but it is easy to show that by
the nature of bread he means its external natural qualities or
accidents.

Among former Latin translations of St. Chrysostom's works, only those
made by the learned Jesuit Fronto-le-Duc are accurate. These are
retained by Montfaucon, who has given us a new version of those writings
which Le Duc had not translated. The edition of Montfaucon in twelve
volumes, an. 1718, is of all others the most complete. But it is much to
be wished that he had favored us with a more elegant Latin translation,
which might bear some degree of the beauty of the original. The Greek
edition, made by Sir Henry Saville at Eton, in nine volumes, in 1612, is
more correct and more beautiful than that of the learned Benedictin, and
usually preferred by those who stand in need of no translation.

{274}

As to the French translations, that of the homilies on the epistles to
the Romans, Ephesians, &c., by Nicholas Fontaine, the Port-Royalist, in
1693, was condemned by Harlay, archbishop of Paris; and recalled by the
author, who undesignedly established in it the Nestorian error. The
French translation of the homilies on St. John, was given us by Abbe le
Merre: of those on Genesis and the Acts, with eighty-eight chosen
discourses, by Abbe de Bellegarde, though for some time attributed to de
Marsilly, and by others to Sacy. That of the homilies on St. Matthew,
ascribed by many to de Marsilly, was the work of le Maitre and his
brother Sacy. That of the homilies to the People of Antioch, was given
to by Abbe de Maucroix in 1671. That of the saint's panegyrics on the
martyrs, is the work of F. Durauty de Bourecueil, an Oratorian, and made
its appearance in 1735.

St Chrysostom wrote comments on the whole scripture, as Cassiodorus and
Suidas testify; but of these many, with a great number of sermons, &c.,
are lost. Theophylactus, AEcumenius, and other Greek commentators, are
chiefly abridgers of St. Chrysostom. Even Theodoret is his disciple in
the excellent concise notes he composed on the sacred text. Nor can
preachers or theologians choose a more useful master or more perfect
model in interpreting the scripture; but ought to join with him some
judicious, concise, critical commentator. As in reading the classics,
grammatical niceties have some advantage in settling the genuine text;
yet if multiplied or spun out in notes, are extremely pernicious, by
deadening the student's genius and spirit, and burying them in rubbish,