5, in 1 Tim. t. 11, p. 577,
Hom. 3, contra Judaeos. t. 1, p. 611. Hom. 7, contra Judaeos. t. 1, p.
664. Hom. in St. Eustath. t. 2, p. 606. Hom. 24, in 1 Cor. t. 10, p.
213.) In Hom. 34, ad Hebr. p. 313, he expresses his extreme fears for
the rigorous account which a pastor is obliged to give for every soul
committed to his charge, and cries out, "I wonder that any superior of
others is saved."

A letter to a certain monk called Caesarius, has passed under the name of
St. Chrysostom ever since Leontius and St. John Damascen; and not only
many Protestants, but also F. Hardouin, (Dissert. de ep. ad Caesarium
Monachum) Tillemont, (t. 11, art. 130, p. 340,) and Tournely, (Tr. de
Euchar. t. 1, p. 282, and Tract. de Incarnat. p. 486,) are not unwilling
to look upon it as a genuine work of our holy doctor. But it is
demonstrated by F. Le Quien, (Diss. 3, in St. Joan. Damasc.) Dom
Montfaucon, (in Op. St. Chrys. t. 3, p. 737,) Ceillier, (t. 9, p. 249,)
F. Merlin in his learned dissertations on this epistle, (in Memoires de
Trevoux an. 1737, pp. 252, 516, and 917,) and F. Stilting, the
Bollandist, (t. 4, Sept. Comment. in vitam St. Chrys. Sec.82, p. 656,) that
it has been falsely ascribed to him, and is a patched work of some later
ignorant Greek writer, who has borrowed some things from the first
letter of St. Chrysostom to Olympias, as Stilting shows. Merlin thinks
the author discovers himself to have been a Nestorian heretic. At least
the style is so opposite to that of St. Chrysostom, both in the diction
and in the manner of reasoning, that the reader must find himself quite
in another world, as Montfaucon observes. The author's long acquaintance
with this Caesarius seems not easily reconcilable with the known history
of St. Chrsysostom's life. This piece, moreover, is too direct a
confutation of the Eutychian error to have been written before its
birth: or if it had made its appearance, how could it have escaped all
the antagonists of that heresy? Whoever the author was, he is far from
opposing the mystery of the real presence, or that of
transubstantiation, in the blessed eucharist, for both which he is an
evident voucher in these words, not to mention others: "The nature of
bread and that of our Lord's body are not two bodies, but one body of
the Son," which he introduces to make a comparison with the unity of
Christ's Person in the Incarnation. It is true, indeed, that he says the
nature of bread remains in the sacrament: