have come today to perform among you, appointed spokesman by none

other than the poor

who inhabit this city of yours; sent not

by words, not by ballots, not by a decree of the senate,

but by pitiable and most bitter spectacles. For

when, hastening to your assembly, I was passing through the forum and

the alleys, and saw many lying in the middle

of the crossways, some with hands cut off, some

with eyes gouged out, some full of incurable ulcers and wounds,

… I judged it to be of the utmost inhumanity

if I did not speak of these things before your charity,

… at this season above all, when so great

a cold presses. From this beginning Montfaucon gathers

that the Homily was delivered extempore. But this

I could not easily believe, because the disputation on almsgiving

is too careful and learned to seem

extemporary. The beginning was perhaps added

extempore. But not even this is certain: for

Chrysostom was not ignorant that he would see the miseries

of the poor just related; and doubtless he had

often seen them.

[392] three others on the passage of the Apostle: Having the same spirit etc.: Moreover that after that Homily followed

three others on the words of the Apostle, 2 Cor. 4, verse 13, Having

the same spirit of faith, etc., a probable

suspicion arises for me from comparison. In that one, page 257,

he sharply pricks those who carp at the poor for their idleness,

when they themselves are idle in the theatres, having prefaced these

words: I shall say something burdensome and troublesome:

I know that you will be angry: yet I shall say it; for

I speak not to offend, but to amend. But in the first

of those that follow, page 260, he begins with an excuse for his reproof

in these words: The wisest physicians,

when they see that a sore needs the knife, apply

the cutting indeed, but do this not without affection

and compassion: nay, they both grieve and

rejoice no less than those who are being cut; they grieve

indeed on account of the pain which they inflict by cutting;

but they rejoice on account of the health which is obtained

in this way. Then he uses the example of Paul,

with whom he rejoices that they had been made sorry unto penance.

More splendid is our assembly today, he says, more festive

our theatre, more numerous the choir of the brethren; this very

eagerness is the fruit of that sadness. These things introduce some

suspicion of a sequence, and it is increased because in this one

too almsgiving is at length commended, and by reasons plainly

other than in the preceding. In the second

likewise on the words of the Apostle alleged, and again in

the third, he exhorts his hearers near the end to give alms.

But that these three on the words of the Apostle followed one another,

the studious reader will clearly see if he considers

the beginning of the second and third. But that the one on

Almsgiving was prefixed to all of them, the similarity

of the matter persuades: for we have already often seen that the Saint dwells long

on commending one thing.

[393] another on the words of Paul: Would that you would bear with etc. Whatever, moreover, be the case about the sequence, all at least

were delivered at Antioch, as Montfaucon proves:

nor has any of them anything to make it

unsuitable to the time in which we are engaged. Nothing likewise

unsuitable to this time has another Homily,

which follows presently in the same place, page 291, on these

words of Paul: Would that you would bear with a little

of my folly, 2 Cor. 11, verse 1. This Chrysostom

begins thus: I love indeed all the Saints,

but most of all blessed Paul, the vessel of election,

the heavenly trumpet, the bridal friend of Christ. But this I said,

and brought forward into the midst my love toward him,

that I might make you partakers of the same.

Again a not unfounded suspicion seems to me to arise, if

we believe that this Homily was delivered after the three

just mentioned. The reason is that the whole is composed

to commend St. Paul's humility, and

to show that it was by necessity alone that

the Apostle not seldom praises himself. This, then,

is as it were an antidote to the last of the three set forth before: for

in that one Paul is very often adduced, and frequently those

passages are brought forward where he was compelled

to recount his own praises. More Homilies I do not find which

I judge should probably be transferred to these times. Yet

it is certain that the whole time down to the Lent

of the year 388 could not be filled by them.

* Flavian.

* i.e. the emperor's court.

§ XXVII. The 67 Homilies on the whole of Genesis, begun

on the Sunday before Lent, probably in the year 388; several other

Homilies interposed among them.

Before the Lent of the year 388 I pass to the Lent of the year 388: for on

the Sunday preceding it I judge that the exposition of the whole book of Genesis was begun, completed in sixty-

seven Homilies, but interrupted at times by other

sermons. No reason indeed for this chronology,

which alone could plainly prove it,

have I been able to find: nor could Tillemont

or Montfaucon assign a certain year to this Work.

Yet many things together so persuade me of that

chronology that I not only believe it probable, but can scarcely doubt

that it is right and true. For first, Chrysostom in

the first Lent in which he preached presently undertook to elucidate

some things from Genesis, so that it is probable

that the Saint wished to proceed first to the exposition of Genesis.

Secondly, the exposition of Genesis was interrupted

by many other Homilies; and this fits better with the earlier

years in which the Saint preached than with the later,

as we shall see. The third

and chief reason is that the whole style and genius of the younger

Chrysostom in the office of preaching shines out as much in these

Homilies on Genesis as in those by which we know

the exposition of Genesis was interrupted. For from this

character we gather that Genesis was expounded before the book of Psalms,

before the Gospels of Matthew and John, and lastly

before the Epistles of Paul.

[395] Then we reason further thus. If from the Works

of the Saint we subtract the exposition of all

the books just enumerated, the exposition of Genesis was begun, as is gathered from various and all the other things

which the Saint preached in the first and second year at Antioch, or afterwards

at Antioch or Constantinople;

we shall not find Homilies sufficient to

fill out the course of a single year; nay, we shall not be able to fill even

one single Lent, as from diligent scrutiny and consideration

seems to me certain and beyond doubt. Hence

Tillemont and Montfaucon produced no Homilies for the year 388

and the three following, save very few,

which I have shown in their places all to belong to preceding years.

But it is not likely

or probable that Chrysostom abstained from preaching for so long a time,

or that nearly all the Homilies of so long a time have fallen out.

It is necessary therefore that we say

that Chrysostom then began to expound whole books

of sacred Scripture, and took his beginning

from Genesis, since from its character and style this book

seems to have been expounded before all the rest.

[396] But when I say style and character,

I am not speaking of a greater or lesser elegance or purity of speech;

but of the method which in the earlier

years Chrysostom used in preaching, is gathered, chiefly from the method and the longer exordia,

and of certain sayings then quite familiar to him:

and these characters I assert so shine out in the exposition

of Genesis that in the commentaries on no other

book are they found. Let the studious reader consider

the beginnings of the Homilies of the first and second

year, which for the most part at least I have reviewed;

everywhere he will find lengthy exordia woven, before

the orator comes to that which he has chiefly

undertaken to treat or expound. Let him then approach

the Homilies on Genesis, and he will detect a similar length of exordia

in them, but most of all

in those which he delivered almost consecutively in Lent.

So conspicuous is that length of prefaces

that certain friends judged that Chrysostom must be

warned about it in the same year in which he was expounding Genesis,

and when he had already delivered thirty-two Homilies

on Genesis. To this the Saint himself testifies in

the Homily on Bearing reproofs, tom. 3, page

115, and he alleges the reasons for that length on page

120. The first is that he was speaking to a multitude

of busy men, for whom he took pains to make his words

easy of understanding by prefaces. The second

is that some were negligent in coming to

the sermon. It is necessary, therefore, he says, to adorn with praises those

who come, but to reprove those who are absent. The third reason is that some things

from what had been said before had to be repeated, when some question

could not be wholly expounded.

[397] which, being warned, he gradually shortened, and at last omitted. These reasons indeed Chrysostom then alleged.

Yet he gradually drew in his sails, and

yielded to his friends' counsel, as can clearly be perceived

in all the Saint's commentaries in which he expounded the Psalms,

the Gospel of Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles,

and the Epistles of St. Paul: for those longer

prefaces are not found in them, save very rarely.

In the exposition of John, which seems to have followed

after Genesis, he had still retained something of that former

custom. In the exposition of Genesis itself too the diligent

reader will detect that the exordia are longer in

the first thirty-two Homilies, which preceded the said

admonition of Chrysostom's friends,

than in the later ones which followed it.

This character of the Homilies on Genesis seems so manifest

that it is not necessary to observe certain metaphorical

words, or turns of speech so familiar

to Chrysostom in those earlier years that they recur most frequently both

in the Homilies on Genesis and

in others of those years. Indeed he very often says that he

is setting out a table, preparing a banquet, seeking out a treasure

hidden in the sacred Scriptures, digging it up,

or something similar. With the physician, with the farmer, with

the father, and with other classes of men he frequently

compares himself. Everywhere he praises the diligence of his hearers

or reproves their negligence. But all these things,

and others like them of a somewhat luxuriant style, which can

be observed, you will not find in the exposition of the other

books of sacred Scripture, save very rarely, excepting

only the exposition of John. And so I can scarcely

doubt that the exposition of Genesis preceded the expositions of the other

books, and was begun

in the year 388.

[398] The first Homily delivered on the twenty-seventh of February: others In the year 388 Easter fell on the ninth day of April.

But the first Homily was delivered six weeks

before Easter, that is, on the twenty-seventh day of February, and on the Sunday

which precedes Lent, as is clear

from its beginning and from other passages of the Homily. The second indicates this too

most clearly on page 8 in these words: Whence, when

I consider with myself the sudden change made today,

and recall in memory yesterday's disturbance,

I marvel and am amazed at the force and power

of the fast. But the first, in which he does not yet expound Genesis,

but eloquently commends the fast, he thus

began: I rejoice and am glad, seeing today the church

of God adorned with the multitude of her sons,

and that you have all run together with much delight.

For when I look upon your eager faces, I take the greatest

conjecture of the pleasure which is in your souls…

For that reason I too rose today with huge

eagerness, to be a partaker with you of spiritual gladness,

and wishing to be to you the announcer of the coming of holy

Lent, the remedy, I say, of our souls. The second

Homily, in which he begins to expound Genesis, and attacks the Manichee,

Marcionite, and Valentinian

heretics, followed presently on the next day; as also

the third and the fourth continuously on the several days.

[399] But in the fifth I find no mention of the previous day's

sermon, which followed on almost every day, so that perhaps he ceased for a day or two,

or treated of another matter. But the fifth

was again followed by the sixth, seventh, eighth, and

ninth on continuous days. In the first five he praises the eagerness

of his hearers: but in the sixth he most vehemently upbraids

those who had betaken themselves to the horse-race.

In the tenth again he makes no mention of what was said the day before.

Wherefore there may again have been an interruption of perhaps one day.

This is certain, that Homily 11 was delivered

on the Saturday or Sunday after the second week

of Lent. For in a lengthy exordium the Saint warns

that on two days of the week there is no fasting,

and says in the same place, page 84, that he wishes to hand down an easier

teaching, Because today, he says, is a day of remission.

And so in the first two weeks three

days lacked ordinary Homilies on Genesis,

or even four, if that eleventh was delivered on the Sunday.

After Homily 11 the Saint again turned aside to other things,

and delivered at least one Homily against the Judaizers,

and spoke also to the catechumens, as he himself indicates in these words, so that he seems

to intimate several days of interruption. Yet

the twelfth may even so have been delivered on the Monday

of the third week: for the words presently to be given can be explained

of the preceding Sunday, and of the interruption

of the exposition of Genesis in the earlier weeks.

[400] Take, then, reader, the beginning of Homily

12, and perceive from it although sometimes interrupted, the Homilies being lost how solicitously the Saint

took pains to cure the wounds of each: Come, he says, let us

today fulfil our promise: and, treating our accustomed

teaching, let us now weave what is to be said to what

was said above. For you know that we have decided once

and again to do this, and were prepared for

it; but that the care of the brethren, which we bear,

has snatched our tongue elsewhere for their admonition.

Since at times to weak

brethren, who were accustomed to separate themselves from

this spiritual assembly, and to mutilate for us the joys of the holy

festivity, we have given persuasion by counsel and exhortation,

that they should not longer be absent from the fold of Christ, and stray outside

this spiritual sheepfold, being joined to us indeed in name

and appellation, but in truth

following the Jews, who still sit beside the shadow,

and are addicted to the lamp, after the Sun of justice

has shone forth. At times too the not yet initiated, who

were present in the assembly, we have exhorted to run to the spiritual

calling, and, shaking off all sleep of sloth,

with fervent desire and huge eagerness to show themselves

ready to receive the royal gifts,

and to hasten to Him who grants remission of sins,

and liberally supplies countless goods.

And so, after we have taken fitting care of those who

were straying about the feast of Easter, and who by this observance of the least,

as they thought, importance were bringing great harm

upon themselves, having applied a fitting remedy to the wound, and having duly admonished

the uninitiated about that matter; it remains that today a spiritual banquet be prepared for

all of you. Thus far

Chrysostom. But the sermons here mentioned

seem to have fallen out.

[401] for one or two days: in this way were delivered consecutively After the twelfth followed the thirteenth, but

perhaps not immediately on the next day: for in the preface he makes

no mention of the previous day's, but of what was said lately. That indication however

is not altogether certain, because we have already seen before

that lately is sometimes said by Chrysostom even though

he is speaking of the preceding day. Besides, he indicates at the beginning

that he was wont to preach daily, since he

begins thus, page 99: Seeing your insatiable desire

and great avidity, and your attentive mind,

and all flying to this spiritual teaching;

although I am well aware of my own poverty,

yet frequently and daily I take pains

to set before you this poor and slender table.

And a little later he affirms that the eagerness of his hearers

increases daily. Not easily, then, did he interrupt

the exposition of Genesis, nor does he say in the thirteenth

that it had then been interrupted. This therefore

is doubtful. But it is certain that the fourteenth and

the following followed in a continuous series of days, since

in each this is intimated. It seems certain likewise

that the fifteenth was delivered not before the Friday

or Saturday of the third week, since in it,

page 121, he says: Nor let us attend to this, if half

of Lent has passed. But lest a longer

enumeration of days become tedious rather than

useful, I observe in general that thereafter no

sufficiently clear mention is made of interrupted Homilies

on Genesis in this Lent down to

the thirty-second, which was delivered in Holy

Week on the Wednesday.

[402] the first thirty-two in the six weeks of Lent: Yet since we have made the enumeration

down to about the end of the third week; and thus

I see that there are one or two days more before Holy

Week than there are Homilies, it is necessary that we

say that the Saint ceased from these Homilies at least one day,

perhaps to instruct the catechumens.

Far more days would be free if we attributed seven weeks

to Lent, but that opinion again is made insufficiently probable by the order

of these Homilies.

For the twenty-fourth belongs to the penultimate

week, since in it, page 228, the Saint

speaks thus: For if my discourse profits among you,

… now above all, while still a little

of the time of holy Lent remains to you,

you will be able to wipe away your sins … For

the Lord has no need of many days or of time:

but, if we will, even in these two

weeks we shall be able to correct our sins.

These things Chrysostom said probably on the Monday of that

week. But the first eleven Homilies belong

to the first two weeks. In the three middle

weeks, then, only twelve Homilies remain,

for which on their opinion they have

twenty-one or twenty-two days; but we have two weeks.

Yet again in the twenty-fourth

Chrysostom on page 229 mentions his daily

admonitions; and the Homilies themselves intimate

that most were delivered on continuous days, and that there was

no notable interruption. Tillemont himself

in Note 36 acknowledges that Homily 15, according to his own

order, falls in the third week, and yet

was delivered in mid-Lent.

[403] of these the last on the Wednesday of Holy Week. Homily 30, although from its beginning it may seem to have been delivered

after Lent, was delivered at the beginning

of Holy Week, and on the Monday, as I judge.

Behold at last, he says on page 293, we have come to the end of holy

Lent, and have completed the voyage of the fast.

But that by end is understood the last

part, that is, the final week, is shown by

the added comparisons of the shipmaster, the runner, and the athlete,

who, when they come to the end, strive and

watch the more; especially since he adds: In the same way

we too ought to act, since we have come by God's grace

into this great week; now

above all the course of the fast must be strained, and more fervent

prayers poured forth, and a diligent and pure

confession of sins made, etc. After this followed

on continuous days the two next. But after Homily

32 Chrysostom long interrupted this exposition of Genesis,

and treated matter suited to the season and the feasts,

as he himself testifies at the beginning of the following

Homily, to be cited hereafter.

[404] On the Lord's Supper, that is, on the day following Homily

32 on Genesis, The Homily on Judas the traitor, perhaps different from those which are extant, Chrysostom spoke of

the Betrayal of Judas. Two Homilies on this subject we have,

printed in tom. 2, pages 376 and 386. Nearly

the same things are treated in both, so that almost

only the beginning is changed. If one or the other was delivered in this year,

doubtless it is the one which is published in the second

place, and whose beginning is this: I wished, beloved,

to speak again about the patriarch, and

from thence to set before you a spiritual banquet: but

the ungrateful mind of the traitor drags our tongue

to the treatment of his crime, and the fitness

of the day exhorts us to treat of the madness of his wickedness.

For today our Lord

Jesus Christ was betrayed by His own disciple into the hands of the Jews.

By the patriarch he designates Abraham,

whose history he had begun to treat in

the exposition of Genesis. Yet there is some difficulty

which renders the sequence of this Homily ambiguous.

For in it, page 387, it is said: Therefore this is now the fourth

day that I speak among you about prayer

for enemies. But in the preceding Homilies on Genesis

he had not treated of that matter. Hence I judge it not only uncertain,

but even less probable, that this

Homily belongs to this year.

[405] Equally uncertain is it whether either of the Homilies

on the Cross and the thief, as also the Homily on the Cross, which follow on pages

403 and 411, was delivered in this year. The first doubtless

followed one or other of those on Judas, since in it,

page 409, Chrysostom says that this is now the fifth day

that he admonishes his hearers about prayer for enemies: for

in each of those on Judas he was treating it on the fourth day. That one, then,

from what has been said does not seem to be to be attached to this year. In

the second, page 419, he says: Let us too therefore imitate

the Lord, and pray for our enemies. What yesterday

I admonished, of the same things I now also remind you,

knowing the greatness of that excellent deed. Imitate your

Lord: He was being crucified, and prayed for those who

crucified Him. In this one indeed I find nothing which

could not have been said in this year; but it contains nothing either

to make us believe it was delivered in this rather than in another year,

especially since at those festivities Chrysostom

doubtless preached in almost every year.

Wherefore this alone is certain, that Chrysostom

on each of those days spoke to the congregation. For

in Homily 33 on Genesis, page 331, he reviews the causes of the interrupted

exposition thus: For the coming of the holy festivity

broke off our series: for it was not

fitting that, while we were celebrating the Lord's Cross,

we should bring forward a discourse about other things. But a table

had to be set before you suited to its own seasons.

And therefore, when the day of the betrayal came,

the continuous series of teaching being cut off, accommodating ourselves

to the present matters that pressed, we loosed our tongue

against the traitor: then we brought forward some things about the Cross.

[406] Afterwards, when the day of the Resurrection dawned,

it was necessary yet there is extant a Homily against drunkards delivered at Easter. that we should teach your charity

about the resurrection of the Lord: and on the following days,

through those miracles which were then done, the demonstration

of the resurrection had again to be brought forward: when

also we began to explain the Acts of the Apostles,

setting before you thence continual banquets, and

exhorting with frequent and daily admonitions those

who had lately received the grace of baptism.

Thus far Chrysostom; but not all the sermons here mentioned are extant;

some however I shall assign.

The Homily against Drunkards and on the Resurrection, which

is printed in tom. 2, page 437, seems to have been delivered at the feast

of the Resurrection, since it has this beginning: We have laid down

the burden of the fast; but let us not lay down the fruit of the fast.

In the title too it is read as delivered

on the holy and great Sunday of Easter. Yet

few things are said about the Lord's Resurrection;

and most is directed against drunkenness. But that it was delivered

in this year is clear from those words on page 438:

Let us abstain from drunkenness. I do not say, Let us abstain

from wine; but, let us abstain from drunkenness. Wine does not

produce drunkenness: for it is God's creature:

and God's creature produces nothing evil: but the will

of the malignant produces drunkenness. For in the first Homily

on the Beginning of the Acts, tom. 3, page 52, he looks back to this

when he says: As lately, speaking about drunkenness,

I did not accuse the wine, since indeed

every creature of God is good, etc.

[407] The Saint after Lent goes on preaching daily. Moreover through the whole Paschal week on each

day I judge the Saint preached, because he intimates that he will do so

in the Homily on the Resurrection, or

rather against drunkards, page 445, in these words: Let us take away

everywhere the beginnings of sins. For that reason

you enjoy continual teaching daily. For that reason

for the space of seven days we hold assembly consecutively,

and set before you a spiritual table,

that by our work you may enjoy the divine oracles, that

we may instruct you on each day, and arm you against

the devil. The Saint is addressing chiefly the newly

baptized, and affirms that for their sake he will preach daily.

But we do not have the Homilies

delivered in that week. But on the following

Sunday, I think, he delivered the Homily on the Beginning

of the Acts, published in tom. 3, page 50. In this

he uses a quite lengthy exordium, to stir up his hearers

to frequent the sermons, beginning thus:

What does this mean? The further our feasts advance,

the smaller the assemblies become… On the preceding

Sunday the whole city was here, etc.

These things Chrysostom pursues at length, and on page 53

he intimates that he wishes to go on with daily sermons,

saying: I do not command that for seven or ten

days you abstain from your work, but that you lend me two hours

of the day, and keep the rest for yourself.

Here, I would wish, let the fair reader consider how great

was Chrysostom's fervor for preaching, how

plainly untiring his zeal. For daily through

Lent and the Paschal week he had spoken to the people;

and even so he invites his hearers to daily

sermons.

[408] On the Beginning of the Acts he delivered Homilies But what matter he proposed to himself for treatment

he sets forth at no. 3, page 54, in these words:

On the preceding days we discoursed among you about the Apostolic words,

and about the Evangelic, when we spoke of Judas.

We discoursed also about the prophetic. Today

we wish to speak about the Acts of the Apostles…

First we must know who wrote

the book… We must inquire who

wrote it, and when he wrote it, and about whom, and

for what cause it has been prescribed that it should be read at this

solemnity. For perhaps through the whole year you do not hear

the book read. But it is profitable to know this too.

And then it must be asked for what cause

it bears this title, The Acts of the Apostles.

The matter of the future Homilies being thus set forth,

he proves that the titles of the sacred books must not be neglected,

and subjoins a moral exhortation

to the neophytes.

[409] The Homily which followed that one taught who

is the writer of the book of the Acts. of which the second has fallen out, But that one has fallen out, or thus far

lies hidden. Montfaucon indeed judges, tom.

3, page 757, that part of that Homily has been inserted into

a most lengthy Homily on the Assumption of Christ, which

he published there, because at nos. 8, 9, and 10 it is expounded and

proved who is the author of the book of the Acts, and he says

that that part is truly Chrysostom's. But that conjecture

appears to me plainly improbable. For

I do not find Chrysostom's style in that part more

than in the rest of the Homily; but all is expounded more briefly

than our Orator is wont to expound.

And so, just as Montfaucon confesses that the whole Homily

is not Chrysostom's, so I do not hesitate

to assert that nothing in the whole of it appears to me Chrysostom's;

but that the Homily was delivered at Jerusalem by an author

who could read Chrysostom, but not imitate him.

[410] The third Homily on the Beginning of the Acts,

he delivered five: of these four are published. and the second published by Montfaucon in tom. 3,

page 60, followed shortly after, and teaches why that book

was named the Acts of the Apostles, and gives

the difference between acts and miracles, and shows the marks

of a true Apostle, besides other moral

lessons. Then the fourth Homily, in the Notes

the third, vehemently commends the reading of sacred Scripture,

and on page 74 reviews the subjects of the four Homilies

thus: On the first day I said that inscriptions

must not be rashly passed over … In this all the teaching

of the earlier day ended. After that, on the second

day, we inquired who was the author of that book, and

we found by God's grace Luke the evangelist. And

presently: On the first day, then, about the inscription, but on the second

day about him who wrote the book; on the third day, yesterday,

we discoursed before those who had come, about the beginning

of the Scripture, and showed … what an Act is,

what a Miracle is, and what a manner of life, what

a sign and a portent and a mighty work, and how great a distinction

there is between them … Today it is worth while that we speak

of what remains of the inscription, and show what

the name Apostle signifies. The fifth

and last Homily on the beginning of the Acts,

which in the printed editions is the fourth, he begins thus, page 81: The greater

part of the debt which we contracted on occasion of the inscription

of the Acts of the Apostles we discharged to you on the preceding

days: but since

still a little of the remainder is left, this

too I rise to reckon out to you on this present day.

In this the Saint teaches why at Pentecost the book

of the Acts is read, and gives this reason for the custom:

Immediately after the cross we announce the resurrection

of Christ: and the demonstration

of the resurrection is the Apostolic miracles: and

that book is nothing other than the school of the Apostles'

miracles. What therefore most of all creates faith in the Lord's

resurrection, this the fathers appointed to be read immediately after the Cross

and the life-giving Resurrection. The studious reader will easily see

that Pentecost is called, not the festivity of Pentecost, but

that time which is intermediate between that festivity and the

Paschal feast. In that time the Saint delivered these

Homilies, and several others.

[411] After a short interval, having advanced to chapter 9 of the Acts,

Chrysostom expounded the conversion of St. Paul,

and thence, on the occasion of the change of Saul's name

to Paul, began to dispute about the change

of names. In the first Homily on the Change of names,

after a long exordium Then, narrating Paul's conversion, on the Change of names in which he complains

that the number of his hearers is diminishing, on page 100 he sets forth

his purpose in these words: The whole debt

of the inscription, then, we have discharged to you, the inscription,

I mean, of the Acts of the Apostles. That therefore

we should touch the beginning of the book, order required… Yet

Paul does not suffer me to follow this series of order,

but invites our tongue to himself and his own right

deeds. For I desire to see him led into

Damascus, bound not with an iron chain, but

with the Lord's voice. And a little after: Therefore,

the exordium being dismissed, I hasten to leap into the middle:

for Paul and my love toward Paul have compelled us to make this

leap. Forgive me: or rather, do not forgive me;

but emulate that love also. Presently

he intimates that it was about the middle of the time between the feasts

of Easter and Pentecost when he delivered the Homily,

speaking thus at no. 4: For if, while we read and narrate to you

the inscription alone, we have consumed half

of the solemnity (of Pentecost, that is, of the fifty days

between the two feasts already mentioned), etc. On the following

day he delivered the second Homily on the Change of names,

in whose exordium, page 107, he complains

that he cannot satisfy all his hearers, since

some desired quite lengthy sermons, others

complained of excessive length. Then on page

109 he says that he will treat of a matter which began indeed

to be proposed the day before, but the solution

of the question could not be brought forward… And what is that? There was

a question about the imposition of the names which God

imposed upon the Saints.

[412] [he disputes; and on that subject Homilies, some of which seem to have fallen out,] After this second on the Change of names

followed the Homily which in Montfaucon

is published in tom. 4, page 687, after the 8 Sermons on

Genesis. For in its exordium, page 688, he clearly cites

Homily 1 on the Change of names, as delivered on the preceding

days. Then on page 691 he recites much

from the second, as lately delivered; and he goes on

to the change of Abraham's name, at which he had stopped

near the end of the second, where he says: For it remains

that we come to Abraham, and to the sons of Zebedee, and to Peter;

but these things we shall defer to another

Sermon. Moreover these words persuade me that one

Homily at least, and perhaps more, lies hidden concerning

the Change of names: for I cannot doubt

that he likewise discoursed about the changed names of Peter,

John, and James; since he intimates in the words alleged that he would do so.

For in the last Homily too on this subject,

page 133, he intimates that he had disputed about Peter,

John, and James, since he states the reason for the change of their name

most briefly, and at once adds:

But lest our discourse cause annoyance by recalling the same things

again, omitting these, I shall say this,

that the very names of the Saints, taken separately, are always worthy

of veneration to religious and pious men, and to sinners

to be feared. Chrysostom did not wish to say the same things

again. He had therefore treated of the changed names of those

Apostles; but no Homily appears

in which he expounds that subject after his own manner.

It must be said, then, that one or more

have fallen out.

[413] he delivered various ones: of these five are extant: But whatever be the case about these, not long

after followed the Homily on Bearing reproofs

and on the change of names, which we have

in tom. 3, page 115. This he begins thus: Certain of my friends

reproved us for making rather lengthy beginnings

of our sermons. Whether they reproved rightly or wrongly

you will then understand, when, our defense being heard,

you will give sentence as in a public tribunal.

But before I show that, I give them thanks

for the reproof: for

it proceeds from care and zeal for me, not from an evil mind:

and a friend, not only when he praises,

but also when he reproves and corrects, then, I should say, loves me. Presently he disputes much

about the usefulness of reproofs; then he alleges the reasons for his own length

in prefaces, and then treats briefly of the change

of Paul's name, but at length of his

conversion. In the following Homily, at whose

beginning he complains of the fewness of his hearers, he again

touches the change of names; but at the same time discourses

on the beginning of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians: Paul,

called an Apostle. Moreover that this Homily followed after

those mentioned he intimates on page 133 in these

words: For if you remember, you know that for three whole days

I discoursed about this name alone (Paul's),

while I brought forward the causes why, though he was called Saul

before, he was afterwards called Paul,

etc. These words however do not prove that no other

Homilies came between this and the preceding ones;

but rather intimate that others intervened.

[414] Hence I suspect that this last was delivered

after the feast of Pentecost, and probably then were delivered the Homilies on Pentecost and the Ascension. and that Chrysostom

at the feasts of the Lord's Ascension and of Pentecost delivered other

Homilies, whether these are now extant, or

have perished along with not a few others. The Homily on the Lord's Ascension which is extant

in tom. 2, page 447,

has nothing repugnant to this year; but it lacks

a probable mark of time. Those which follow in the same place,

pages 457 and 468, on holy Pentecost, could likewise have been delivered

in this year. The first begins with

a complaint most familiar to Chrysostom at that time,

and in this manner: Again a festivity, and again

a festal assembly, and again the Church glories in the multitude

of her sons. She is the parent of many children,

and likewise a lover of her sons. But

what does the love of sons profit, since

only at the feasts, not perpetually, does she look upon the beloved faces

of her sons, etc. This complaint indeed, which

he pursues at some length, introduces some suspicion.

Yet nothing certain can be drawn from it: for

the second too fits the same year well enough. Probably

too Chrysostom delivered some Homilies at the feasts of the

Martyrs in the same year. But it is time

that we return to the exposition of Genesis, resumed after

Pentecost, perhaps in the month of June.

[415] But this exposition he resumed with great

spirit in Homily 33, The exposition of Genesis resumed by almost daily Homilies, in which he begins to speak thus:

Since I see today your eager assembly and huge

desire of hearing, I wish to discharge the debt

by which I am bound toward your charity.

And I know that perhaps you have forgotten it,

because many days have intervened, and our discourse

has meanwhile been drawn away to other things. For the coming

of the holy festivity broke off our series…

Now therefore it is necessary that I be mindful of the debt,

and satisfy you. In that Homily he treats of Abraham

and Lot, and extols the humility and mildness of the former.

Hence he begins the thirty-fourth, page 339,

with these words: You learned yesterday, dearly beloved, the patriarch's outstanding

humility, you saw his excellent mildness.

Again on the following day he delivered the thirty-fifth,

a good long one, and thus almost daily he went on speaking about

Genesis to the people, as he himself asserts in the thirty-

sixth, page 362, and this is also clear from the fact

that most frequently he mentions the previous day's sermon. In

the forty-first, page 410, he complains much

that many of those very persons who were present waste whole days

in watching the horse-races, and that too while we, he says, preach daily. After

this followed Homilies 42 and 43.

[416] But then there intervened at least one other