and was therefore more likely to be accessible to Antiochenes than to Constantinopolitans : wa pi To0 KaremelyovTos dmooTas paKpoTrepov Tojow Tov Néyor . . . kal uty dé elpnral tis brép TovTwy Néoyos Gre rept Ths peTabécews adTov THs mpoonyoplas mpos Uuds dieeyd- meOa... ef 58 emrdédgade, evtuxovTes exelvw TH BLBALw mavra eloecbe tadra. <A brief citation from ‘John Chrysostom,’ é« rod trourjmaros THs mpds L'addras émioTo\js, is preserved in Photius’ account (cod. 229, part 3) of a work by Ephraem, patriarch of Antioch A.D. 527-545, in defence of the Council of Chalcedon ; but the words themselves—ér1, pal, 7d Néyew capkl wabery roy Oedy Ndyov Ppdvynua THs ExxAnolas éorly, domep kal BAdogpypoy Kal amroBAynrov TO KypiTTEw airov mabe tH pice Ths Gedrnros—appear to be neither akin to Chrysostom’s normal theological style nor identified in his Galatian commentary.
(v.) Ephesians. —24 homilies. Allotted by Savile, on account of their unfinished style, to Constantinople, but by Tillemont and Montifaucon, on the ground of historical indications, to Antioch. Tillemont points to the impassioned appeal against schisms in the Church at the end of Hom. xi. (after the exposition of Eph 441) p. 86 ff., which naturally connects itself with the Eustathian separatists at Antioch ; Montfaucon to various laudatory refer- ences to the monastic inhabitants of the neigh- bouring hills,—Hom. vi. p. 44 A, Hom. xiii. p. 44 E; cf. Hom. xxi. p. 162 D,—whereas at Con- stantinople the monks were not dwellers in hills, and are mentioned rather with blame than praise. If further argument is needed, it may be found in the mention without definition, as of a saint well known to the audience, of Babylas, martyr-bishop of Antioch under Decius (6 wakdpros wdprus BaBvdas, Hom. ix. p. 70 C).
Citations from or references to these homilies — are made (1) by Theodoret, Dialogus II. ‘ Incon- fusus, ed. Schultze, Iv. i. p. 158, éx ris épunvelas ris apos E@ectous émusrodjs : (a) Hom. i. p. 7D, kara rhv evdoklay . . . yéyovev: (6) Hom. iii. p. 20 D, mepi rovrou pyclv‘O beds Tod Kuplov Hudv Inood Xpiorod, ob mept Tod Beod Adyou: (c) Hom. iv. p. 26 FE, cal dvras huads ... mepl Tod Kard odpka mayra elpnra *_(2) by Ephraem of Antioch (see just above) in Photius cod. 229 for the use of 6 dvOpwaros with the article of the human nature of Christ (6 Xpuvodcropos év rij épunvela tis mpos Epectous éemiorohijs Tpirns opudtas) : the whole passage 18 E-19 C is more or less in point, but the specific reference is perhaps to 20 D, tov dvOpwrov els méya bynhoryros aviyaye—(3) by Facundus of Hermiana in the middle of the 6th cent., pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum, xi. 5 (ed. Sirmond, p. 486; Gallandi, Bid. Vet. Patrum, xi. 788), ‘beatus Ioannes . . . in commento epistolee ad Ephesios libro tertio,’ translating into Latin (a) Hom. iii. pp. 18 F-19 A, évydnoov boov . . . rob Beod Adyou ovSanOs, and (b) Hom. ili. p. 20 C D, dvo yap Ta peyiora . . . ot mepl ToD Deod déyou.t
(vi.) Philippians.—16 homilies; in the earlier editions 15, because the first homily was separately treated as the ‘argument’ (so also in Romans). This is the first set of homilies which the majority of critics place at Constantinople, on the ground
partly of general negligence of style, partly of language that is supposed to be definitely episcopal
in the ‘ethical’ part of Hom. x. [ix.], p. 268 F onwards, where the preacher rebukes his congre-
* Theodoret’s polemical quotations, at least from early writers, are not to be relied on; it is therefore all the more important to note that his differences from Field’s text are relatively slight. In one case (p. 7D, as cy vis civos for ds ay [ris] ¢xo1) he supports Cramer’s Catena against all the direct MS tradition. Did he use the Catena? ; > + Facundus entirely supports Field in his return to the text of the Verona edition against Savile and the Benedictines; e.g. 20 D he reads ‘in sanguine eius salvavit’=74 ciwcers avo Ecwoey (Field, Veron., and 3 MSS, against omission by the rest) and ‘preter hoc’=xapis soorov, With the same authorities, where the rest omit yapis.
504 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
gation for their grudging support of the clergy.* Yet even for this epistle grave doubt must be felt in presence of a passage indicated by Tillemont, Hom. xvi. [xv.] p. 318 C D, where Chrysostom, enumerating the drawbacks to earthly royalty, ends his dark catalogue of misfortunes with the catastrophe in which Valens perished, while ‘he that now rules, ever since he put on the diadem, has lived among labours, dangers, despondencies, calamities, conspiracies.’ Chrysostom was a bold preacher ; but even in Chrysostom’s mouth such language is more natural at a distance from the court. And it is not easy to see why the argu- ment should leap from Valens to Arcadius without any hint at the critical fortunes of the inter- mediate reign of Theodosius (A.D. 379-395); yet if Theodosius is meant by 6 viv xparGv, the homilies again belong to the Antiochene period. In a Catena from the Fathers contained in Book i. of Leontius of Byzantium, contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos,+ are included passages from Chry- sostom’s Hom. in 1 Tim. (see just below) and im Phil.—the latter passage is from Hom. vii. [vi.] p. 235 B, woppiy dovdov abe . . . % wophi rod Oeod.