gospels, when written, were not hid in a corner, or buried in obscurity; but they were made known to all the world, and were publicly read before enemies as well as others, even as they are now.' 2. So writes Chrysostom, in the introduction to his homilies upon St. Matthew's gospel; and certainly this is an ample testimony to the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I need not make any remarks upon what we have seen; I may leave that to the reader; I only observe, that what was just transcribed, seems contrary to what was before said; but perhaps all may be reconciled in this manner: he had said, that Matthew wrote at the request of the Jewish believers in Judea; and Mark in Egypt, at the request of the believers there; but those things were said upon the ground of general report and common fame, only. Here he says: of those things we are not certain, and need not assert them as such; but wherever the gospels were written, they are true and harmonious: that may be justly maintained, and clearly demonstrated, to the satisfaction and conviction of all unprejudiced men. S. In his homilies, Chrysostom sometimes compares the evangelists, and shews their agreement. I refer in the margin to one place, the 28th homily upon St. Matthew's gospel, where he compares his account with those of Mark and Luke. 4. In reconciling Matthew's and Mark's accounts of Peter's denying Christ, he says, 'These things Mark had from his master; for he was a disciple of Peter: and what is very remark⚫able, though he was a disciple of Peter, he relates his fall more particularly than any of the rest.' 5. Explaining the history of our Lord's paying the didrachm, or tribute-money, which is in Matt. xvii. 24....27. and particularly those words, "That take, and give unto them for me and thee;" he says, Mark, who was a disciple of Peter, omits this, because it was honourable to that apostle; but he relates the history of his denial of Christ; and perhaps his master for⚫ bade him to insert such things as tended to aggrandize him.' C 6. I would just observe here, that I do not remember Chrysostom to say, in his Commentaries upon the Acts, that John, surnamed Mark, was the writer of the gospel, though the mention of him occurs there so frequently: nor do I recollect this to be said by our author any where else but as he calls him disciple of Peter, it is very likely that he supposed him to be the same Mark, who is mentioned 1 Pet. v. 13. 7. In the beginning of the fourth homily upon St. John's gospel, he says, 'The other ⚫ evangelists having chiefly insisted upon our Saviour's humanity, there was danger, lest his divinity, or eternal generation, should have been neglected by some; and men might have been of the same opinion with Paul of Samosata, if John had not written; but whereas, Matthew begins his history with Herod the King; Luke with Tiberius Cesar; Mark, with the baptism of John; he, ascending at once above time and ages, says: "In the beginning was the • word." Speaking of our Lord's predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and the calamities that befel the Jewish people in the time of Vespasian and Titus, which happened, as he says, not till above forty years after our Saviour's death; he observes, that John and several others were then living, who had heard Christ speak those words. e 9. Again: in a homily upon Matt. xxiv. John writes not of any of these things, lest it ⚫should be thought that he took an advantage from the event; for he was still living a good while after the destruction of Jerusalem. But they who were dead before the destruction of Jerusa lem, and saw none of those things, record these predictions; which is a manifest proof of the certainty of Christ's foreknowledge.' In Matt. Hom. 28. al. 29. in. T. vii. p. 333. . . . και ταύτα παρα το διδασκαλο μαθων· και γαρ φοιτητης ην τε Πείρα. Όθεν μάλισα αν τις αυτόν εκπλαγείῃ, ὅτι 8 μόνον εκ έκρυψε το ελατίωμα το διδασκαλε, αλλά και των άλλων σαφέςερον απηγγειλεν. In Matt. Hom. 85. al. 86. T. vii. p. 805. C. • Ιδε και το φιλόσοφον της τε Πείρα γνώμης. Τείο γαρ ε φαινεται Μαρκος ὁ τείς φοιτητης γεγραφηκως το κεφάλιον, επειδη πολλήν εδείκνυ την εις αυτον τιμην αλλά την μεν αρνησιν και αυτος εγράψε, τα δε ποι2νία αύτον λαμπρον απεσίγησε : ίσως το διδασκαλε παραίεμενα τα μεγάλα περι αυτό λέγειν. Τα Matt. Hom. 58. al. 59. T. vii. p. 586. 4 . . . δεος ην τε μη τινας δια τε ο χαμαιπείεις ονίας τείοις εναπομείναι μόνοις τοῖς δογμασι· ὁ Παυλος επαθεν ὁ ΣαμισαΖευς. κ. λ. In Joan. Hom. 4. al. 3, T. viii. p. 27. A. B. • Ετι γαρ Ιωανν8 το ευαγγελιζε ζωνῖος, και έλεξων πόλλων των τω Χρισῳ συγγενομένων, ταυία ακυσανίες. In Matt, Hom. 69. al. 70. T. vii. p. 680. B. • Συ δε μοι σκοπει το πνευματος οικονομίαν, ὅτι τείων εδεν εγραψεν Ιωάννης, ίνα μη δόξη εξ αυτης των γεγενημένων της Ισορίας γράφειν· και γαρ και μετα την άλωσιν εξη χρονον πολύν. Αλλ' οἱ προ της άλώσεως αποθανονίες, και μηδεν τείων έωρακολες, αυτοι γραφεσιν, ώςε πανταχοθεν διαλαμψαι της προρρήσεως Ty oxuv. In Matt. Hom. 76. al. 77. T. 7. p. 734. B. These passages shew, Chrysostom supposed, that St. John did not write his gospel till after the destruction of Jerusalem. 10. Several things relating to the first three evangelists, may be seen at the beginning of the fourth homily upon St. Matthew; where he says, 'He thinks that Matthew wrote first, Mark next, and Luke afterwards: but I do not perceive him to assign reasons of any moment for that supposition. He there also says, that Luke had the fluency of Paul, and Mark the conciseness of Peter; both learning of their masters. 11. In the first homily upon the epistle to the Romans, he says, that Moses did not put his name to his five books; nor did the historians, who wrote after him, prefix their names to their works; nor did Matthew, or John, or Mark, or Luke, put their names to their writings: but the blessed Paul every where prefixeth his name to his epistles, excepting that to the Hebrews, ' where he had reason to be upon the reserve. What is the reason of this? They delivered their writings to those who were present, when it is needless to put down the name: he sent his writings to those who were at a distance, in the form of an epistle, where the addition of the ⚫ name is necessary.' с VI. 1. The Acts of the apostles he received, and' ascribes to St. Luke very often. He refers to the book of the Acts, as shewing the fulfilment of Christ's promise, recorded in John, xiv. 12, where, he says, are related many miracles of the apostles; but not all, nor of all Christ's apostles, but of some only.' 2. In the third volume of the Benedictine edition of Chrysostom's works, are four homilies upon the title and beginning of the Acts of the apostles, and the writer of the book. There were five homilies upon this subject spoken by Chrysostom; but the second is either totally lost, or so disfigured by alterations, that a small part of it only, if any, can be depended upon for genuine, as the Benedictine editors have assured us. 3. Those homilies were preached in the time of Pentecost; and in the first of them, laying down the plan of his discourses, he proposes to inquire, by whom the book of the Acts was written, and when, and why it had been appointed to be read over at that time of the year. The design of that which was the second homily, and is lost, was to shew who wrote the book of the -Acts. In the now third homily upon this subject, recollecting what had preceded in this argument, he says, that' in the second discourse he had inquired who wrote this book; and, by the grace of God, it had been found to be the evangelist Luke. In the second of those homilies, according to the present order, he considers the reason why the blessed and excellent, and admir able Luke intitled his book the Acts,' not the miracles of the apostles: he elsewhere calls the writer of this book' the great and excellent Luke, disciple of Paul. The design of the fourth homily, in the present order, is" to shew, why the Acts of the apostles were read in the time of Pentecost: that is, between Easter and Whitsuntide. 4. In the ninth tome of Chrystosom's works, of the Benedictine edition, is a course of homilies upon the book of the Acts, fifty-five in number. 5. In the first of those homilies he says, That the book of the Acts may be as useful to us as the gospels: inasmuch as it contains excellent principles, and many miracles, as well as great Tom. ix. p. 429. C. D. 4 Vid. de Virgin. Τ. i. p. 321. C. Cont. Jud. et Gent. Τ. i. p. 577. E. et Hom. in Juvent. et Maxim. T. ii, p. 577. A. De S. Bab. contr. Jul. &c. T. ii. p. 538. D. Ex hisce autem octo homilis, quatuor priores sunt in principium, seu titulum libri Actorum. In hoc tamen argumentum quinque una serie conciones habuerat, ut non semel testificatur Joannes noster: sed secunda, in quâ quærebatur, quis esset auctor libri Actuum apostolorum, intercidit, &c. Præf. in. T. iii. sect. i. Secundam, ubi de auctore libri Actorum edisserebat, et Lucam esse demonstrabat, reperimus quidem: sed, heu! miscre deformatam, et cum spuriis immixtam... Itaque male auctam et consarcinatam homiliam, etsi quædam et ad præsens argumentum pertinentia habeat, cuin sinceris admis cere non ausi sumus, sed ad finem hujus tomi ablegavimus. * Δει δε πρότερον μαθειν, τις το βιβλιον εγραψε. . . και πολε έγραψε, και περί τινων, και τινος ένεκεν τη εορτη ταυλη νενομοθε τήται αυτό αναγινωσκεσθαι. In Pr. Act. Hom, T. iii. p. 54. C. D. · Μεΐ εκείνην εν τη δεύτερᾳ ἡμέρᾳ εζηΐησαμην, τις ην ὁ το βιβλιον γραψας, και εύρομεν τῇ τε θες χαριλί Λεκαν τον ευαίδε λισην . . . κ. λ. In Princip. Act. Hom. 3. T. iii. p. 74. C. D. * Δια τετο και μακαριος ετος, και γενναίος, και θαυμασιος Λεκας όπως επείραψε το βιβλιον, Πράξεις αποσόλων, ο Θαυματα aπosoλw. Ib. Hom. ii. p. 65. D. ! Τις εν ταυία πανία φησιν ; Ὁ τε Παυλο μαθητης, ὁ τιμιος και μείας Λεκάς. Ib. Hom. 4. p. 88. Ε. חן Ιδωμεν δε λοιπον τινος ένεκεν το βιβλίον των Πράξεων των αποσόλων εν τω καιρῳ της πενίγκοςης αναγινωσκεται. Hom. 4. T. iii. p. 88. A. Vid. ib. B. C. D. et p. 89. C. D. η Ουδε γαρ ελατίον αυίων ευαγγέλιων ωφελησαι ήμας δυνης σεται. τοιαύτης εμπέπλησαι φιλοσοφίας, και δοίμαίων ορθοίητος, και θαυμαίων επιδείξεως, κ. λ. In Act. Ap. Hom. 1. T. ix. p. 1. examples; and shews the fulfilment of the promise, which Christ had made to the disciples, of sending down upon them the Spirit: for which reasons it deserves our attentive perusal, and 'careful consideration.' He moreover says, that from this book alone is to be known, how the Christian religion was planted in the world. 6. In the discourses of the apostles recorded in the Acts, he says, there is little said about • Christ's divinity; but they discourse chiefly of his humanity, and passion, and resurrection, and 'ascension; because his resurrection and ascension to heaven were the points necessary to be ' proved and believed at that time.' ways: 7. That Luke, the writer of the Acts, was inspired, may be proved, he thinks, several for miracles were then very common, and gifts of the Spirit were bestowed upon all believers in general. It may be argued also from 2 Cor. viii. 18, 19; he understanding the apostle to speak there of Luke. 8. Chrysostom's conclusion of his homilies upon the Acts is very oratorical. Luke' leaves us thirsting for more: but, if he had proceeded, it would have been only a repetition of like discourses and works, like dangers, difficulties and sufferings. 9. In a homily upon Col. iv. 14. "Luke the beloved physician salutes you," he says: This is the evangelist. It is likely there were others of that name: therefore, he distinguisheth him by his profession.' 10. Upon 2 Tim. iv. 11, he commends Luke for his constant attendance on the apostle; and speaks of him as writer of a gospel, and the Acts. 11. I would observe here, that I do not recollect Chrysostom to have said any where, that Luke was of Antioch; though this is said by Jerom, and some others. Ꮒ 12. In his first homily upon the title and beginning of the Acts of the apostle he says: • To many this book is unknown; by others it is despised, because it is clear and easy.' The first of the homilies upon the whole book begins in this manner: Many know not this book, nor the writer of it.' Which expressions have induced some learned men to think, that the book of the Acts lay in much obscurity, and was not well known among Christians. The 'gospels,' says Mill, were soon spread abroad, and came into all men's hands. But the case was somewhat different with other books of the New Testament, particularly the Acts of the apostles, which was not thought to be so important, and had few transcribers.' These expressions likewise led Mr. Beausobre to say, that the book of the Acts had not at the beginning, in the eastern churches, the same authority with the gospels and epistles. k 13. I have already said something relating to this point. But it seems to me not a little strange, that any should understand Chrysostom to speak nothing more than real truth, or plain matter of fact: they are only oratorical expressions, in which he exaggerates extremely. The book of the Acts was annually read and explained at Antioch, at Pentecost, understanding that word in the larger sense, as comprehending the time between Easter and the day of Pentecost. This was the custom in Chrysostom's time; nor was it new, as we perceive from the homilies before cited. It had been appointed by their ancestors; and Chrysostom inquires into the reasons of that appointment. Moreover, he speaks in a like manner in his preface, or argument to St. Paul's epistles: where " he says, he wishes he was better known; for some are so ignorant of him that they do not exactly know the number of his epistles.' And yet he had just before said, that the blessed Paul's epistles were read very often, sometimes twice, sometimes thrice, or even four times in a week. Chrysostom, therefore, is to be undersood to mean, in both places, no more than this: That he wished the Acts of the apostles, and Paul's In Pr. Act. Ap. T. iii. p. 63. C. 5. Δια δη τείο τοσαυτα περι Χριςε διαλεχθεντες, ολίγα μεν περί της θεότητος αυτά ειρήκασι. . το γαρ ζηλεμένον τεως τελο ην, το πισευθήναι, ότι ανεση, και ανεβη εις έρανες. Hom. 1. Τ. ix. P. 3. A. Ib. p. 4. D. E. b . . . και αφίησι διψωνία τον ακροατην, ώςε λοιπον αφ' ἑαυτο λογίζεσθαι . . . πανίως yas οία τα πρότερα, τοιαύτα έσχε, μεία τείο . . . τι βάλει μαθειν τα μεία ταυία; τοιαυία εςι κάκεια ναι δεσμα, βασανοι, μαχαι, φυλακαι, επιβάλαι, συκοφαντιαι, Savalo, naty,pepivo. In Act. hom. 55. T. ix. p. 412. D. 414. B. s In Col. Hom. 12. T. xi. p. 412, E. F. και Αλγω δη και οδύνωμαι, ότι τον ανδρα τείον εχ' ἁπανίες ισασιν, ώσπερ ειδεναι χρη- αλλ' εξω τινες αυτον αγνουσιν, ὡς μηδε των επιτολων τον αριθμόν ειδεναι σαφως. Argum. Ep. T. * Αύλος γαρ σφόδρα αδιασπάσως είχεν αυτό, ο και ευαγγελιον ad Rom. Τ. ix. p. 425. epistles, were better known to his hearers than they were; and that he was grieved to think how little acquainted some men were with those parts of sacred scripture. a VII. 1. În a Homily upon Repentance, supposed to be a genuine work of Chrysostom, it is said: The blessed apostle Paul, Christ's ofator, fisherman of the whole universe, by the spiritual nets of his fourteen epistles catches the whole word, and brings them into the way of "salvation.' 2. Chrysostom published homilies, or commentaries upon St. Paul's fourteen epistles, which are still extant. b In the proëm to his homilies upon the epistle to the Romans, he speaks of the time of several of them, to which I refer the reader: however, I shall observe here several particulars, as briefly as I can. He says, that the epistle to the Romans, though placed first, was not first in the order of time, as many think. It was written before any of those which were sent from Rome, but not till after several others; for both the epistles to the Corinthians were written before it: and the first epistle to the Thessalonians was written before either of those to the Corinthians. To the Philippians he wrote from Rome; to the Hebrews likewise he wrote from thence. The epistle to Timothy [meaning the second] was also written from Rome, when the apostle was a prisoner here: and it seems to him to be the last of all Paul's epistles. The epistle to Philemon likewise is a late epistle; for the apostle was then arrived to extreme old age: referring to ver. 9. Nevertheless it was written before the epistle to the Colossians, as appears from the end of that epistle [See Col. iv. 7-9.] I likewise think, says he, that the epistle to the Galatians was written before that to the Romans. So writes Chrysostom in the proëm to his homilies upon the epistle to the Romans. h d 3. In the argument of the epistle to the Ephesians, he says, it was written from Rome, when Paul was prisoner here. In the preface to the epistle to the Philippians he says, the apostle was then a prisoner at Rome. In the first homily upon the epistle to the Colossians he says, that' epistle, and the epistles to the Ephesians, and to Philemon, and to Timothy, were written when the apostle was in bonds. Here also he says again, that the [second] epistle to Timothy was written a short time before his death. From the inscription of the epistle to the Colossians [i. 1.], he concludes, that Timothy was known to the saints at Colosse. In the first homily upon the second epistle to Timothy, he says again, he thinks the apostle was then near his end': in another homily upon the same epistle, he says, it was full of consolation, and a sort of testament. In his first homily upon the epistle to Titus he says, that, probably, Titus 1 was a Corinthian; and " Paul was at liberty at the time of writing that epistle: and " it was written before the second epistle to Timothy. And he observes, that Paul had determined to winter at Nicopolis, a city of Thrace. See Tit. iii. 12. k i 4. I do not recollect, that Chrysostom any where takes particular notice of the time of writing the first epistle to Timothy: whether it was, that he could not determine it, or that he took it for granted, that it was written about the same time with the second to Timothy; or whatever else may be the reason of this silence, when he had so many fair opportunities to speak of it, I cannot say. Mr. Tillemont supposeth Chrysostom to say, that this epistle was written in the last years of his life; but I do not perceive Chrysostom, in the place referred to, to speak of the time of the first epistle, but of the second rather. P г 5. It does not appear from Chrysostom's writings, that he had any doubt, whether the epistle to the Hebrews was written by Paul; he always quotes it as his. In the preface to his homilies upon it, he says, The epistle was written to Jews; and, as he thinks, to the Jews at Jerusalem, and in Palestine. He adds: When Paul had been in bonds two years at Rome, he was set at * Και τι προς τον μακαριον αποςολον Παύλον, τον ρήτορα το Χρισε, τον της οικεμένης άλιεα, τον δια δεκαίεσσαρων επιδο λων, ώσπερ δια δικτύων πνευματικων, πασαν την οικεμένην εις σωτηρίαν σαγήνευσανία. κ. λ. De Penit. Τ. xiii. p. 190. C. Vid. Argument. Ep. ad Rom: T. ix. p. 425....427. • Και την προς Τιμόθεον δε επισολήν και αυτην απο Ρώμης δεδεμενος επεμψεν ή και εσχατη μοι δοκει πασων ειναι των επιτόλων. Εγω γαρ ηδη σπένδομαι, φησι,.... ότι δε τον βιον Εχει καλέλυσε, παντι πε δήλον εςι. Ib. p. 427. Β.. d T. xi p. 2. A. fT. xi. p. 322. B. e T. xi. p. 190. A. B Ib. p. 323. A. b Ibid. P. 323. E. liberty, and then went into Spain. Afterwards he came to Jerusalem, and made a visit to the Jewish believers there [Referring to Rom xv. 24, and Hebr. xiii. 23.]: then he came to Rome, and was put to death by Nero.' b a 6. He often says, the epistle was sent to the believers from amongst the Hebrews. And he says, that when he wrote to the Hebrews, he did not put his name at the beginning, as he did in all his other epistles, because the Jews, both believers and unbelievers, were averse to him. 7. Chrysostom always cites the epistles to the Ephesians with that title; and in his argument of the epistle gives an account of the city of Ephesus. He had no doubt about the common inscription: "To the saints that are at Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus." d 8. Upon Col. iv. 16: "And that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea," he observes: Some say, that hereby is not meant an epistle sent to them, but an epistle sent by them to Paul: for he does not say the epistle written to the Laodiceans, but from them.' Surely Chrysostom did not know that the epistle to the Ephesians was at any time called, the epistle to the Laodiceans. f 9. The first epistle to the Thessalonians he quotes, as written to the Macedonians. VIII. 1. We now come to the Catholic epistles. The proëm to the Synopsis, cited above, speaks of but three only; meaning, as may be supposed, the epistle of James, the first epistle of Peter, and the first epistle of John; which three are also quoted in Chrysostom's other writings. And Dom Bernard de Montfauçon, the learned Benedictine editor of St. Chrysostom's works, says, he has no where observed therein any citations of the other four epistles, called Catholic. 2. The epistle of St. James is quoted several times: it is expressly quoted, as written by James the Lord's brother. I refer to a place or two more, where words of the epistle are cited. Indeed, I think, he quotes this epistle as often as any other of the Catholic epistles received by him. He speaks elsewhere of James, as a most excellent person, brother of the Lord, and bishop of Jerusalem. h 3. The first epistle of St. Peter, and the first epistle of St. John, were universally received. I need not, therefore, refer to any of Chrysostom's citations of them. k 4. There is a homily, supposed by some to be Chrysostom's, by others doubted of, wherein it is said, That the first epistle of John is received by all; but the fathers have rejected the second and third, as not in the canon.' Montfauçon thinks that homily was preached by a presbyter, before Flavian, bishop of Antioch: though, therefore, the homily be not Chrysos-. tom's, it shews the sense of the church of Antioch, in his time, concerning St. John's epistles. Several other learned men, as " Mill, and Lampe, have taken notice of this passage, to whom I refer; but I do not think it needful to transcribe them. n That homily was first published by Cotelerius, and as Chrysostom's; and it is quoted as his by Lampe, just mentioned, and Wolfius; but the judgment of Montfauçon appears to be the more probable. IX. Chrysostom has no where quoted the book of the Revelation, nor taken any passage from it, nor alluded to it in any of his works, so far as can be perceived; though, as Montfaucon Vid. Ep. 15. T. iii. p. 602. B. In Gen. Hom. 35. T. iv. p. 356 D. In Joann. Hom. 2. al. 1. T. viii. p. 14. A. b Vid. Hom. in illud, In faciem Petro restiti. T. iii. p. 371. Tom. xi. p. 1, 2. d... Ou γαρ είπε, την προς Λαοδικεας, αλλα την εκ Λαοδί Xelas do pabeiσav. In Col. Hom. 12. T. xi. p. 413. B. • Μακεδόσι γαρ επισέλλων, όπως ελεγεν. Εp. 2. Τ. 3. p. 549. E. Et vere sanctus hic Doctor, qui scripturæ sacræ libros omnes in homiliis suis adhibet, quatuor istarum epistolarum loca nusquam affert; aut saltem hujusmodi loca in ejus scriptis nondum deprehendi. Etiamsi vero deprehenderentur, non tamen inde sequeretur, eam scripturæ partem canonicam haberi. Nam illis temporibus non pauca erant in quibusdarn ecclesiis, quæ legebantur quidem, sed canonica esse non reputabantur, αναγινωσκόμενα μεν, μη κανονιζόμενα δε. Diatrib. in Synops. T. vi. p. 309. 5 ... παραξω ὑμιν αξιόπισον μαρτυρα, τον αδελφόθεον Ιακωβον φασκονία· Ἡ πίστις χωρις των εργων νεκρα εςιν. De Poenit. Hom. 9. T. ii. p. 348. E. De Sacerdot. I. iii. T. i. p. 384. E. Hom. in Eliam. et viduam. T. iii. p. 333. C. In Ep. ad Philem. Hom. 3. T. xi. p. 788. C. i Vid. in Mat. Hom. 5. T. 7. p. 78. A. In Act. Ap. Hom. 46. T. ix. p. 348. A. * Των δε εκκλησιαζομένων, 8 των αποκρυφων μεν ή πρώτη επιτολή. Την γαρ δευτέραν και τρίτην οι πατέρες αποκανονίζεσι. Την μεν οι πρωΐην επισολήν ἁπανίες είναι Ιωάννα συμφώνως aTervarlo. Ap. Chrys. Opp. T. vi. p. 430. A. B. Quod autem ecclesia Antiochena secundam et tertiam Joannis non reciperet, id liquido comprobatur ex homiliâ mox edendâ, quam prior publicavit Joannis Chrysostomi nomine Cotelerius, quamque probamus in monito infra, non Chrysostomi esse, sed cujusdam presbyteri Antiocheni illius ævo, coram Flaviano episcopo concionantis. Diatrib. in Synops. T. vi. p. 309 m Prolegom n. 224. In illud scripturæ dictum : ' In quâ potestate hæc facis?' Matth. xxi. 23. Ap. Coteler. Monum. Gr. T. iii. p. 121 ...157. P Prolegom. in Joan. p. 242. Ap. Cur. Crit. T. v. 9 Certe Joannes Chrysostomus, qui auctor operis fertur in |