Writings of John Chrysostom. The Acts of the Apostles

Advanced Information

St. Chrysostom:

The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople,

On the Acts of the Apostles

Translated, with notes, by Rev. J. Walker, M.A., of Brasenose College;

Rev. J. Sheppard, M.A., of Oriel College, Oxford; and

Rev. H. Browne, M.A., of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

revised, with notes, by Rev. George B. Stevens, Ph.D., D.D., Professor in Yale University.

Published in 1886 by Philip Schaff, New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co.


Preface to Part I. of the Oxford Edition.

The present volume of St. Chrysostom on the Acts of the Apostles has been delayed for some time by the difficulty of fixing the Text. Some farther account of the grounds on which this has been done will be given in the Preface to Part II. (vid. infra.) It may suffice for the present to say, that these Homilies appear to have been less carefully reported than usual, and published without a revision by the Author. The printed text was formed for the most part (Erasmus's Latin Version entirely) from a manuscript, said to be of the tenth century, in which these Homilies are given in a very different form, evidently the work of a later hand, and intended to make them read more smoothly. The earlier text, shown to be such by internal evidence, and alone followed in the Catena and all other ancient extracts and compilations, is preserved in other mss. and appears to have been in general disregarded by former editors, from its difficulty. The Translation was originally made from Savile's Text, by the Rev. J. Walker, M.A. of Brasenose College, and the Rev. J. Sheppard, M.A. of Oriel College, Oxford. The Editors are much indebted to the Rev. H. Browne, M.A. of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, who has restored the Text and corrected the Translation accordingly, the difference being frequently so great as to require a passage to be translated anew. He has likewise undertaken to prepare the Greek Text for publication, and to supply the prefatory matter. Many passages will still be found imperfect and unsatisfactory, but it has been thought better to leave them evidently so, than to resort to uncertain conjectures. A few conjectural emendations, however, have been admitted into the Text, and many more suggested.

C. Marriott.

Oxford, Feast of St. James. 1851.


Preface to Part II. of the Oxford Edition.

The manifestly imperfect condition in which these Homilies have come to us may partly be accounted for by the circumstances of the times in which they were preached. It was in the Easter weeks of the third year of his residence at Constantinople as Archbishop, that St. Chrysostom began this course of Sermons; and during all the remaining part of that year (a.d. 400), the Capital of the East was kept in constant trouble and alarm by the revolt of Gainas and the Goths. Moreover, scarcely had the preaching commenced, when the complaints from the Churches of Asia Minor were brought (May, 400) before the Metropolitan See, which business during many months painfully occupied the Archbishop's thoughts, and eventually demanded his presence at Ephesus. Few of St. Chrysostom's Sermons were originally prepared in writing: certainly these were not: and as certainly the text, drawn up by no skilful hand from notes taken during the preaching, can never have been revised by the Preacher himself. This was a serious disadvantage: for these Homilies, if only from the novelty of the subject, stood especially in need of revision. The Acts of the Apostles, though read in the churches in the season between Easter and Pentecost, were seldom preached upon; and we find St. Chrysostom complaining in the opening of these Homilies, as also on an earlier occasion at Antioch, that this portion of the Scriptures was not so much read as it ought to be, nay, that there were "many to whom this Book was not even known." (p. 1 and note l). Hence it is not surprising, if the Preacher was not always understood; and, in fact, the attentive reader will not unfrequently see reason to suspect, that the scribe (or "reporter,") from whose notes the text was formed, did not rightly apprehend the sense of what he heard. Nor has the transcriber (or "redactor") remedied the defects, whatever they may have been, of the original report. On the contrary, in other ways, of which we shall have to speak presently, he has often perplexed the sense, and sometimes entirely misrepresented the Preacher's meaning.

Text Font Face
Text Size
(for printing)
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet Our List of 2,300 Religious Subjects
The earliest mention of our Homilies is by Cassiodorus (a.d. 514), who relates, that with the assistance of friends he caused "the fifty-five Homilies on the Acts, by St. John, Bishop of Constantinople," to be translated into Latin, Opp. t. ii. p. 544. This version unfortunately is lost. [1] In the Canons of the Fifth and Sixth General Councils, St. Chrysostom's view of the Seven Deacons in the Acts is cited at length from Hom. xiv. (p. 91). John of Damascus, de Fid. Orthod. iii. 15, (a.d. 730), cites as from the second of these Homilies a passage which appears in the first, being the comment on i. 9. Photius has an entry in the Bibliotheca relating to them, but by some mistake the number is given as fifty. Of the Catena on the Acts, compiled by a certain Andreas Presbyter of unknown age and country, but not later than the tenth century (for there is a manuscript of that age), a large proportion is taken from St. Chrysostom: and the Commentaries of OEcumenius (990) and Theophylact (1077) are in many places formed from the Catena: as also are the Scholia in mss. of the Acts. To these may be added the Florilegium or Eclogæ, a compilation the date of which is unknown, but certainly not later than the first half of the eleventh century. The Author of this work seems to have resorted to our Homilies once only (Hom. xix. p 139): but there, he, as all the rest who have been mentioned, used the text which in the notes we call the old text, and from which the present Translation is made.

For there is another and a widely different text, by which alone, unfortunately, these Homilies have been known in modern times, except by the few who have had access to Manuscripts. In the National Library at Paris there is (No. 729) a manuscript (in our notes marked E, in Par. Ben. 2, D), which the Parisian Editor describes thus: Quorum (of six mss. on the Acts) antiquissimus, olim Colb. nunc Reg. 729, sæc. X., nitide et accurate scriptus, desinit in hom. quinquagesima. (This is a mistake; it reaches to the end of the 55th.) Of the other mss. he assigns A. B. C (No. 725, 6, 7), to the twelfth, fourteenth and thirteenth centuries respectively. These, and a copy in the Library of New College (N), contain the old text. Two others D, F, (728, and 73 suppl.) exhibit a text compiled from old and new, and with alterations peculiar to itself. Of the six Parisian mss. a full collation was made for "the Library of the Fathers:" of N we have at present but a partial collation.

The ms. E. came into the hands of Erasmus, and from it he made his Latin version, down to the end of Hom. liii. and there for some reason which is not explained he goes off to the other text, of which he has nowhere taken notice in the preceding Homilies. Of this work he says in an Epistle to Tonstal, Bishop of Durham: Ex Chrysostomo in Acta verteram homilias tres; cujus operæ me poenituit, cum nihil hic viderem Chrysostomi. Tuo tamen hortatu recepi codicem in manum; sed nihil unquam legi indoctius. Ebrius ac stertens scriberem meliora. Habet frigidos sensiculos nec eos satis commode potest explicare. In his Preface, however, he considerably abates the severity of this censure, and contents himself with hinting a doubt whether the work be St. Chrysostom's: quod stylus concisum quiddam et abruptum habeat, id quod a phrasi Chrysostomi videtur alienum: si docti tamen censebunt opus Chrysostomo dignum, libenter hoc ego quicquid est suspicionis ponam.

Of the Greek text, the editio princeps, that of Commelin, professes to be formed from manuscripts Biblioth. Palatinæ Bavaræ, Augustanæ, Pistorianæ, of which at present we are unable to give any account. Perhaps Commelin's leading ms. was of a composite order: such however is his text; for it occasionally deserts E, to which, as a general rule, it closely adheres. This was inconsistent, for the circumstances of the two texts are such, that one or other ought to be followed throughout. There can be no valid reason for alternating between the two: for they are not different reports of the same matter, such that between them one might hope to approximate to the truth: the one is a refashionment of the other, and where it differs, it does so, not because its framer had a more correct report of the Sermons, but because he wished to improve upon the materials which lay before him in the other text.

Commelin's text, in substance, is retained in all the subsequent editions. Savile, from the New College ms. has corrected words and phrases here and there, but in the main his text is still that of the editio princeps. (He describes it as composed from the New College ms., another belonging to J. A. de Thou (Thuanus), et tertio non ita pridem excuso in Germania.) The edition of Morel (which commonly goes under the name of Fronto Ducæus) repeats Commelin, but without Savile's emendations: and the Benedictines (here not Montfaucon), though they profess to have collated the Parisian mss., have reprinted with but slight improvements, and with not a few disimprovements, the text of Morel. In the Parisian reprint of the Benedictine Chrysostom (Par. Ben. 2), the Editor has occasionally, but not constantly, recurred to the manuscripts, rarely gives the preference to the text of A. B. C., and constantly assumes the inferiority of those copies, in contents and authenticity as well as in antiquity, to the manuscript (E), which furnished the Latin version of Erasmus, and in substance, as we have explained, the printed text of the original.

Had the Editors collated the manuscript copies of these Homilies--a labor from which they, or those whom they employed, seem to have shrunk--they would probably have reversed their estimate of the relative value of the two recensions. The general superiority of the other text in point of sense and coherence, notwithstanding its frequent abruptness and uncouthness, is too evident to be called in question. Had they also collated the Catena, OEcumenius, Theophylact, and the Scholia, they would have found the external testimony to be coincident with the internal evidence to the higher antiquity as well as greater authenticity of the text which (for the most part unknown) they rejected. It would have been seen that this, besides being, with all its faults, incomparably better, was the older of the two; and that the other could claim no higher antiquity than that of the manuscript (said to be of the tenth century) in which it appears: that it is the work of some scribe, who, offended by the manifest abruptness and ruggedness of the earlier text, set himself to smooth out the difficulties, and to make it read more easily. For this is clearly the true state of the case. With this view, the scribe sometimes alters words and phrases, sometimes transposes: often omits, where he found something that he did not understand, oftener still amplifies, or rather dilutes: and interpolates matter which sometimes is demonstrably borrowed with little disguise from the Catena (see p. 113, note 1; 279, note 3; 280, note 2); or which, when it is his own, is little worth. In short, he has thought more of sound than of sense, and if he could make a passage run smoothly to the ear, has given himself little concern whether St. Chrysostom was likely to have so thought, or so expressed himself. The notes appended to our Translation will abundantly substantiate this censure. To have noted all the variations, either of the printed text, or of E alone, would have been a task as unprofitable as it was wearisome: perhaps as it is, we have given more than enough to vindicate the claims of the older text. If any one desires larger materials for comparison, Erasmus' Latin version, which, except in the two last Homilies, keeps close to E, will show that the text which we represent in our Translation is, with all its imperfections, incomparably the better of the two. Even if it were otherwise and were the alterations not, as they mostly are, disfigurements, but, considered in themselves, decided improvements, still our duty was plain: the text which came to us accredited by all the testimony known to be extant, we were not at liberty to reject in favor of an alien recension, unknown to the Ancients, and, as far as our evidence goes, unheard of before the tenth century. Therefore, in forming the text for this Translation we have entirely dismissed E, except where it has preserved readings which came strictly under the description of "various readings."

But while confining ourselves to that older text, we were not to leave unnoticed its more patent defects and errors. We could not but perceive, that we had before us an unrevised report of St. Chrysostom's Sermons, which, especially in the Expositions, was frequently imperfect--sometimes, indeed, little more than a set of rough notes thrown together, with, apparently, little or no attempt at arrangement. So far as this imperfection was caused by the reporter's negligence or incapacity, there was no remedy: and leaving the matter as we found it, or, at most, inserting in the text the marks of a lacuna, we have only ventured, in the notes, to surmise what may have been the general purport of St. Chrysostom's remarks. In other places, where the defects of our sources seemed to be rather chargeable upon the redactor, we have sought to apply a remedy, sometimes, but rarely, by conjectural emendation; very often by inserting portions of sacred text or other connecting matter in [], and also by transposing parts which had fallen out of their true order. For it seems that the original transcript from the reporter's notes was defective in these two regards. (1) The reporter would frequently omit to note in his tablets the keimenon or some other text of Scripture, or would indicate it in the shortest possible way by a word or two at the beginning and ending of the passage, intending to insert it afterwards at his leisure. It appears, however, that in many places this was either not done at all, or done in the wrong place. Hence where the text seemed incurably defective or perplexed, we have often been able to restore coherency by the simple expedient of inserting texts which were omitted, or else, by removing the texts altogether, and redistributing them among the comments. Almost any page of the Translation, especially in the Recapitulations, will illustrate this remark.

(2) It often happens, that the order of the comments both in the first and in the second exposition (or recapitulation), does not follow the order of the texts. Of course the Preacher might be supposed to have sometimes returned upon his own steps, but it was scarcely conceivable that St. Chrysostom should have delivered an Exposition perplexed, as we often found it, by disjointed remarks thrown together without the slightest method. It was necessary therefore to consider whether it might not be possible to educe something like connected exposition, by assuming that the reporter's notes had been transcribed from his tablets in a wrong order. Where it could be seen that one sentence or portion was given as comment on such a verse, another on some other verse, and so on, some clue to the true order was given us in the sequence of the texts themselves. Even so, the difficulties which beset this part of our task were greater than can be readily estimated by any one who has not tried it. Sometimes the complication resisted all attempts at disentanglement. We are far from supposing that we have done all that might have been done in this way: but it is hoped that the labor which has been bestowed has not been altogether wasted, and that the restoration will carry with it its own evidence. And as in these attempts we have indicated by letters the order in which the trajected parts lie in the manuscripts, the reader in every case has the means of forming his own judgment. In the first seventeen Homilies, we have only now and then resorted to this method: not because it was less needed there, but because we had not then so clearly perceived what was the state of the case, and what was practicable in this way. The eighteenth furnishes a remarkable instance, pp. 116-120. Let any one read it in the order denoted by the letters, i.e. the six parts marked (a) consecutively, then the seven parts marked (b), inserting in the third of the latter (see p. 116, note 3), the comment on v. 25, from page 117, ("And they when they had testified," etc., to "when the Samaritans believed,") and he will have the entire "recapitulation" or second exposition of the history of the Samaritans and Simon Magus as it appears in the mss.--which he will plainly perceive could not have proceeded in that form from St. Chrysostom. The same matter, read as we have arranged it, will be found to form a continuous exposition, not indeed perfect, for the dislocated state into which it had fallen seems to have led to further corruptions on the part of the scribes: but at any rate coherent, and with the parts fitting into each other. Moreover, if the fourteen parts, as here arranged, be numbered 1. 2. 3. etc., it will be seen that the order in which they lie in the mss. is 1. 3. 5: 8. 10. 12: 2. 4. 6: 14: 7. 9. 11. 13., whence it seems that the derangement proceeded by some kind of method. The like was often found to be the case in subsequent instances. In p. 229, the trajection is 1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13: 2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12: i.e., the transcriber missed the alternate portions, and brought them all together at the end. In p. 229 (before the series just noticed), and 260, it is 3. 2. 1., and in 170, 4. 3. 2. 1., i. e. three, and four, parts read in reverse order. In a great number of instances the transposition is only of two parts, 2. 1: sometimes repeated as in 235, 2. 1., 1: 2. 1: 234, 2. 1: 1: 2. 1: 2. 1: 196, 2. 1: 1: 2. 1: 1: 2. 1: 1: 2. 1. A form of frequent occurrence is 2. 4., 1. 3., as in 188, 220, 225, 247; and combined with others as in 213, 2. 4. 1. 3. 2. 1: in 275, 2. 1: 1: 2. 4. 1. 3. and 183, 2. 1: 1: 2. 4. 1. 3: 2. 1. There is the like regularity in the scheme 2. 1. 4. 3., p. 125; and 3. 1. 4. 2. p. 216, 301. In the last Homily, which is extremely confused, the trajection seems to yield this very regular scheme, 2. 4. 6. 1. 3. 5: 1: 5. 3. 1. 6. 4. 2. In other instances where the trajection is less regular, or does not seem to follow a rule, as in 151, 4. 1. 3. 2: 152, 3. 2. 4. 1: 242, 4. 6. 1. 3. 5. 7. 2. 8: 250, 2. 1. 4. 8. 5. 3. 6. 9. 7. and in 298, 316, 321 (on which three see the notes), the transcriber may have gone wrong on other grounds, and not, as in the generality of instances, from mistaking the order in which the reporter had set the matter on his tablets. The trajections we have attempted to remedy occur mostly in the expository parts. In the Ethica it often appeared to us, that the coherency might be greatly improved by transposition, but the evidence of the true order was more precarious here, than where the sequence of the texts furnished a clue; in these parts, therefore, we have rarely ventured upon applying this remedy.

In these ways it is hoped that something has been done towards presenting these Homilies in a form nearer to that in which they were delivered, than the form in which they are exhibited in the unadulterated manuscripts, much more in the printed editions. The task was arduous, and we are far from supposing that our labors have always been successful; but at least we have not spared pains and diligence. The Translation was a work only less difficult than the reconstruction of the text. Here again much indulgence is needed on the score of the difficulty of producing a version, which, while it represented the original with its roughnesses and defects, should not be altogether unreadable. We have attempted, however, to give faithfully, though not always literally, the sense, or what seemed to be the sense, of our materials.

As a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, this Work stands alone among the writings of the first ten centuries. The Expositions of St. Clement of Alexandria (in the Hypotyposes), of Origen, of Diodorus of Tarsus, and St. Chrysostom's teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as of Ammonius and others whose materials are used in the Catena, have perished. Those who are acquainted with the characteristic qualities of St. Chrysostom's exegesis, will perceive here also the same excellencies which mark his other expository works--especially the clear and full exposition of the historical sense, and the exact appreciation of the rhetorical momenta in the discourses of St. Peter, St. Stephen, St. James and St. Paul, as recorded in the Acts. Of the Ethica it is perhaps not too much to affirm, that not the most finished work of St. Chrysostom will be found to furnish more of instruction and interesting matter (apart from the expression) than will be found in these Homilies, on the religious and moral subjects of which they treat: for example, On the delay of Baptism, On spiritual indolence and excuses derived from the cessation of Miraculous Grace, On the nature and uses of Miracles, On Prayer, On the Study of the Scriptures, On Alms, On Anger and Gentleness, Against Oaths and Swearing, and many others. Nor does any work exhibit a livelier portraiture of the character and life of the great Preacher and Bishop, and of the manners of the times in which his lot was cast.


[1] From the same Cassiodorus there is extant a short work on the Acts under the title Complexiones Actuum Apostolorum; but this is merely a brief syllabus of the history, and contains nothing in which we could trace a reference to St. Chrysostom's Exposition.

A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles,

By St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of constantinople. [2]


Homily I.

Acts I. 1, 2

"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day on which, having given charge to the Apostles, whom He had chosen, by the Holy Spirit, He was taken up."

To many persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. [3] For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight. For indeed it may profit us no less than even the Gospels; so replete is it with Christian wisdom and sound doctrine, especially in what is said concerning the Holy Ghost. Then let us not hastily pass by it, but examine it closely. Thus, the predictions which in the Gospels Christ utters, here we may see these actually come to pass; and note in the very facts the bright evidence of Truth which shines in them, and the mighty change which is taking place in the disciples now that the Spirit has come upon them. For example, they heard Christ say, "Whoso believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do" (John xiv. 12): and again, when He foretold to the disciples, that they should be brought before rulers and kings, and in their synagogues they should scourge them, and that they should suffer grievous things, and overcome all (Matt. x. 18): and that the Gospel should be preached in all the world (Ib. xxiv. 14): now all this, how it came to pass exactly as it was said, may be seen in this Book, and more besides, which He told them while yet with them. Here again you will see the Apostles themselves, speeding their way as on wings over land and sea; and those same men, once so timorous and void of understanding, on the sudden become quite other than they were; men despising wealth, and raised above glory and passion and concupiscence, and in short all such affections: moreover, what unanimity there is among them now; nowhere any envying as there was before, nor any of the old hankering after the preeminence, but all virtue brought in them to its last finish, and shining through all, with surpassing lustre, that charity, concerning which the Lord had given so many charges saying, "In this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another." (John xiii. 35.) And then, besides, there are doctrines to be found here, which we could not have known so surely as we now do, if this Book had not existed, but the very crowning point of our salvation would be hidden, alike for practice of life and for doctrine.

The greater part, however, of this work is occupied with the acts of Paul, who "laboured more abundantly than they all." (1 Cor. xv. 10.) And the reason is, that the author of this Book, that is, the blessed Luke, was his companion: a man, whose high qualities, sufficiently visible in many other instances, are especially shown in his firm adherence to his Teacher, whom he constantly followed. [4] Thus at a time when all had forsaken him, one gone into Galatia, another into Dalmatia, hear what he says of this disciple: "Only Luke is with me." (2 Tim. iv. 10.) And giving the Corinthians a charge concerning him, he says, "Whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches." (2 Cor. viii. 18.) Again, when he says, "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve," and, "according to the Gospel which ye received" (1 Cor. xv. 5, 1), he means the Gospel of this Luke. [5] So that there can be no mistake in attributing this work to him: and when I say, to him, I mean, to Christ. [6] And why then did he not relate every thing, seeing he was with Paul to the end? We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themselves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at the time: it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they chiefly dwell is that which pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoken but little concerning His Godhead; it was mostly of the Manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension. For the thing required in the first instance was this, that it should be believed that He was risen, and ascended into heaven. As then the point on which Christ himself most insisted was, to have it known that He was come from the Father, so is it this writer's principal object to declare, that Christ was risen from the dead, and was received up into Heaven, and that He went to God, and came from God. For, if the fact of His coming from God were not first believed, much more, with the Resurrection and Ascension added thereto, would the Jews have found the entire doctrine incredible. Wherefore gently and by degrees he leads them on to higher truths. Nay, at Athens Paul even calls Him man simply, without saying more (Acts xvii. 31). For if, when Christ Himself spoke of His equality with the Father, they often attempted to stone Him, and called Him a blasphemer for this reason, it was little to be expected that they would receive this doctrine from the fishermen, and that too, with the Cross coming before it.

But why speak of the Jews, seeing that even the disciples often upon hearing the more sublime doctrines were troubled and offended? Therefore also He told them, "I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John xvi. 12.) If those could not, who had been so long time with Him, and had been admitted to so many secrets, and had seen so many wonders, how was it to be expected that men, but newly dragged away from altars, and idols, and sacrifices, and cats, and crocodiles (for such did the Gentiles worship), and from the rest of their evil ways, should all at once receive the more sublime matters of doctrine? And how in particular should Jews, hearing as they did every day of their lives, and having it ever sounded in their ears, "The Lord thy God is one Lord, and beside Him is none other" (Deut. vi. 4): who also had seen Him hanging nailed on the Cross, nay, had themselves crucified and buried Him, and not seen Him even risen: when they were told that this same person was God and equal with the Father, how should they, of all men, be otherwise than shocked and revolted? Therefore it is that gently and little by little they carry them on, with much consideration and forbearance letting themselves down to their low attainments, themselves the while enjoying in more plentiful measure the grace of the Spirit, and doing greater works in Christ's name than Christ Himself did, that they may at once raise them up from their grovelling apprehensions, and confirm the saying, that Christ was raised from the dead. For this, in fact, is just what this Book is: a Demonstration of the Resurrection: [7] [8] this being once believed, the rest would come in due course. The subject then and entire scope of this Book, in the main, is just what I have said. And now let us hear the Preface itself.

"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach." (v. 1) Why does he put him in mind of the Gospel? To intimate how strictly he may be depended upon. For at the outset of the former work he says, "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order." (Luke i. 3.) Neither is he content with his own testimony, but refers the whole matter to the Apostles, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." (Luke i. 2.) Having then accredited his account in the former instance, he has no need to put forth his credentials afresh for this treatise, seeing his disciple has been once for all satisfied, and by the mention of that former work he has reminded him of the strict reliance to be placed in him for the truth. For if a person has shown himself competent and trustworthy to write of things which he has heard, and moreover has obtained our confidence, much more will he have a right to our confidence when he has composed an account, not of things which he has received from others, but of things which he has seen and heard. For thou didst receive what relates to Christ; much more wilt thou receive what concerns the Apostles.

What then, (it may be asked), is it a question only of history, with which the Holy Spirit has nothing to do? Not so. For, if "those delivered it unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word;" then, what he says, is theirs. And why did he not say, `As they who were counted worthy of the Holy Spirit delivered them unto us;' but "Those who were eyewitnesses?" Because, in matter of belief, the very thing that gives one a right to be believed, is the having learned from eyewitnesses: whereas the other appears to foolish persons mere parade and pretension. And therefore John also speaks thus: "I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." (John. i. 34.) And Christ expresses Himself in the same way to Nicodemus, while he was dull of apprehension, "We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and no one receiveth our witness." (Ib. iii. 11.) Accordingly, He gave them leave to rest their testimony in many particulars on the fact of their having seen them, when He said, "And do ye bear witness concerning Me, because ye have been with Me from the beginning." (John xv. 27.) The Apostles themselves also often speak in a similar manner; "We are witnesses, and the Holy Spirit which God hath given to those that obey Him." (Acts ii. 32); and on a subsequent occasion, Peter, still giving assurance of the Resurrection, said, "Seeing we did eat and drink with Him." (Acts x. 41.) For they more readily received the testimony of persons who had been His companions, because the notion of the Spirit was as yet very much beyond them. Therefore John also at that time, in his Gospel, speaking of the blood and water, said, he himself saw it, making the fact of his having seen it equivalent, for them, to the highest testimony, although the witness of the Spirit is more certain than the evidence of sight, but not so with unbelievers. Now that Luke was a partaker of the Spirit, is abundantly clear, both from the miracles which even now take place; and from the fact that in those times even ordinary persons were gifted with the Holy Ghost; and again from the testimony of Paul, in these words, "Whose praise is in the Gospel" (2 Cor. viii. 18); and from the appointment to which he was chosen: for having said this, the Apostle adds, "But also appointed of the Churches to travel with us with this grace which is administered by us." [9]

Now mark how unassuming he is. He does not say, The former Gospel which I preached, but, "The former treatise have I made;" accounting the title of Gospel to be too great for him; although it is on the score of this that the Apostle dignifies him: "Whose praise," he says, "is in the Gospel." But he himself modestly says, "The former treatise have I made--O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach:" not simply "of all," but from the beginning to the end; "until the day," he says, "in which He was taken up." And yet John says, that it was not possible to write all: for "were they written, I suppose," says he, "that even the world itself could not contain the books written." (John xxi. 25.) How then does the Evangelist here say, "Of all?" He does not say "all," but "of all," as much as to say, "in a summary way, and in the gross;" and "of all that is mainly and pressingly important." Then he tells us in what sense he says all, when he adds, "Which Jesus began both to do and to teach;" meaning His miracles and teaching; and not only so, but implying that His doing was also a teaching.

But now consider the benevolent and Apostolic feelings of the writer: that for the sake of a single individual he took such pains as to write for him an entire Gospel. "That thou mightest have," he says, "the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." (Luke i. 4.) In truth, he had heard Christ say, "It is not the will of My Father that one of these little ones should perish." (Matt. xviii. 14.) And why did he not make one book of it, to send to one man Theophilus, but has divided it into two subjects? For clearness, and to give the brother a pause for rest. Besides, the two treatises are distinct in their subject-matter.

But consider how Christ accredited his words by His deeds. Thus He saith, "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart." (Ib. xi. 29.) He taught men to be poor, [10] [11] and exhibited this by His actions: "For the Son of Man," He says, "hath not where to lay His head." (Ib. viii. 20.) Again, He charged men to love their enemies; and He taught the same lesson on the Cross, when He prayed for those who were crucifying Him. He said, "If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (Ib. v. 40): now He not only gave His garments, but even His blood. In this way He bade others teach. Wherefore Paul also said, "So as ye have us for an example." (Philip. iii. 17.) For nothing is more frigid than a teacher who shows his philosophy only in words: this is to act the part not of a teacher, but of a hypocrite. Therefore the Apostles first taught by their conduct, and then by their words; nay rather they had no need of words, when their deeds spoke so loud. Nor is it wrong to speak of Christ's Passion as action, for in suffering all He performed that great and wonderful act, by which He destroyed death, and effected all else that He did for us.

"Until the day in which He was taken up, after that He, through the Holy Spirit, had given commandments unto the Apostles whom He had chosen. After He had given commandments through the Spirit" (v. 2); i.e. they were spiritual words that He spake unto them, nothing human; either this is the meaning, or, that it was by the Spirit that He gave them commandments. [12] Do you observe in what low terms he still speaks of Christ, as in fact Christ had spoken of Himself? "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils" (Matt. xii. 28); for indeed the Holy Ghost wrought in that Temple. Well, what did He command? "Go ye therefore," He says, "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." (Ib. xxviii. 19, 20.) A high encomium this for the Apostles; to have such a charge entrusted to them, I mean, the salvation of the world! words full of the Spirit! And this the writer hints at in the expression, "through the Holy Ghost" (and, "the words which I spake unto you," saith the Lord, "are Spirit") (John vi. 63); thus leading the hearer on to a desire of learning what the commands were, and establishing the authority of the Apostles, seeing it is the words of the Spirit they are about to speak, and the commandments of Christ. "After He had given commandments," he says, "He was taken up." He does not say, `ascended;' he still speaks as concerning a man. It appears then that He also taught the Disciples after His resurrection, but of this space of time no one has related to us the whole in detail. St. John indeed, as also does the present writer, dwells at greater length on this subject than the others; but none has clearly related every thing (for they hastened to something else); however, we have learnt these things through the Apostles, for what they heard, that did they tell. "To whom also He shewed Himself alive." Having first spoken of the Ascension, he adverts to the Resurrection; for since thou hast been told that "He was taken up," therefore, lest thou shouldest suppose Him to have been taken up by others [13] , he adds, "To whom He shewed Himself alive." For if He shewed Himself in the greater, surely He did in the minor circumstance. Seest thou, how casually and unperceived he drops by the way the seeds of these great doctrines? [14]

"Being seen of them during forty days." He was not always with them now, as He was before the Resurrection. For the writer does not say "forty days," but, "during forty days." He came, and again disappeared; by this leading them on to higher conceptions, and no longer permitting them to stand affected towards Him in the same way as before, but taking effectual measures to secure both these objects, that the fact of His Resurrection should be believed, and that He Himself should be ever after apprehended to be greater than man. At the same time, these were two opposite things; for in order to the belief in His Resurrection, much was to be done of a human character, and for the other object, just the reverse. Nevertheless, both results have been effected, each when the fitting time arrived.

But why did He appear not to all, but to the Apostles only? [15] Because to the many it would have seemed a mere apparition, inasmuch as they understood not the secret of the mystery. For if the disciples themselves were at first incredulous and were troubled, and needed the evidence of actual touch with the hand, and of His eating with them, how would it have fared in all likelihood with the multitude? For this reason therefore by the miracles [wrought by the Apostles] He renders the evidence of His Resurrection unequivocal, so that not only the men of those times--this is what would come of the ocular proof--but also all men thereafter, should be certain of the fact, that He was risen. Upon this ground also we argue with unbelievers. For if He did not rise again, but remains dead, how did the Apostles perform miracles in His name? But they did not, say you, perform miracles? How then was our religion (ethnos) instituted? For this certainly they will not controvert nor impugn what we see with our eyes: so that when they say that no miracles took place, they inflict a worse stab [16] upon themselves. For this would be the greatest of miracles, that without any miracles, the whole world should have eagerly come to be taken in the nets of twelve poor and illiterate men. For not by wealth of money, not by wisdom of words, not by any thing else of this kind, did the fishermen prevail; so that objectors must even against their will acknowledge that there was in these men a Divine power, for no human strength could ever possibly effect such great results. For this He then remained forty days on earth, furnishing in this length of time the sure evidence of their seeing Him in His own proper Person, that they might not suppose that what they saw was a phantom. And not content with this, He added also the evidence of eating with them at their board: as to signify this, the writer adds, "And being at table [17] with them, He commanded." [18] (v. 4.) And this circumstance the Apostles themselves always put forth as an fallible token of the Resurrection; as where they say, "Who did eat and drink with Him." (Acts x. 41.)

And what did He, when appearing unto them those forty days? Why, He conversed with them, says the writer, "concerning the kingdom of God." (v. 3.) For, since the disciples both had been distressed and troubled at the things which already had taken place, and were about to go forth to encounter great difficulties, He recovered them by His discourses concerning the future. "He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father." (v. 4.) First, He led them out to Galilee, afraid and trembling, in order that they might listen to His words in security. Afterwards, when they had heard, and had passed forty days with Him, "He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem." Wherefore? Just as when soldiers are to charge a multitude, no one thinks of letting them issue forth until they have armed themselves, or as horses are not suffered to start from the barriers until they have got their charioteer; so Christ did not suffer these to appear in the field before the descent of the Spirit, that they might not be in a condition to be easily defeated and taken captive by the many. Nor was this the only reason, but also there were many in Jerusalem who should believe. And then again that it might not be said, that leaving their own acquaintance, they had gone to make a parade among strangers, therefore among those very men who had put Christ to death do they exhibit the proofs of His Resurrection, among those who had crucified and buried Him, in the very town in which the iniquitous deed had been perpetrated; thereby stopping the mouths of all foreign objectors. For when those even who had crucified Him appear as believers, clearly this proved both the fact of the crucifixion and the iniquity of the deed, and afforded a mighty evidence of the Resurrection. Furthermore, lest the Apostles should say, How shall it be possible for us to live among wicked and bloody men, they so many in number, we so few and contemptible, observe how He does away their fear and distress, by these words, "But wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of Me." (v. 4.) You will say, When had they heard this? When He said, "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you." (John xvi. 7.) And again, "I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter, that He may abide with you." (ib. xiv. 16.)

But why did the Holy Ghost come to them, not while Christ was present, nor even immediately after his departure, but, whereas Christ ascended on the fortieth day, the Spirit descended "when the day of Pentecost," that is, the fiftieth, "was fully come?" (Acts ii. 1.) And how was it, if the Spirit had not yet come, that He said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost?" (John xx. 22.) In order to render them capable and meet for the reception of Him. For if Daniel fainted at the sight of an Angel (Dan. viii. 17), much more would these when about to receive so great a grace. Either this then is to be said, or else that Christ spoke of what was to come, as if come already; as when He said, "Tread ye upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the devil." (Luke x. 19.) But why had the Holy Ghost not yet come? It was fit that they should first be brought to have a longing desire for that event, and so receive the grace. For this reason Christ Himself departed, and then the Spirit descended. For had He Himself been there, they would not have expected the Spirit so earnestly as they did. On this account neither did He come immediately after Christ's Ascension, but after eight or nine days. It is the same with us also; for our desires towards God are then most raised, when we stand in need. Accordingly, John chose that time to send his disciples to Christ when they were likely to feel their need of Jesus, during his own imprisonment. Besides, it was fit that our nature should be seen in heaven, and that the reconciliation should be perfected, and then the Spirit should come, and the joy should be unalloyed. For, if the Spirit being already come, Christ had then departed, and the Spirit remained; the consolation would not have been so great as it was. For in fact they clung to Him, and could not bear to part with Him; wherefore also to comfort them He said, "It is expedient for you that I go away." (John xvi. 7.) On this account He also waits during those intermediate days, that they might first despond for awhile, and be made, as I said, to feel their need of Him. and then reap a full and unalloyed delight. But if the Spirit were inferior to the Son, the consolation would not have been adequate; and how could He have said, "It is expedient for you?" For this reason the greater matters of teaching were reserved for the Spirit, that the disciples might not imagine Him inferior.

Consider also how necessary He made it for them to abide in Jerusalem, by promising that the Spirit should be granted them. For lest they should again flee away after His Ascension, by this expectation, as by a bond, He keeps them to that spot. But having said, "Wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of Me," He then adds, "For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." (v. 4, 5.) For now indeed He gives them to see the difference there was betwixt Him and John, plainly, and not as heretofore in obscure hints; for in fact He had spoken very obscurely, when He said, "Notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he:" but now He says plainly, "John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." (Matt. xi. 11.) And he no longer uses the testimony, but merely adverts to the person of John, reminding the disciples of what he had said, and shows them that they are now become greater than John; seeing they too are to baptize with the Spirit. Again, He did not say, I baptize you with the Holy Ghost, but, "Ye shall be baptized:" teaching us humility. For this was plain enough from the testimonyof John, that it was Christ Himself Who should baptize: "He it is that shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire" (Luke iii. 16.); wherefore also He made mention of John. [19]

The Gospels, then, are a history of what Christ did and said; but the Acts, of what that "other Comforter" said and did. Not but that the Spirit did many things in the Gospels also; even as Christ here in the Acts still works in men as He did in the Gospels: only then the Spirit wrought through the Temple, now through the Apostles: then, He came into the Virgin's womb, and fashioned the Temple; now, into Apostolic souls: then in the likeness of a dove; now, in the likeness of fire. And wherefore? Showing there the gentleness of the Lord, but here His taking vengeance also, He now puts them in mind of the judgment likewise. For, when need was to forgive, need was there of much gentleness; but now we have obtained the gift, it is henceforth a time for judgment and examination.

But why does Christ say, "Ye shall be baptized," when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided. For in the beginning they were baptized by John; since, if harlots and publicans went to that baptism, much rather would they who thereafter were to be baptized by the Holy Ghost. Then, that the Apostles might not say, that they were always having it held out to them in promises (John xiv. 15, 16), (for indeed Christ had already discoursed much to them concerning the Spirit, that they should not imagine It to be an impersonal Energy or Operation, (energeian anupostaton) that they might not say this, then, He adds, "not many days hence." And He did not explain when, that they might always watch: but, that it would soon take place, He told them, that they might not faint; yet the exact time He refrained from adding, that they might always be vigilant. Nor does He assure them by this alone; I mean, by the shortness of the time, but withal by saying, "The promise which ye have heard of Me." For this is not, saith He, the only time I have told you, but already I have promised what I shall certainly perform. What wonder then that He does not signify the day of the final consummation, when this day which was so near He did not choose to reveal? And with good reason; to the end they may be ever wakeful, and in a state of expectation and earnest heed.

For it cannot, it cannot be, that a man should enjoy the benefit of grace except he watch. Seest thou not what Elias saith to his disciple? "If thou see me when I am taken up" (2 Kings ii. 10), this that thou askest shall be done for thee. Christ also was ever wont to say unto those that came unto Him, "Believest thou?" For if we be not appropriated and made over to the thing given, [20] neither do we greatly feel the benefit. So it was also in the case of Paul; grace did not come to him immediately, but three days intervened, during which he was blind; purified the while, and prepared by fear. For as those who dye the purple first season with other ingredients the cloth that is to receive the dye, that the bloom may not be fleeting; [21] so in this instance God first takes order that the soul shall be thoroughly in earnest, and then pours forth His grace. On this account also, neither did He immediately send the Spirit, but on the fiftieth day. Now if any one ask, why we also do not baptize at that season of Pentecost? we may answer, that grace is the same now as then; [22] but the mind becomes more elevated now, by being prepared through fasting. And the season too of Pentecost furnishes a not unlikely reason. What may that be? Our fathers held Baptism to be just the proper curb upon evil concupiscence, and a powerful lesson for teaching to be sober-minded even in a time of delights.

As if then we were banquetting with Christ Himself, and partaking of His table, let us do nothing at random, but let us pass our time in fastings, and prayers, and much sobriety of mind. For if a man who is destined to enter upon some temporal government, prepares himself all his life long, and that he may obtain some dignity, lays out his money, spends his time, and submits to endless troubles; what shall we deserve, who draw near to the kingdom of heaven with such negligence, and both show no earnestness before we have received, and after having received are again negligent? Nay, this is the very reason why we are negligent after having received, that we did not watch before we had received. Therefore many, after they have received, immediately have returned to their former vomit, and have become more wicked, and drawn upon themselves a more severe punishment; when having been delivered from their former sins, herein they have more grievously provoked the Judge, that having been delivered from so great a disease, still they did not learn sobriety, but that has happened unto them, which Christ threatened to the paralytic man, saying, "Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John v. 14): and which He also predicted of the Jews, that "the last state shall be worse than the first." (Matt. xii. 45.) For if, saith He, showing that by their ingratitude they should bring upon them the worst of evils, "if I had not come, and spoken unto them, they had not had sin" (John xv. 22); so that the guilt of sins committed after these benefits is doubled and quadrupled, in that, after the honour put upon us, we show ourselves ungrateful and wicked. And the Laver of Baptism helps not a whit to procure for us a milder punishment. And consider: a man has gotten grievous sins by committing murder or adultery, or some other crime: these were remitted through Baptism. For there is no sin, no impiety, which does not yield and give place to this gift; for the Grace is Divine. A man has again committed adultery and murder; the former adultery is indeed done away, the murder forgiven, and not brought up again to his charge, "for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. xi. 29); but for those committed after Baptism he suffers a punishment as great as he would if both the former sins were brought up again, and many worse than these. For the guilt is no longer simply equal, but doubled and tripled. [23] Look: in proof that the penalty of these sins is greater, hear what St. Paul says: "He that despised Moses' law died without mercy, under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. x. 28, 29.)

Perhaps we have now deterred many from receiving baptism. Not however with this intention have we so spoken, but on purpose that having received it, they may continue in temperance and much moderation. `But I am afraid,' says one. If thou wert afraid, thou wouldest have received and guarded it. `Nay,' saith he, `but this is the very reason why I do not receive it,--that I am frightened.' And art thou not afraid to depart thus? `God is merciful,' saith he. Receive baptism then, because He is merciful and ready to help. But thou, where to be in earnest is the thing required, dost not allege this mercifulness; thou thinkest of this only where thou hast a mind to do so. And yet that was the time to resort to God's mercy, and we shall then be surest of obtaining it, when we do our part. For he that has cast the whole matter upon God, and, after his baptism, sins, as being man it is likely, he may, and repents, shall obtain mercy; whereas he that prevaricates with God's mercy, and departs this life with no portion in that grace, shall have his punishment without a word to be said for him. `But how if he depart,' say you, `after having had the grace vouchsafed to him?' He will depart empty again of all good works. [24] For it is impossible, yes, it is in my opinion impossible, that the man who upon such hopes dallied with baptism should have effected ought generous and good. And why dost thou harbor such fear, and presume upon the uncertain chance of the future? Why not convert this fear into labor and earnestness, and thou shalt be great and admirable? Which is best, to fear or to labor? Suppose some one to have placed thee, having nothing to do, in a tottering house, saying, Look for the decaying roof to fall upon thy head: for perhaps it will fall, perhaps not; but if thou hadst rather it should not, then work and inhabit the more secure apartment: which wouldest thou have rather chosen, that idle condition accompanied with fear, or this labor with confidence? Why then, act now in the same way. For the uncertain future is like a decayed house, ever threatening to fall; but this work, laborious though it be, ensures safety.

Now God forbid that it should happen to us to fall into so great straits as to sin after baptism. However, even if aught such should happen, God is merciful, and has given us many ways of obtaining remission even after this. But just as those who sin after baptism are punished for this reason more severely than the Catechumens, so again, those who know that there are medicines in repentance, and yet will not make use of them, will undergo a more grievous chastisement. For by how much the mercy of God is enlarged, by so much does the punishment increase, if we do not duly profit by that mercy. What sayest thou, O man? When thou wast full of such grievous evils, and given over, suddenly thou becamest a friend, and wast exalted to the highest honor, not by labors of thine own, but by the gift of God: thou didst again return to thy former misconduct; and though thou didst deserve to be sorely punished, nevertheless, God did not turn away, but gave unnumbered opportunities of salvation, whereby thou mayest yet become a friend: yet for all this, thou hast not the will to labor. What forgiveness canst thou deserve henceforth? Will not the Gentiles with good reason deride thee as a worthless drone? For if there be power in that doctrine of yours, say they, what means this multitude of uninitiated persons? If the mysteries be excellent and desirable, let none receive baptism at his last gasp. For that is not the time for giving of mysteries but for making of wills; the time for mysteries is in health of mind and soundness of soul. For, if a man would not prefer to make his will in such a condition; and if he does so make it, he gives a handle for subsequent litigation (and this is the reason why testators premise these words: "Alive, in my senses, and in health, I make this disposal of my property:"), how should it be possible for a person who is no longer master of his senses to go through the right course of preparation for the sacred mysteries? [25] For if in the affairs of this life, the laws of the world would not permit a man who was not perfectly sound in mind to make a will, although it be in his own affairs that he would lay down the law; how, when thou art receiving instruction concerning the kingdom of heaven, and the unspeakable riches of that world, shall it be possible for thee to learn all clearly, when very likely too thou art beside thyself through the violence of thy malady? And when wilt thou say those words [26] to Christ, in the act of being buried with Him when at the point to depart hence? For indeed both by works and by words must we show our good will towards Him. (Rom. vi. 4.) Now what thou art doing is all one, as if a man should want to be enlisted as a soldier, when the war is just about to break up; or to strip for the contest in the arena, just when the spectators have risen from their seats. For thou hast thine arms given thee, not that thou shouldest straightway depart hence, but that being equipped therewith, thou mayest raise a trophy over the enemy. Let no one think that it is out of season to discourse on this subject, because it is not Lent now. Nay, this it is that vexes me, that ye look to a set time in such matters. Whereas that Eunuch, barbarian as he was and on a journey, yea on the very highway, he did not seek for a set time (Acts viii. 27); no, nor the jailer, though he was in the midst of a set of prisoners, and the teacher he saw before him was a man scourged and in chains, and whom he was still to have in his custody. (ib. xvi. 29.) But here, not being inmates of a jail, nor out on a journey, many are putting off their baptism even to their last breath.

Now if thou still questionest that Christ is God, stand away from the Church: be not here, even as a hearer of the Divine Word, and as one of the catechumens: [27] but if thou art sure of this, and knowest clearly this truth, why delay? Why shrink back and hesitate? For fear, say you, lest I should sin. But dost thou not fear what is worse, to depart for the next world with such a heavy burden? For it is not equally excusable, not to have gotten a grace set before you, and to have failed in attempting to live uprightly. If thou be called to account, Why didst thou not come for it? what wilt thou answer? In the other case thou mayest allege the burden of thy passions, and the difficulty of a virtuous life: but nothing of the kind here. For here is grace, freely conveying liberty. But thou fearest lest thou shouldest sin? Let this be thy language after Baptism: and then entertain this fear, in order to hold fast the liberty thou hast received; not now, to prevent thy receiving such a gift. Whereas now thou art wary before baptism, and negligent after it. But thou art waiting for Lent: and why? Has that season any advantage? Nay, it was not at the Passover that the Apostles received [28] the grace, but at another season; and then three thousand (Luke says,) and five thousand were baptized: (ch. ii. 41; iv. 4, and ch. x.) and again Cornelius. Let us then not wait for a set time, lest by hesitating and putting off we depart empty, and destitute of so great gifts. What do you suppose is my anguish when I hear that any person has been taken away unbaptized, while I reflect upon the intolerable punishments of that life, the inexorable doom! Again, how I am grieved to behold others drawing near to their last gasp, and not brought to their right mind even then. Hence too it is that scenes take place quite unworthy of this gift. For whereas there ought to be joy, and dancing, and exultation, and wearing of garlands, when another is christened; the wife of the sick man has no sooner heard that the physician has ordered this, than she is overcome with grief, as if it were some dire calamity; she sets up the greatest lamentation, and nothing is heard all over the house but crying and wailing, just as it is when condemned criminals are led away to their doom. The sick man again is then more sorely grieved; and if he recovers from his illness, is as vexed as if some great harm had been done to him. For since he had not been prepared for a virtuous life, he has no heart for the conflicts which are to follow, and shrinks at the thought of them. Do you see what devices the devil contrives, what shame, what ridicule? Let us rid ourselves of this disgrace; let us live as Christ has enjoined. He gave us Baptism, not that we should receive and depart, but that we should show the fruits of it in our after life. How can one say to him who is departing and broken down, Bear fruit? Hast thou not heard that "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace?" (Gal. v. 22.) How comes it then that the very contrary takes place here? For the wife stands there mourning, when she ought to rejoice; the children weeping, when they ought to be glad together; the sick man himself lies there in darkness, and surrounded by noise and tumult, when he ought to be keeping high festival; full of exceeding despondency at the thought of leaving his children orphans, his wife a widow, his house desolate. Is this a state in which to draw near unto mysteries? answer me; is this a state in which to approach the sacred table? [29] Are such scenes to be tolerated? Should the Emperor send letters and release the prisoners in the jails, there is joy and gladness: God sends down the Holy Ghost from Heaven to remit not arrears of money, but a whole mass of sins, and do ye all bewail and lament? Why, how grossly unsuitable is this! Not to mention that sometimes it is upon the dead that the water has been poured, and holy mysteries flung upon the ground. However, not we are to blame for this, but men who are so perverse. I exhort you then to leave all, and turn and draw near to Baptism with all alacrity, that having given proof of great earnestness at this present time, we may obtain confidence for that which is to come; whereunto that we may attain, may it be granted unto us all by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.


[3] St. Chrys. had made the same complaint at Antioch in the Homilies (a.d. 387) in Principium Actorum, etc. t. iii. p. 54. "We are about to set before you a strange and new dish....strange, I say, and not strange. Not strange; for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture: and yet strange; because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. Certainly, there are many to whom this Book is not even known (pollois goun to biblion touto oude gnorimon esti) and many again think it so plain, that they slight it: thus to some men their knowledge, to some their ignorance, is the cause of their neglect......We are to enquire then who wrote it, and when, and on what subject: and why it is ordered (nenomothetetai) to be read at this festival. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year's end to year's end." [4] The two reasons which Chrysostom urges for the study of the Acts are also the two chief grounds upon which modern criticism depends for establishing not only the general trust-worthiness of the book, but also its authorship by Luke. They are in substance, (1) The continuity of the history as connected with the gospels and, particularly, coincidences of style, matter and diction with the third gospel, and (2) The remarkable undesigned coincidences of statement between the Acts and Pauline Epistles which exclude the possibility of inter-dependence. From Col. i. 11, 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11, we learn that Luke was a close companion of Paul. In the part of the Book of Acts which treats especially of the work of Paul, the writer frequently refers to himself in the use of the first person plural as an associate of the apostle (vid. xvi, 10; xx. 6 sq.; xxi. 1 sq.; xxvii. 1). These considerations demonstrate the fitness of Luke to prepare such a treatise as the Acts and render the supposition of his authorship plausible. When they are combined with those mentioned under (1) and when the dedication of both books to a certain Theophilus is considered, the argument becomes very cogent and complete.--G.B.S. [5] The reference in the Text of the expression: "the Gospel which ye received," (1 Cor. xv. 1) to Luke's "gospel" is, of course, groundless. Paul speaks of it as the gospel which he preached unto them. It is "his gospel" as in Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25; Gal. i. 11, etc. The use of euangelion to denote a book is post-apostolic.--G.B.S. [6] Hom. in Princip. Act. p. 54. "First we must see who wrote the Book....whether a man, or God: and if man, let us reject it; for, `Call no man master upon earth:' but if God, let us receive it." [7] Hom. cur in Pentec. Acta legantur, t. iii. p. 89. E. "The demonstration of the Resurrection is, the Apostolic miracles: and of the Apostolic miracles this Book is the school." [8] The statement that the Acts is a "Demonstration of the Resurrection" has a certain profound truth, but is incorrect if intending to assert that such was the conscious purpose of the author. The resurrection of Jesus is a prominent theme in the Apostolic discourses but the book is no more designed primarily to prove the resurrection than are the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The immediate purpose of the book is to record the labors and triumphs of the Apostolic Church as supplementary to the narrative of the teaching and work of Jesus (i. 1, 2). The events narrated presuppose the resurrection and would have been impossible without it.--G.B.S. [9] Chrys. states too confidently that "the brother" whose praise is referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18, is Luke. It cannot be determined who this "brother" was. See Meyer in loco. Other conjectures are: Barnabas, Mark, Erastus, and an actual brother of Titus.--G.B.S. [10] Ms. C. has oiktirmonas, merciful; the rest, aktemonas, without possessions, which is certainly the true reading. Thus in the Sermon de futuræ Vitæ deliciis, where Chrys. discourses largely on the harmony of Christ's teaching and actions, he says, Palin aktemosunen paideuon, hora pos dia ton ergon auten epideiknutai, legon, Hai alopekes, k. t. l. [11] "He taught them to be poor." Here we have a tinge of asceticism. Even if we suppose that the beatitude of the poor refers to literal poverty (Luke vi. 20) as well as to poverty in spirit (Matt. v. 3), it is still incorrect to say that Jesus taught his disciples that poverty was in itself a virtue. The ascetic principle is of heathen, not of Christian origin. It is noticeable that Chrys. quotes no passage to sustain his statement.--G.B.S. [12] The latter is doubtless the correct interpretation. (So Meyer, Hackett). Cf. Matt. xii. 28; John iii. 34; Luke iv. 1.--G.B.S. [13] i.e. as OEcumenius explains in l. ina me tis nomise eterou ounamei touto genesthai, lest any should suppose this to have been done by the power of another, he adds, to show that it was His own act, To whom also, etc. [14] It is more than doubtful whether the mention of the resurrection is introduced (i. 3 sq.) for the purpose of meeting sceptical objections. The writer will rather make it the point of departure for his subsequent narrative. He has mentioned the ascension; the resurrection is the other great event and he will introduce a resumé of the more important circumstances which happened during the period between these two events and which have an important bearing upon the history about to be related.--G.B.S. [15] Chrys. seems to overlook the appearance "to above five hundred brethren at once," 1 Cor. xv. 6.--G.B.S. [16] Peripeirousi, ms. C. and Cat. (see 1 Tim. vi. 9, pierced themselves through with many sorrows), and in this sense Hom. in Matt. 455 B. 463 A. The word is used as here, ibid. 831 C. where several mss. have pantachou he plane heauten peripeirei, for heaute peripiptei. [17] Sunalizomenos. In the margin of E.V. "Eating together with them." The Catena here and below, had pr. man. the other reading, sunaulizomenos, but corrected in both places. St. Chrys. so takes the word, Hom. in Princip. Act. §11.767 E. in Joann. 522 D. OEcumen. in 1. explains it, toutesti koinonon halon, koinonon trapezes, "Partaking of the salt, partaking of the table." [18] Chrys. here follows the interpretation which derives sunalizomenos (i. 4) from sun and hals (salt) hence, eating together. So several ancient authorities as Vulgate (convesceus) and even modern, as Meyer. But the preferable derivation is from sun and hales (crowded), hence to be assembled, to meet with (sc. autois). So Olshausen, Hackett, Lechler, Thayer's Lex. and most modern authorities.--G.B.S. [19] So mss. C. F. D. and the Catena. The others have monou autou, "of him (John) alone," not of his testimony. [20] 'Ean gar me oikeiothomen pros to didomenon. Erasm. Nisi rei datæ addicti fuerimus. [21] Hoi ten halourgida baptontes....hina me exitelon genetai to anthos. Comp. Plat. Republ. iv. vol. i. p. 289. Stallb. Oukoun oistha, en d' ego, hoti hoi bapheis, epeidan boulethosi bapsai eria host' einai halourga, proton men eklegontai ek tosouton chromaton mian phusin ten ton leukon, epeita proparaskeuazousi ouk olige para skeu& 219; therapeusantes hopos dexetai hoti malista to anthos, kai houto de baptousi. [22] The question, fully expressed, is, `Why do we baptize, not at Pentecost, but on Easter Eve?' And the answer is, `Because the lenten fast forms a meet preparation for the reception of baptism. And moreover, there is a reason which weighed with our fathers, in respect of this season of the fifty days, the time of the Church's great festivity. The baptism newly received would restrain the neophytes from giving loose to carnal lusts; having prepared them to keep the feast with a holy and awful gladness.' It should be borne in mind, that these Homilies were commenced during the Pentekoste, i.e. the period of fifty days between Easter and Pentecost; at which season the Book of Acts was usually read in the Churches. [23] This view, that baptism cleansed from all sin, and that, therefore, sin after baptism was far more heinous and hard to be forgiven, held wide sway in the early church and operated as a powerful motive for the delay of baptism. The reception of the grace of baptism involves this increased liability to deadlier sin. For this reason Tertullian had urged its postponement. "And so according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children." "If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay," etc. De Baptismo, xviii. Chrys. did not carry the idea to this length.--G.B.S. [24] Ti oun han kataxiotheis phesin apeleusetai palin kenos katorthomaton, Cod. C, and so A, but with apeleuse In the latter recension this sentence is omitted, and instead of it, we have, Ti de tauta kata tes seautou soterias proballe; `But why dost thou put forth such pretences against thine own salvation?' Chrys. had just said, apelthon amoiros tes charitos apairaiteton hexei ten timorion. The objector (with the usual prevaricating formula, ti oun e& 129;n to kai to; Hom. in Matt. 229 D.) says: ti oun an kataxiotheis, sc. tes charitos apelthe; to which Chrys. answers: 'Apeleusetai palin kenos katorthomaton: He will depart as empty of good works as he was before his baptism: adding, For it is, I think, utterly impossible that such an one [though he should live ever so long after baptism] would have wrought out his own salvation. [25] Meta akribeias mustagogeisthai: alluding to the katechesis mustagogike, i.e. the course of instruction by which the catechumens were prepared for baptism. See the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. [26] Ta rh& 208;mata ekeina: i.e. not (as Ben. seems to interpret) "Buried with Christ;" as if this were part of the form of words put into the mouth of the person to be baptized; but the words, "I renounce thee, O Satan, and all thy angels, and all thy service, and all thy pomp: and I enlist myself with Thee, O Christ." St. Chrysost. Serm. ad pop. Antioch, xxi. p. 244. The words, "buried with Him," serve to show more clearly the absurdity of such delay: "we are `buried with Christ in His death,' that we may rise again to newness of life, not that we should pass at once from the spiritual burial to the literal." [27] The catechumens were allowed to be present at the first part of the service (Missa catechumenorum); and were dismissed after the Sermon, before the proper Prayers of the Church, or Missa Fidelium. [28] Katexiothesan tes charitos, as above, p. 8, note 1, ti oun an kataxiotheis; [29] The Holy Communion, administered immediately after baptism. .

Homily II.

Acts I. 6

"When they therefore were come together, they asked of Him, saying, Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?"

When the disciples intend to ask anything, they approach Him together, that by dint of numbers they may abash Him into compliance. They well knew that in what He had said previously, "Of that day knoweth no man" (Matt. xxiv. 36), He had merely declined telling them: therefore they again drew near, and put the question. They would not have put it had they been truly satisfied with that answer. For having heard that they were about to receive the Holy Ghost, they, as being now worthy of instruction, desired to learn. Also they were quite ready for freedom: for they had no mind to address themselves to danger; what they wished was to breathe freely again; for they were no light matters that had happened to them, but the utmost peril had impended over them. And without saying any thing to Him of the Holy Ghost, they put this question: "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" They did not ask, when? but whether "at this time." So eager were they for that day. Indeed, to me it appears that they had not any clear notion of the nature of that kingdom; for the Spirit had not yet instructed them. [30] And they do not say, When shall these things be? but they approach Him with greater honour, saying, "Wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom," as being now already fallen. For there they were still affected towards sensible objects, seeing they were not yet become better than those who were before them; here they have henceforth high conceptions concerning Christ. Since then their minds are elevated, He also speaks to them in a higher strain. For He no longer tells them, "Of that day not even the Son of Man knoweth" (Mark xiii. 32); but He says, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father hath put in His own power (Acts i. 7.) Ye ask things greater than your capacity, He would say. And yet even now they learned things that were much greater than this. And that you may see that this is strictly the case, look how many things I shall enumerate. What, I pray you, was greater than their having learned what they did learn? Thus, they learned that there is a Son of God, and that God has a Son equal with Himself in dignity (John v. 17-20); they learned that there will be a resurrection (Matt. xvii. 9); that when He ascended He sat on the right hand of God (Luke xxii. 69); and what is still more stupendous, that Flesh is seated in heaven, and adored by Angels, and that He will come again (Mark xvi. 19); they learned what is to take place in the judgment (Matt. xvi. 27); learned that they shall then sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke xxi. 27); learned that the Jews would be cast out, and in their stead the Gentiles should come in (Matt. xix. 28). For, tell me, which is greater? to learn that a person will reign, or to learn the time when? (Luke xxi. 24). Paul learned "things which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor. xii. 4); things that were before the world was made, he learned them all. Which is the more difficult, the beginning or the end? Clearly to learn the beginning. This, Moses learned, and the time when, and how long ago: and he enumerates the years. And [31] the wise Solomon saith, "I will make mention of things from the beginning of the world." And that the time is at hand, they do know: as Paul saith, "The Lord is at hand, be careful for nothing." (Phil. iv. 5). These things they knew not [then], and yet He mentions many signs (Matt. ch. xxiv). But, as He has just said, "Not many days hence," wishing them to be vigilant, and did not openly declare the precise moment, so is it here also. However, it is not about the general Consummation that they now ask Him, but, "Wilt Thou at this time," say they, "restore the kingdom to Israel?" And not even this did He reveal to them. They also asked this [about the end of the world] before: and as on that occasion He answered by leading them away from thinking that their deliverance was near and, on the contrary, cast them into the midst of perils, so likewise on this occasion but more mildly. For, that they may not imagine themselves to be wronged, and these things to be mere pretences, hear what He says: He immediately gives them that at which they rejoiced: for He adds: "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts i. 8.) Then, that they may make no more enquiries, straightway He was received up. Thus, just as on the former occasion He had darkened their minds by awe, and by saying, "I know not;" here also He does so by being taken up. For great was their eagerness on the subject, and they would not have desisted; and yet it was very necessary that they should not learn this. For tell me, [32] which do the Gentiles most disbelieve? that there will be a consummation of the world, or that God is become man, and issued from the Virgin? [33] But I am ashamed of dwelling on this point, as if it were about some difficult matter. Then again, that the disciples might not say, Why dost thou leave the matter in suspense? He adds, "Which the Father hath put in His own power." And yet He declared the Father's power and His to be one: as in the saying, "For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will." (John v. 21.) If where need is to work, Thou actest with the same power as the Father; where it behooves to know, dost Thou not know with the same power? Yet certainly to raise up the dead is much greater than to learn the day. If the greater be with power, much more the other.

But just as when we see a child crying, and pertinaciously wishing to get something from us that is not expedient for him, we hide the thing, and show him our empty hands, and say, "See, we have it not:" the like has Christ here done with the Apostles. But as the child, even when we show [34] him [our empty hands], persists with his crying, conscious he has been deceived, and then we leave him, and depart, saying, "Such an one calls me:" and we give him something else instead, in order to divert him from his desire, telling him it is a much finer thing than the other, and then hasten away; in like manner Christ acted. [35] The disciples asked to have something, and He said He had it not. And on the first occasion he frightened them. Then again they asked to have it now: He said He had it not; and He did not frighten them now, but after having shown [36] [the empty hands], He has done this, and gives them a plausible reason: [37] "Which the Father," He says, "hath put in his own power." What? Thou not know the things of the Father! Thou knowest Him, and not what belongs to Him! And yet Thou hast said, "None knoweth the Father but the Son" (Luke x. 25); and, "The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God" (1 Cor. ii. 10); and Thou not know this! But they feared to ask Him again, lest they should hear Him say, "Are ye also without understanding?" (Matt. xv. 26.) For they feared Him now much more than before. "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you." As in the former instance He had not answered their question (for it is the part of a teacher to teach not what the disciple chooses, but what is expedient for him to learn), so in this, He tells them beforehand, for this reason, what they ought to know, that they may not be troubled. In truth, they were yet weak. But to inspire them with confidence, He raised up their souls, and concealed what was grievous. Since he was about to leave them very shortly, therefore in this discourse He says nothing painful. But how? He extols as great the things which would be painful: all but saying, "`Fear not': for ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria." For since he had said, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not" (Matt. x. 5), what there He left unsaid, He here adds, "And to the uttermost part of the earth;" and having spoken this, which was more fearful than all the rest, then that they may not again question Him, He held His peace. "And having this said, while they beheld, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight" (v. 9). Seest thou that they did preach and fulfil the Gospel? For great was the gift He had bestowed on them. In the very place, He says, where ye are afraid, that is, in Jerusalem, there preach ye first, and afterwards unto the uttermost part of the earth. Then for assurance of what He had said, "While they beheld, He was taken up." Not "while they beheld" did He rise from the dead, but "while they beheld, He was taken up." Inasmuch, however, as the sight of their eyes even here was not all-sufficient; for in the Resurrection they saw the end, but not the beginning, and in the Ascension they saw the beginning, but not the end: because in the former it had been superfluous to have seen the beginning, the Lord Himself Who spake these things being present, and the sepulchre showing clearly that He is not there; but in the latter, they needed to be informed of the sequel by word of others: inasmuch then as their eyes do not suffice to show them the height above, nor to inform them whether He is actually gone up into heaven, or only seemingly into heaven, see then what follows. That it was Jesus Himself they knew from the fact that He had been conversing with them (for had they seen only from a distance, they could not have recognized Him by sight), [38] but that He is taken up into Heaven the Angels themselves inform them. Observe how it is ordered, that not all is done by the Spirit, but the eyes also do their part. But why did "a cloud receive Him?" This too was a sure sign that He went up to Heaven. Not fire, as in the case of Elijah, nor fiery chariot, but "a cloud received Him;" which was a symbol of Heaven, as the Prophet says; [39] "Who maketh the clouds His chariot" (Ps. civ. 3); it is of the Father Himself that this is said. Therefore he says, "on a cloud;" in the symbol, he would say, of the Divine power, for no other Power is seen to appear on a cloud. For hear again what another Prophet says: "The Lord sitteth upon a light cloud" (Is. xix. 1). For [40] it was while they were listening with great attention to what He was saying, and this in answer to a very interesting question, and with their minds fully aroused and quite awake, that this thing took place. Also on the mount [Sinai] the cloud was because of Him: since Moses also entered into the darkness, but the cloud there was not because of Moses. And He did not merely say, "I go," lest they should again grieve, but He said, "I send the Spirit" (John xvi. 5, 7); and that He was going away into heaven they saw with their eyes. O what a sight they were granted! "And while they looked stedfastly," it is said, "toward heaven, as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven"--they used the expression "This" demonstratively, saying, "this Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall thus"--demonstratively, "in this way"--"come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven." (v. 10, 11.) Again, the outward appearance is cheering ["in white apparel"]. They were Angels, in the form of men. And they say, "Ye men of Galilee:" they showed themselves to be trusted by the disciples, by saying, "Ye men of Galilee." For this was the meaning: else, what needed they to be told of their country, who knew it well enough? By their appearance also they attracted their regard, and shewed that they were from heaven. But wherefore does not Christ Himself tell them these things, instead of the Angels? He had beforehand told them all things; ["What if ye shall see the Son of Man] going up where He was before?" (John vi. 62).

Moreover the Angels did not say, `whom you have seen taken up,' but, "going into heaven:" ascension is the word, not assumption; the expression "taken up," [41] belongs to the flesh. For the same reason they say, "He which is taken up from you shall thus come," not, "shall be sent," but, "shall come. He that ascended, the same is he also that descended" (Eph. iv. 10). So again the expression, "a cloud received Him:" for He Himself mounted upon the cloud. Of the expressions, some are adapted to the conceptions of the disciples, some agreeable with the Divine Majesty. Now, as they behold, their conceptions are elevated: He has given them no slight hint of the nature of His second coming. For this, "Shall thus come," means, with the body; which thing they desired to hear; and, that he shall come again to judgment "thus" upon a cloud. "And, behold, two men stood by them." Why is it said, "men?" Because they had fashioned themselves completely as such, that the beholders might not be overpowered. "Which also said:" their words moreover were calculated for soothing: "Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" They would not let them any longer wait there for Him. Here again, these tell what is greater, and leave the less unsaid. That "He will thus come," they say, and that "ye must look for Him from heaven." For the rest, they called them off from that spectacle to their saying, that they might not, because they could not see Him, imagine that He was not ascended, but even while they are conversing, would be present ere they were aware. For if they said on a former occasion, "Whither goest Thou?" (John xiii. 36) much more would they have said it now. [42]

"Wilt Thou at this time," say they, "restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Recapitulation). They so well knew his mildness, that after His Passion also they ask Him, "Wilt thou restore?" And yet He had before said to them, "Ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, but the end is not yet," nor shall Jerusalem be taken. But now they ask Him about the kingdom, not about the end. And besides, He does not speak at great length with them after the Resurrection. They address then this question, as thinking that they themselves would be in high honor, if this should come to pass. But He (for as touching this restoration, that it was not to be, He did not openly declare; for what needed they to learn this? hence they do not again ask, "What is the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" for they are afraid to say that: but, "Wilt Thou restore the kingdom to Israel?" for they thought there was such a kingdom), but He, I say, both in parables had shown that the time was not near, [43] and here where they asked, and He answered thereto, "Ye shall receive power," says He, "when the Holy Ghost is come upon you. Is come upon you," not, "is sent," [to shew the Spirit's coequal Majesty. How then darest thou, O opponent of the Spirit, to call Him a creature [44] ?]. "And ye shall be witnesses to Me." He hinted at the Ascension. ["And when he had spoken these things. [45] ] Which they had heard before, and He now reminds them of. ["He was taken up."] Already it has been shown, that He went up into heaven. ["And a cloud, etc."] "Clouds and darkness are under His feet," (Ps. xviii. 9; xcvii. 2) saith the Scripture: for this is declared by the expression, "And a cloud received Him:" the Lord of heaven, it means. For as a king is shown by the royal chariot, so was the royal chariot sent for Him. ["Behold, two men, etc.] That they may vent no sorrowful exclamations, and that it might not be with them as it was with Elisha, (2 Kings ii. 12) who, when his master was taken up, rent his mantle. And what say they? "This Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall thus come." And, "Behold, two men stood by them." (Matt. xviii. 16.) With good reason: for "in the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established" (Deut. xvii. 6): and these utter the same things. And it is said, that they were "in white apparel." In the same manner as they had already seen an Angel at the sepulchre, who had even told them their own thoughts; so here also an Angel is the preacher of His Ascension; although indeed the Prophets had frequently foretold it, as well as the Resurrection. [46]

Everywhere it is Angels as at the Nativity, "for that which is conceived in her," saith one, "is by the Holy Ghost" (Matt. i. 20): and again to Mary, "Fear not, Mary." (Luke i. 30.) And at the Resurrection: "He is not here; He is risen, and goeth before you." (ib. xxiv. 6.) "Come, and see!" (Matt. xxviii. 6.) And at the Second Coming. For that they may not be utterly in amaze, therefore it is added, "Shall thus come." (ib. xxv. 31.) They recover their breath a little; if indeed He shall come again, if also thus come, and not be unapproachable! And that expression also, that it is "from them" He is taken up, is not idly added. [47] And of the Resurrection indeed Christ Himself bears witness (because of all things this is, next to the Nativity, nay even above the Nativity, the most wonderful: His raising Himself to life again): for, "Destroy," He says, "this Temple, and in three days I [48] will raise it up." (John ii. 19.) "Shall thus come," say they. If any therefore desires to see Christ; if any grieves that he has not seen Him: having this heard, let him show forth an admirable life, and certainly he shall see Him, and shall not be disappointed. For Christ will come with greater glory, though "thus," in this manner, with a body [49] ; and much more wondrous will it be to see Him descending from heaven. But for what He will come, they do not add.

["Shall thus come," etc.] This is a confirmation of the Resurrection; for if he was taken up with a body, much rather must He have risen again with a body. Where are those who disbelieve the Resurrection? Who are they, I pray? Are they Gentiles, or Christians? for I am ignorant. But no, I know well: they are Gentiles, who also disbelieve the work of Creation. For the two denials go together: the denial that God creates any thing from nothing, and the denial that He raises up what has been buried. But then, being ashamed to be thought such as "know not the power of God" (Matt. xxii. 29), that we may not impute this to them, they allege: We do not say it with this meaning, but because there is no need of the body. Truly it may be seasonably said, "The fool will speak foolishness." (Is. xxxii. 6.) Are you not ashamed not to grant, that God can create from nothing? If he creates from matter already existing, wherein does He differ from men? But whence, you demand, are evils? Though you should not know whence, ought you for that to introduce another evil in the knowledge of evils? Hereupon two absurdities follow. For if you do not grant, that from things which are not, God made the things which are, much more shall you be ignorant whence are evils: and then, again, you introduce another evil, the affirming that Evil (ten kakian) is uncreated. Consider now what a thing it is, when you wish to find the source of evils, to be both ignorant of it, and to add another to it. Search after the origin of evils, and do not blaspheme God. And how do I blaspheme? says he. When you make out that evils have a power equal to God's; a power uncreated. For, observe what Paul says; "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." (Rom. i. 20.) But the devil would have both to be of matter, that there may be nothing left from which we may come to the knowledge of God. For tell me, whether is harder: to [50] take that which is by nature evil (if indeed there be ought such; for I speak upon your principles, since there is no such thing as evil by nature), and make it either good, or even coefficent of good? or, to make of nothing? Whether is easier (I speak of quality); to induce the non-existent quality; or to take the existing quality, and change it into its contrary? where there is no house, to make the house; or where it is utterly destroyed, to make it identically exist again? Why, as this is impossible, so is that: to make a thing into its opposite. Tell me, whether is harder; to make a perfume, or to make filth have the effect of perfume? Say, whether of these is easier (since we subject God to our reasonings: nay, not we, but ye); to form eyes, or to make a blind man to see continuing blind, and yet more sharp-sighted, than one who does see? To make blindness into sight, and deafness into hearing? To me the other seems easier. Say then do you grant God that which is harder, and not grant the easier? But souls also they affirm to be of His substance. Do you see what a number of impieties and absurdities are here! In the first place, wishing to show that evils are from God, they bring in another thing more impious than this, that they are equal with Him in majesty, and God prior in existence to none of them, assigning this great prerogative even to them! In the next place, they affirm evil to be indestructible: for if that which is uncreated can be destroyed, ye see the blasphemy! So that it comes to this, either [51] that nothing is of God if not these; or that these are God! Thirdly, what I have before spoken of, in this point they defeat themselves, and prepare against themselves fresh indignation. Fourthly, they affirm unordered matter to possess such inherent (epitedeioteta) power. Fifthly, that evil is the cause of the goodness of God, and that without this the Good had not been good. Sixthly, they bar against us the ways of attaining unto the knowledge of God. Seventhly, they bring God down into men, yea plants and logs. For if our soul be of the substance of God, but the process of its transmigration into new bodies brings it at last into cucumbers, and melons, and onions, why then the substance of God will pass into cucumbers! And if we say, that the Holy Ghost fashioned the Temple [of our Lord's body] in the Virgin, they laugh us to scorn: and if, that He dwelt in that spiritual Temple, again they laugh; while they themselves are not ashamed to bring down God's substance into cucumbers, and melons, and flies, and caterpillars, and asses, thus excogitating a new fashion of idolatry: for let it not be as the Egyptians have it, "The onion is God;" but let it be, "God in the onion"! Why dost thou shrink from the notion of God's entering into a body? [52] `It is shocking,' says he. Why then this is much more shocking. But, [53] forsooth, it is not shocking--how should it be?--this same thing which is so, if it be into us! `But thy notion is indeed shocking.' Do ye see the filthiness of their impiety?--But why do they not wish the body to be raised? And why do they say the body is evil? By what then, tell me, dost thou know God? by what hast thou the knowledge of existing things? The philosopher too: by means of what is he a philosopher, if the body does nothing towards it? Deaden the senses, and then learn something of the things one needs to know! What would be more foolish than a soul, if from the first it had the senses deadened? If the deadening of but a single part, I mean of the brain, becomes a marring of it altogether; if all the rest should be deadened, what would it be good for? Show me a soul without a body. Do you not hear physicians say, The presence of disease sadly enfeebles the soul? How long will ye put off hanging yourselves? Is the body material? tell me. "To be sure, it is." Then you ought to hate it. Why do you feed, why cherish it? You ought to get quit of this prison. But besides: "God cannot overcome matter, unless he (sumplakhe) implicate himself with it: for he cannot issue orders to it (O feebleness!) until he close with it, and (stathhe) take his stand (say you) through the whole of it!" And a king indeed does all by commanding; but God, not by commanding the evil! In short, if it were unparticipant of all good, it could not subsist at all. For Evil cannot subsist, unless it lay hold upon somewhat of the accidents of Virtue: so that if it had been heretofore all unmixed with virtue, it would have perished long ago: for such is the condition of evils. Let there be a profligate man, let him put upon himself no restraint whatever, will he live ten days? Let there be a robber, and devoid of all conscience in his dealings with every one, let him be such even to his fellow-robbers, will he be able to live? Let there be a thief, void of all shame, who knows not what blushing is, but steals openly in public. It is not in the nature of evils to subsist, unless they get some small share at least in good. So that hereupon, according to these men, God gave them their subsistence. Let there be a city of wicked men; will it stand? But let them be wicked, not only with regard to the good, but towards each other. Why, it is impossible such a city should stand. Truly, "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Rom. i. 22.) If bodily substance be evil, then all things visible exist idly, and in vain, both water and earth, and sun, and air; for air is also body, though not solid. It is in point then to say, "The wicked have told me foolish things." (Ps. cxix. 85.) But let not us endure them, let us block up our ears against them. For there is, yea, there is, a resurrection of bodies. This the sepulchre which is at Jerusalem declares, this the pillar [54] to which He was bound, when He was scourged. For, "We did eat and drink with Him," it is said. Let us then believe in the Resurrection, and do things worthy of it, that we may attain to the good things which are to come, through Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom to the Father, and the Holy Ghost together, be power, honor, now and for ever, world without end. Amen.


[30] The emphatic position of en to chrono touto as well as the answer of Jesus shows that the disciples' earnest hope and expectation were that their Lord should, during their life-time, personally organize a kingdom on the basis of the Jewish theocracy. Chrys. is explicit in pointing out their incorrect conception of the kingdom of Christ, but does not here explain the specifically Jewish character of that conception. In the early disciples we behold the constant struggle of the Christian spirit to break away from the forms of Jewish nationalism.--G.B.S. [31] Cod. C. omits this sentence here, and inserts it below (p. 12), where it is evidently out of place. The passage referred to seems to be Ecclus. 51, 8. [32] The connection must be supplied: e.g. It was not that this point of knowledge was too high for them; for, as has been shown, they knew already, or were soon to know, things much higher than this, and which their hearers would find much harder to believe. For tell me, etc. [33] Here C. has the sentence: "Also the wise Solomon saith, etc." p. ii, note 1. [34] Kai deiknunton hemon, C. the modern text has me. [35] These illustrations, which seem to admit a half deceptive element in our Lord's conversations, are as little justified by the passage in hand as by the character of Jesus. What Jesus promises, viz.: the Holy Spirit, is not promised in order to "divert" the disciples from their desire, but to assure to them a greater blessing than they then knew how to anticipate. The disciples wish a temporal kingdom with personal prerogatives; Jesus promises them the Spirit of Truth and opens before them the life of spiritual growth and usefulness. The illustration would have been more appropriate, had Chrys. said: "The child persists in his crying, but Jesus quiets him by giving him something far better than he had asked."--G.B.S. [36] 'Alla meta to deixai (as above, kai deiknunton hemon, sc. gumnas tas cheiras), touto pepoieken, sc. phobei. The mss. except C and A, and the Edd. have ho before pepoieken, which gives no sense. [37] Chrys. therefore explains these sayings of our Lord (polemically against the Arians) as oikonomia: i.e. the thing said is not objectively true, but the morality of all actions depends on the subjective condition of the proairesis or purpose (para ten ton chromenon proairesin gignetai phaulon e kalon, de Sacerdot. 1. 8.), so that where this is right and good, a deception is lawful. This lax view of the morality of Truth was very general in the Greek Church: not so in the early Latin Church. See the two Treatises of St. Augustine, De Mendacio ("Lib. of Fathers," Seventeen Short Treatises of St. Aug.) The stricter doctrine however is maintained by St. Basil, who in his shorter Monastic Rule peremptorily condemns all oikonomia, and pious fraud (officiosium mendacium) of every description, on. the ground that all falsehood is from Satan, John v. 44. and that our Lord has made no distinction between one sort of lying and another. Again, the monk Johannes of Lycopolis in Egypt: "All falsehood is foreign from Christ and Christian men, be it in a small or in a great matter: yea, though a good end be served by it, it is never to be allowed, for the Saviour hath declared, that all lying is from the Wicked One." Pallad, Hist. Lausiac in Bibl. Patr. t. xiii. p. 965. [38] Porrothen gar ouk enen idontas gnonai; i.e. had they but seen the Ascension from a distance, and not been conversing with the Lord at the moment of His Assumption. Cod. E. transposes the clause to the end of the sentence; meaning that they could not by mere sight have been cognizant of the fact of His ascension into heaven. [39] Ps. civ. 3. ho titheis nephei ten epibasin autou: "Who maketh on a cloud His stepping," or, "going." [40] At first sight it looks as if this sentence were out of place here. But the connection may be thus explained: this circumstance, of the cloud, is not idle, but very significant; and the minds of the disciples were alive to its import, as betokening His Godhead. True, might it not also be said of Moses on the mount Sinai, that a cloud received him out of their sight? For "Moses entered into the darkness," Exod. xx. 21. But the cloud there was because of Him, "where God was," not because of Moses. [41] i.e. the Angels had before used the phrase of assumption: but this does not express the whole matter; therefore, to show that it is the act of His own Divine power, they now say, going and afterwards express it that He will come, not that He will be sent. He ascended, as He descended, by His own Divine power. So again it is said, "A cloud received Him:" but in this He was not passive; as God He stepped upon the cloud: epebe alluding to the expression in the Psalm above cited, titheis ten epibasin. [42] All the Editions and the Latin Versions connect with this the following sentence: "Much more would they have said now, Dost Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" But it is evident, that at this point begins the recapitulation, or renewed exposition. It is in fact a peculiarity of these Discourses, that Chrys. having gone through the exposition of the text, often, as here, goes over the same ground again, usually with some such formula as, "But let us look through what has been said from the beginning." [43] The reference here must be to such parables as: "The Sower," "The Leaven," "The Grain of Mustard Seed." (Matt. xiii. 1-43), and the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark iv. 26-29), all of which seem to represent the progress of his truth as a long and slow development. To these might be added such expressions as heos tes sunteleias tou ai& 242;nos (Matt. xxviii. 20) and heos eschatou tes ges (Acts i. 8).--G.B.S. [44] This sentence is from the later recension. [45] The text of these Homilies is often greatly confused by the omission, especially in the recapitulations, of the words on which Chrys. is commenting. [46] Here Erasmus has followed another reading (of E.), the very reverse in sense; "And if indeed the Prophets did not foretell this, be not astonished, for it was superfluous to say any thing individually about this, being necessarily involved in the idea of the resurrection, (te anastasei sunnooumenes)." [47] In the later recension it is added: "but is declaratory of His love towards them, and of their election, and that He will not leave those whom He has chosen." [48] John ii. 19; ego egero auton, Chrys. adding the pronoun for emphasis. [49] The emphasis of the houtos and hon tropon is better preserved if we interpret them to mean visibly, or with the accompaniment of a cloud, in reference to the nephele (9), rather than merely (as Chrys.) "with a body." They had not raised the question as to his coming with or without a body. What they wanted to know was whether he was coming in such a way that they could recognize him.--G.B.S. [50] The text in both classes of manuscripts, and in the Edd., needs reformation. The argument is, If good and evil be, as the Manichæans say, both self-subsistent, then evil must subsist for ever. For if, as they affirm, God cannot create out of nothing, neither can He change a thing into its opposite; nay, much less, for this is harder than that. In E. (the text of the Edd.) the reading is, to phusei kakon kalon kalon poi;;sai (ei ge ti esti kathhu uma¨ gar lego: phusei gar ouden espi poi;;sai kakon kalou sunergon) ;; to ex ouk onton: which as usual in this ms. is an attempt to explain the meaning, but is not what the context requires. in C. A. (the original text) to phusei kakon poiesai (ei ge ti esti; kath' humas gar lego; phusei gar ouden esti poiesai kakon e kalon kai kalou sunergon) e to [ouk. A.` ex ouk onton. Read, to phusei kakon (ei ge ti esti; kath' humas gar lego; phusei gar ouden esti kakon) poiesai e kalon e kai kalou sunergon. [51] ;'Oste ananke e meden tou Theou einai ei me tauta; & 217; kai Theon einai. For so it seems the passage should be read, for which the mss. have e ei me tauta, and then in the older text, e kai Theon einai, for which the modern recension, D. E. F. and Edd. have e kai Theon me einai. [52] ten ensomatosin tou Theou. Edd. metensomatosin. But the Manichees affirmed a metensomatosin of the particle of the Divine Substance, the human soul; viz. the more polluted soul transmigrates into other men, and animals (Archelai et Manet. Disput. §. ix. Routh, Rell. Sacc. iv. 161.), but in the last stage of the process of its purgation, into vegetable substances less attached to the earth by roots, such as gourds, etc. in which the Divine particle is self-conscious and intelligent (see the following note), whereas in animal substances it is brutified. In this sense it is said above, he metens. ekbainei eis sikuous k. t. l. What they denied was, an ensomatosis Theou by Incarnation. [53] 'All' ouk aischron; pos gar; hoper (om. A.) an eis hemas genetai; to de son ontos aischron. Edd. all' ouk aischron; pos; hoper gar an eis hemas genetai ontos aischron. Erasmus; An non hoc turpe est? Quomodo non turpe sit in Deum, quod, si nobis contingat, revera turpe futurum sit? Ben. Quandoquidem si in nobis fiat, vere turpe est. i.e. For, that same which, if it take place in us, is indeed shocking [how should it not be so in God?]. The exclamation, Eidete surpheton asebeias! seems to imply either that ontos aischron is part of the Manichæan's reply, or that something is omitted. Perhaps the reporter wrote, to de s. hontos aischron, meaning soma: "But the body, etc." ,!An eis hemas genetai can hardly be, as taken by Erasm., quod si nobis contingat, i.e. that our substance should migrate into plants, etc. but rather, if it be into us that this (embodying of the Divine Substance) takes place. For illustration of the Manichæan tenets here alluded to, comp. Euod. de Fid. adv. Manich. §35. (Opp. St. Augustin., Append. t. viii. Ben.) Non Deus Manichæi luctum pateretur de partis suæ abscissione vel amissione; quam partem dicunt quum in fructibus vel in herbis fuerit, id est, in melone, vel beta, vel talibus rebus, et principium suum et medietatem et finem nosse, cum autem ad carnem venerit omnem intelligentiam amittere; ut propterea magister hominibus missus sit, quia stulta in illis facta est pars Dei, etc "Then the God of the Manichæan would not suffer grief in consequence of the cutting off or loss of part of his substance; which part, they say, if it be in fruits or in herbs, as in the melon or beet or such-like, knows its beginning and middle and end; but when it comes to flesh, loses all intelligence: so that the reason why the Teacher was sent to men was, because in them the particle of God was stultified, etc." And Commonitor, de recip. Manich. Art. 3. (ibid.) ut credatur pars Dei polluta teneri in cucumeribus et melonibus et radiculis et porris et quibusque vilissimis herbulis, etc. [54] to xulon entha prosedethe kai emastigothe. The `Pillar of Flagellation' is exhibited in the Latin Choir of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. .

Homily III.

Acts I. 12

"Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey."

"Then returned they," it is said: namely, when they had heard. For they could not have borne it, if the angel had not (huperetheto) referred them to another Coming. It seems to me, that it was also on a sabbath-day [55] that these things took place; for he would not thus have specified the distance, saying, "from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey," unless they were then going on the sabbath-day a certain definite distance. "And when they were come in," it says, "they went up into an upper room, where they were making their abode:" so they then remained in Jerusalem after the Resurrection: "both Peter, and James, and John:" no longer is only the latter together with his brother mentioned, [56] but together with Peter the two: "and Andrew, and Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, and James (the son) of Alphæus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas, (the brother) of James." [57] (v. 13.) He has done well to mention the disciples: for since one had betrayed Christ, and another had been unbelieving, he thereby shows that, except the first, all of them were preserved.

"These were all continuing with one accord in prayer together with the women." (v. 14.) For this is a powerful weapon in temptations; and to this they had been trained. ["Continuing with one accord."] Good. (kalhos). Besides, the present temptation directed them to this: for they exceedingly feared the Jews. "With the women," it is said: for he had said that they had followed Him: "and with Mary the mother of Jesus." (Luke xxiii. 55.) How then [is it said, that "that disciple"] took her to his own home" (John xix. 26), at that time? But then the Lord had brought them together again, and so returned. [58] "And with His brethren." (John xvii. 5.) These also were before unbelieving. "And in those days," it says, "Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said." (v. 15.) Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, [59] he always begins the discourse. ("The number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty.) Men and brethren," he says, "this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before," [60] [etc.] (v. 16.) Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ's presence with them, the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously. And he does not speak thus without a meaning. But observe how he consoles them concerning what had passed. In fact, what had happened had caused them no small consternation. For if there are many now who canvass this circumstance, what may we suppose they had to say then?

"Men and brethren," says Peter. For if the Lord called them brethren, much more may he. ["Men," he says]: they all being present. [61] See the dignity of the Church, the angelic condition! No distinction there, "neither male nor female." I would that the Churches were such now! None there had his mind full of some worldly matter, none was anxiously thinking about household concerns. Such a benefit are temptations, such the advantage of afflictions!

"This Scripture," says he, "must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before." Always he comforts them by the prophecies. So does Christ on all occasions. In the very same way, he shows here that no strange thing had happened, but what had already been foretold. "This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled," he says, "which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before." He does not say, David, but the Spirit through him. See what kind of doctrine the writer has at the very outset of the book. Do you see, that it was not for nothing that I said in the beginning of this work, that this book is the Polity of the Holy Spirit? "Which the Holy Ghost spake before by the mouth of David." Observe how he appropriates (oikeihoutai) him; and that it is an advantage to them, that this was spoken by David, and not by some other Prophet. "Concerning Judas," he says, "which was guide." Here again mark the philosophical temper of the man: how he does not mention him with scorn, nor say, "that wretch," "that miscreant:" but simply states the fact; and does not even say, "who betrayed Him," but does what he can to transfer the guilt to others: nor does he animadvert severely even on these: "Which was guide," he says, "to them that took Jesus." Furthermore, before he declares where David had spoken, he relates what had been the case with Judas, that from the things present he may fetch assurance of the things future, and show that this man had already received his due. "For he was numbered," says he, "with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man acquired a field out of the reward of iniquity." (v. 17, 18.) He gives his discourse a moral turn, and covertly mentions the cause of the wickedness, because it carried reproof with it. [62] And he does not say, The Jews, but, "this man, acquired" it. For since the minds of weak persons do not attend to things future, as they do to things present, he discourses of the immediate punishment inflicted. "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst." He does well to dilate not upon the sin, but upon the punishment. "And," he says, "all his bowels gushed out." This brought them consolation. [63] "And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood." (v. 19). Now the Jews [64] gave it this name, not on this account, but because of Judas; here, however, Peter makes it to have this reference, and when he brings forward the adversaries as witnesses, both by the fact that they named it, and by saying, "in their proper tongue," this is what he means.

Then after the event, he appositely brings in the Prophet, saying, "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein" (v. 20) (Ps. lxix. 25): this is said of the field and the dwelling: "And his bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who hath foretold these things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness. "Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time." (v. 21.) Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, "Men and brethren. It behooves" to choose from among you. [65] He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils. Now that some one must needs be appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what persons: "Of these," he says, "which have companied with us all the time." To have said, the worthy must present themselves, would have been to insult the others; but now he refers the matter to length of time; for he says not simply, "These who have companied with us," but, "all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection" (v. 22): that their college (ho choros) might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit. "And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." (v. 23.) Not he appointed them: but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor. "Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus." Perhaps both names are given, because there were others of the same name, for among the Apostles also there were several names alike; as James, and James (the son) of Alphæus; Simon Peter, and Simon Zelotes; Judas (the brother) of James, and Judas Iscariot. The appellation, however, may have arisen from a change of life, and very likely also of the moral character. [66] "They appointed two," it is said, "Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said; Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." (v. 24, 25.) They do well to mention the sin of Judas, thereby showing that it is a witness they ask to have; not increasing the number, but not suffering it to be diminished. "And they gave forth their lots" (for the spirit was not yet sent), "and the lot fell upon Matthias: and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles." (v. 26.)

"Then," it says, "returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet (Recapitulation), ["which [67] is nigh to Jerusalem, at the distance of a sabbath-day's journey:"] so that there was no long way to go, to be a cause of alarm to them while yet trembling and fearful. "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room." They durst not appear in the town. They also did well to go up into an upper room, as it became less easy to arrest them at once. "And they continued," it is said, "with one accord in prayer." Do you see how watchful they were? "Continuing in prayer," and "with one accord," as it were with one soul, continuing therein: two things reported in their praise. ["Where [68] they were abiding," etc., to, "And Mary the Mother of Jesus and His brethren."] Now Joseph perhaps was dead: for it is not to be supposed that when the brethren had become believers, Joseph believed not; he who in fact had believed before any. Certain it is that we nowhere find him looking upon Christ as man merely. As where His mother said, ["Thy father and I did seek thee sorrowing." (Luke ii. 48.) And upon another occasion, it was said,] "Thy mother [69] and thy brethren seek thee." (Matt. xiii. 47.) So that Joseph knew this before all others. And to them [the brethren] Christ said, "The world cannot hate you, but Me it hateth. (John vii. 7.)

Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him, and no longer dispute with each other. For that Church was as it were in heaven: having nothing to do with this world's affairs: and resplendent not with wails, no, nor with numbers, but with the zeal of them that formed the assembly. They were "about an hundred and twenty," it says. The seventy perhaps whom Christ Himself had chosen, and other of the more earnest-minded disciples, as Joseph and Matthias. (v. 14.) There were women, he says, many, who followed Him. (Mark xv. 41.) ["The number of the names together.] Together [70] " they were on all occasions.

["Men and brethren," etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, `We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. [71] But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.--For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, "And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." (Luke xxii. 32, Ben.)

"For he was numbered with us," (prhotos tou pragmatos authentei absent from A.B.C ) says Peter. On this account it behooves to propose another; to be a witness in his place. And see how he imitates his Master, ever discoursing from the Scriptures, and saying nothing as yet concerning Christ; namely, that He had frequently predicted this Himself. Nor does he mention where the Scripture speaks of the treachery of Judas; for instance, "The mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me" (Ps. cix. 1.); but where it speaks only of his punishment; for this was most to their advantage. It shows again the benevolence of the Lord: "For he was numbered with us" (thouto gar autous malista hophelei; Deiknusi palin A.B.C ), he says, "and obtained his lot of this ministry." He calls it everywhere "lot," showing that the whole is from God's grace and election, and reminding them of the old times, inasmuch as God chose him into His own lot or portion, as of old He took the Levites. He also dwells upon the circumstances respecting Judas, showing that the reward of the treachery was made itself the herald of the punishment. For he "acquired," he says, "a field out of the reward of the iniquity." Observe the divine economy in the event. "Of the iniquity," he says. For there are many iniquities, but never was anything more iniquitous than this: so that the affair was one of iniquity. Now not only to those who were present did the event become known, but to all thereafter, so that without meaning or knowing what they were about, they gave it a name; just as Caiaphas had prophesied unconsciously. God compelled them to call the field in Hebrew "Aceldama." (Matt. xxvi. 24.) By this also the evils which were to come upon the Jews were declared: and Peter shows the prophecy to have been so far in part fulfilled, which says, "It had been good for that man if he had not been born." We may with propriety apply this same to the Jews likewise; for if he who was guide suffered thus, much more they. Thus far however Peter says nothing of this. Then, showing that the term, "Aceldama," might well be applied to his fate, he introduces the prophet, saying, "Let his habitation be desolate." For what can be worse desolation than to become a place of burial? And the field may well be called his. For he who cast down the price, although others were the buyers, has a right to be himself reckoned owner of a great desolation. [72] This desolation was the prelude to that of the Jews, as will appear on looking closely into the facts. For indeed they destroyed themselves by famine, and killed many, and the city became a burial-place of strangers, of soldiers, [73] for as to those, they would not even have let them be buried, for in fact they were not deemed worthy of sepulture.

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us," continues Peter. Observe how desirous he is they should be eye-witnesses. It is true indeed that the Spirit would shortly come; and yet great care is shown with regard to this circumstance. "Of these men," he says, "which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." He shows that they had dwelt with Christ, not simply been present as disciples. In fact, from the very beginning there were many that then followed Him. Observe, for instance, how this appears in these words: "One of the two which heard John speak, and followed Jesus.--All the time," he says, "that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John." (John i. 40.) True! for no one knew what preceded that event, though they did learn it by the Spirit. "Unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection." [74] He said not, a witness of the rest of his actions, but a witness of the resurrection alone. For indeed that witness had a better right to be believed, who was able to declare, that He Who ate and drank, and was crucified, the same rose again. Wherefore it was needed that he should be a witness, not only of the time preceding this event, nor only of what followed it, and of the miracles; the thing required was, the resurrection. For the other matters were manifest and acknowledged, but the resurrection took place in secret, and was manifest to these only. And they do not say, Angels have told us; but, We have seen. [75] For this it was that was most needful at that time: that they should be men having a right to be believed, because they had seen.

"And they appointed two," it is said. [76] Why not many? That the feeling of disappointment might not reach further, extending to many. Again, it is not without reason [77] that he puts Matthias last; he would show, that frequently he that is honourable among men, is inferior before God. And they all pray in common saying, "Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show. Thou," not "We." And very seasonably they use the epithet, "heart-knowing:" for by Him Who is this [78] must the choice be made. So confident were they, that assuredly one of them must be appointed. They said not, Choose, but, "Show the chosen one;" knowing that all things were foreordained of God; "Whom Thou didst choose: one of these two," say they, "to have his lot in this ministry and apostleship." For there was besides another ministry (diakonia). "And they gave them their lots." For they did not yet consider themselves to be worthy to be informed by some sign. [79] And besides, if in a case where neither prayer was made, nor men of worth were the agents, the casting of lots so much availed, because it was done of a right intention, I mean in the case of Jonah (Jonah i. 7); much more did it here. Thus, [80] did he, the designated, fill up the company, complete the order: but the other candidate was not annoyed; for the apostolic writers would not have concealed [that or any other] failings of their own, seeing they have told of the very chief Apostles, that on other occasions they had indignation (Matt. xx. 24; Matt. xxvi. 8), and this not once only, but again and again.

Let us then also imitate them. And now I address no longer every one, but those who aim at preferment. If thou believest that the election is with God, be not displeased. (Mark x. 14, 21; xiv. 4.) For it is with Him thou art displeased, and with Him thou art exasperated: it is He who has made the choice; thou doest the very thing that Cain did; because, forsooth, his brother's sacrifice was preferred, he was indignant, when he ought to have felt compunction. However, that is not what I mean here; but this, that God knows how to dispense things for the best. In many cases, thou art in point of disposition more estimable than the other but not the fit person. Besides, on the other hand, thy life is irreproachable, and thy habits those of a well-nurtured man, but in the Church this is not all that is wanted. Moreover, one man is adapted for one thing, another for another. Do you not observe, how much discourse the holy Scripture has made on this matter? But let me say why it is that the thing has become a subject of competition: it is because we come to the Episcopate not as unto a work of governing and superintending the brethren, but as to a post of dignity and repose. Did you but know that a Bishop is bound to belong to all, to bear the burden of all; that others, if they are angry, are pardoned, but he never; that others, if they sin, have excuses made for them, he has none; you would not be eager for the dignity, would not run after it. So it is, the Bishop is exposed to the tongues of all, to the criticism of all, whether they be wise or fools. He is harassed with cares every day, nay, every night. He has many to hate him, many to envy him. Talk not to me of those who curry favor with all, of those who desire to sleep, of those who advance to this office as for repose. We have nothing to do with these; we speak of those who watch for your souls, who consider the safety and welfare of those under them before their own. Tell me now: suppose a man has ten children, always living with him, and constantly under his control; yet is he solicitous about them; and a bishop, who has such numbers, not living under the same roof with him, but owing obedience to his authority--what does he not need to be! But he is honored, you will say. With what sort of honor, indeed! Why, the paupers and beggars abuse him openly in the market-place. And why does he not stop their mouths then? Yes, very proper work, this, for a bishop, is it not? [81] Then again, if he do not give to all, the idle and the industrious alike, lo! a thousand complaints on all sides. None is afraid to accuse him, and speak evil of him. In the case of civil governors, fear steps in; with bishops, nothing of the kind. As for the fear of God, it does not influence people, as regards them, in the least degree. Why speak of the anxiety connected with the word and doctrine? the painful work in Ordinations? Either, perhaps, I am a poor wretched incompetent creature, or else, the case is as I say. The soul of a Bishop is for all the world like a vessel in a storm: lashed from every side, by friends, by foes, by one's own people, by strangers. Does not the Emperor rule the whole world, the Bishop a single city? Yet a Bishop's anxieties are as much beyond those of the emperor, as the waters of a river simply moved, by the wind are surpassed in agitation by the swelling and raging sea. And why? because in the one case there are many to lend a hand, for all goes on by law and by rule; but in the other there is none of this, nor is there authority to command; but if one be greatly moved, then he is harsh; if the contrary, then he is cold! And in him these opposites must meet, that he may neither be despised, nor be hated. Besides, the very demands of business preoccupy him: how many is he obliged to offend, whether he will or not! How many to be severe with! I speak not otherwise than it is, but as I find it in my own actual experience. I do not think there are many among Bishops that will be saved, but many more that perish: and the reason is, that it is an affair that requires a great mind. Many are the exigencies which throw a man out of his natural temper; and he had need have a thousand eyes on all sides. Do you not see what a number of qualifications the Bishop must have? to be apt to teach, patient, holding fast the faithful word in doctrine (see 1 Tim. iii. 2-9; Tit. i. 7-9). What trouble and pains does this require! And then, others do wrong, and he bears all the blame. To pass over every thing else: if one soul depart unbaptized, does not this subvert all his own prospect of salvation? The loss of one soul carries with it a penalty which no language can represent. For if the salvation of that soul was of such value, that the Son of God became man, and suffered so much, think how sore a punishment must the losing of it bring! And if in this present life he who is cause of another's destruction is worthy of death, much more in the next world. Do not tell me, that the presbyter is in fault, or the deacon. The guilt of all these comes perforce upon the head of those who ordained them. Let me mention another instance. It chances, that a bishop has inherited from his predecessor a set of persons of indifferent character. [82] What measures is it proper to take in respect of bygone transgressions (for here are two precipices) so as not to let the offender go unpunished, and not to cause scandal to the rest? Must one's first step be to cut him off? There is no actual present ground for that. But is it right to let him go unmarked? Yes, say you; for the fault rests with the bishop who ordained him. Well then? must one refuse to ordain him again, and to raise him to a higher degree of the ministry? That would be to publish it to all men, that he is a person of indifferent character, and so again one would cause scandal in a different way. But is one to promote him to a higher degree? That is much worse.

If then there were only the responsibility of the office itself for people to run after in the episcopate, none would be so quick to accept it. But as things go, we run after this, just as we do after the dignities of the world. That we may have glory with men, we lose ourselves with God. What profit in such honor? How self-evident its nothingness is! When you covet the episcopal rank, [83] put in the other scale, the account to be rendered after this life. Weigh against it, the happiness of a life free from toil, take into account the different measure of the punishment. I mean, that even if you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost. Remember what Moses endured, what wisdom he displayed, what good deeds he exhibited: but, for committing one sin only, [84] he was bitterly punished; and with good reason; for this fault was attended with injury to the rest. Not in regard that the sin was public, but because it was the sin of a spiritual Ruler (iereos) cf. S.); for in truth we do not pay the same penalty for public and for hidden faults. (Aug in Ps. xcix. 6.) The sin may be the same, but not the (zemia) harm of it; nay, not the sin itself; for it is not the same thing to sin in secret and unseen, and to sin openly. But the bishop cannot sin unobserved. Well for him if he escape reproach, though he sin not; much less can he think to escape notice, if he do sin. Let him be angry, let him laugh, or let him but dream of a moment's relaxation, many are they that scoff, many that are offended, many that lay down the law, many that bring to mind the former bishops, and abuse the present one; not that they wish to sound the praise of those; no, it is only to carp at him that they bring up the mention of fellow-bishops, of presbyters. Sweet, says the proverb, is war to the inexperienced; but [85] it may rather be said now, that even after one has come out of it, people in general have seen nothing of it: for in their eyes it is not war, but like those shepherds in Ezekiel, we slay and devour. (Ezek. xxxiv. 2.) Which of us has it in his power to show that he has taken as much care for the flocks of Christ, as Jacob did for Laban's? (Gen. xxxi. 40.) Which of us can tell of the frost of the night? For talk not to me of vigils, and all that parade. [86] The contrary plainly is the fact. Prefects, and governors (huparchoi kai toparchai) of provinces, do not enjoy such honour as he that governs the Church. If he enter the palace, who but he is first? If he go to see ladies, or visit the houses of the great, none is preferred to him. The whole state of things is ruined and corrupt. I do not speak thus as wishing to put us bishops to shame, but to repress your hankering after the office. For with what conscience, [87] (even should you succeed in becoming a bishop, having made interest for it either in person or by another), with what eyes will you look the man in the face who worked with you to that end? What will you have to plead for your excuse? For he that unwillingly, by compulsion and not with his own consent, was raised to the office, may have something to say for himself, though for the most part even such an one has no pardon to expect, [88] and yet truly he so far has something to plead in excuse. Think how it fared with Simon Magus. What signifies it that you give not money, if, in place of money, you pay court, you lay many plans, you set engines to work? "Thy money perish with thee!" (Acts viii. 20.) Thus was it said to him, and thus will it be said to these: your canvassing perish with you, because you have thought to purchase the gift of God by human intrigue! But there is none such here? And God forbid there should be! For it is not that I wish any thing of what I have been saying to be applicable to you: but just now the connexion has led us on to these topics. In like manner when we talk against covetousness, we are not preaching at you, no, nor against any one man personally. God grant it may be the case, that these remedies were prepared by us without necessity. The wish of the physician is, that after all his pains, his drugs may be thrown away because not wanted: and this is just what we desire, that our words may not have been needed, and so have been spoken to the wind, so as to be but words. I am ready to submit to anything, rather than be reduced to the necessity of using this language. But if you like, we are ready to leave off; only let our silence be without bad effects. No one, I imagine, though he were ever so vainglorious, would wish to make a display of severity, when there is nothing to call for it. I will leave the teaching to you: for that is the best teaching, which teaches by actions. [89] For indeed the best physicians, although the sickness of their patients brings them in fees, would rather their friends were well. And so we too wish all to be well. (2 Cor. xiii. 7.) It is not that we desire to be approved, and you reproved. I would gladly manifest, if it were possible, with my very eyes, the love which I bear to you: for then no one would be able to reproach me, though my language were ever so rough. "For speech of friends, yea, were it insult, can be borne;" [90] more "faithful are the wounds of a friend, rather than the ready kisses of an enemy. (Prov. xxvii. 6.) There nothing I love more than you, no, not even light itself. I would gladly have my eyes put out ten thousand times over, if it were possible by this means to convert your souls; so much is your salvation dearer to me than light itself. For what profit to me in the rays of the sun, when despondency on your account makes it all thick darkness before my eyes? Light is good when it shines in cheerfulness, to a sorrowful heart it seems even to be a trouble. How true this is, may you never learn by experience! However, if it happen to any of you to fall into sin, just stand by my bedside, when I am laid down to rest and should be asleep; see [91] whether I am not like a palsied man, like one beside himself, and, in the language of the prophet, "the light of mine eyes, it also is gone from me. (Ps. xxxviii. 10.) For where is our hope, if you do not make progress? where our despondency, if you do excellently? I seem to have wings, when I hear any thing good of you. "Fulfil ye my joy." (Phil. ii. 2.) This one thing is the burden of my prayers, that I long for your advancement. But that in which I strive with all is this, that I love you, that I am wrapped up in you, that you are my all, father, mother, brethren, children. Think not then that any thing that has been said was said in a hostile spirit, nay, it is for your amendment. It is written "A brother assisted by his brother is as a strong city." (Prov. xviii. 19.) Then do not take it in disdain: for neither do I undervalue what you have to say. I should wish even to be set right by you. For all (Edd. `all we') ye are brethren, and One is our Master: yet even among brothers it is for one to direct, while the others obey. Then disdain it not, but let us do all to the glory of God, for to Him belongs glory for ever and ever. Amen.


[55] This must be taken as a hasty remark, unless (which is not likely) a sabbath extraordinary is meant. [56] The meaning seems to be, "he is not content to mention only James and John with Peter, but gives the full list of the Apostles." [57] The meaning of 'Ioudas 'Iakobou (i. 13, cf. Luke vi. 16) is a disputed point. Whether the genitive denotes the relation of brother or son has never been decided. The interpretation of the English translators is allowed to stand because it is, probably, the more common one and has many able modern exegetes in its favor among whom are Buttmann, Gram. N.T. Gk. (Eng. Trans.) p. 94. and, more doubtfully, Winer, N.T. Gram. (Eng. Trans.) p. 190. It is, however, certain that usage is strongly in favor, of supplying huios. The former view identifies this Judas with the author of the Epistle (Jud. i. 1) and is that of our older English Trans. The latter understands this Judas to be the son of an unknown James and is favored by Thayer's Lex., Meyer and the Revised Vs. To me this view seems probably correct.--G.B.S. [58] Palin de sunagagon autous outos katelthen. So the older text: i.e. When they were scattered every man to his own home, that disciple had taken her eis ta idia. But after the Resurrection Christ had gathered them together, and so (with all assembled) had returned to the usual place or mode of living. [59] Protimoteros, b.c.: protimomenos A. and Catena: tou chorou protos, E. D. F. Comp. Hom. in Matt. liv. t. ii. 107. "What then saith the mouth of the Apostles, Peter? He, the ever ardent, the coryphæus of the choir of the Apostles." [60] Chrys. seems to have read on to the end of the chapter. The rest of the citation being omitted in the mss. the remodeller of the text makes alterations, and adds matter of his own, to make the exposition run smoother. "Why did he not ask Christ, alone, to give him some one in the place of Judas? And why of their own selves do they not make the election?" Then instead of beltion gegone loipon proton men gar, k. t. l. he has, beltion loipon en gegonos o Petros autos eautou, k. t. l. "Peter has now become a better man than he was. So much for this point. But as to their request to have their body filled up not simply, but by revelation, we will mention two reasons; first," etc. [61] Edd. "Wherefore he uses this address, they all being present." But the old text has simply panton paronton, i.e., all, both men and women. Chrys. is commenting on the address andres adelphoi as including the women also who were before said to be present. Comp. Hom. in Matt. lxxiii. p. 712, B. on the separation of men and women in the Churches. [62] lanthanontos legei ten aitian, paideutiken ousan: i.e. "in speaking of the wages of Judas, he indicates, that the Jews, by whom he was hired, were the authors of the wickedness: but because this carried reproof, he does it covertly, by implication." In the next sentence, he goes on to another point of the exposition, Kai ou legei, k. t. l. i.e. "And observe also, that with the same wise forbearance, he says it not of the Jews, but of Judas, that a piece of ground was all that was gotten by this wickedness: now, in fact, not Judas earned this, but the Jews." The modern text has ou legei gar. [63] Touto paramuthian ekeinois ephere. Something seems to be omitted here. [64] Here also Chrys. seems to be imperfectly reported. His meaning may be gathered from what is said further on, in the recapitulation: i.e. in giving the field that name, "because it was the price of blood" (Matt. xxvii. 8), they unconsciously prophesied; for indeed the reward of their iniquity was this, that their place became an Aceldama. [65] So A. B. C. and the Catena. The other text has ex hemon, which is less apposite. [66] ,'Allos de kai metaboles biou, isos de kai proaireseos en he onomasia. i.e. St. Luke gives both the names Joseph (or Joses) and Justus, perhaps for the sake of distinction. The name (as Latin) may have been given in consequence of a change of life (viz. of circumstances), and (as meaning `the Just') perhaps also from a change of character (proairesis.)--Or, proairesis (biou) may be opposed to metabole biou and then the meaning would be, that the name may have related to a change, i.e. reformation of life, or perhaps to his original choice or moral purpose of life. But isos de kai seems best to suit the former explanation. [67] This clause of the text is added, though wanting in our mss. The comment is, hoste mede makran badizousin hodon phobon tina genesthai tremousin eti kai dedoikosin autois: i.e. "so that not being a long way for them walking, it was not, etc.," which construction being somewhat obscure, the modern text has, touto phesin, hina deixe hoti makran ou badizousin hodon, hos phobon tina me genesthai tremousin eti kai dedoikosin autois. [68] Here again, as usual, in the renewed exposition, the text is omitted. [69] ;;E meter sou kai hoi adelphoi sou ezetoumen se. A. C. ho pater sou k. t. l. B. For ezet. we must read zetousin. The passage referred to is Matt. xiii. 47, where however it is not Mary that speaks, but "A certain person said unto Him, Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without seeking to speak with Thee." In the Homily on that passage, Chrys. interprets that Mary presented herself on that occasion ouden oudepo peri autou mega phantazomene, "having as yet no high idea of His Person," and that both she and His brethren, hos anthropo proseichon psilo "looked upon Him as mere man." In the same way he adverts to that incident here, for contrast with the higher faith of Joseph; but as the statement, "His mother said," is not accurate, the modern text substitutes the passage, Luke ii. 48, and reads, he meter elegen, 'Ego kai ho pater sou odunomenoi ezetoumen se. It seems that Chrys. cited this passage also (hence our mss. have ezetoumen for zetousi), meaning, that it was not Joseph who said this, but Mary.--OEcumenius, however, gives a different turn to this passage of St. Chrys. "And if Joseph had been alive, he too would have been present; especially as he never, like his sons (hoi ex autou viz. the adelphoi), entertained a doubt of the mystery of the Incarnation. But it is manifest that he was long dead; since even on the occasion when, as Jesus was teaching, His kinsfolk demanded to see Him, Joseph was not present. For what says the Gospel? "Thy mother and thy brethren without seek thee;" but not also, Thy father. [70] 'Epi to auto: a comment on v. 15. [71] Kaitoige isotupon hapasin eiche ten katastasin, which Erasm. justly renders, Quanquam habebat jus constituendi por omnibus: i.e. the ordination by St. Peter singly, would have been as valid as the ordination by the whole body. D. F. have kaitoi oude, i.e. and yet he possessed a power of ordaining, in which they were not all upon a par with him: which reading is accepted by Morel. Sav. and Ben., and is rendered by the last, Quanquam non pari forma apud omnes ejus vigebat auctoritas. This reading originated in a mistake as to the meaning of the other, as if that asserted only that St. Peter had the same power of ordaining as any of the rest. [72] kurios eremoseos megales. Something perhaps is wanting between kur. and er. m. Indeed the text seems to consist of little more than a few rough notes. [73] Taphos gegonen he polis ton xenon, ton stratioton. In the defective state of the text it is not easy to conjecture what this can mean. Perhaps, alluding to the words in St. Matthew, "a place to bury strangers in." St. Chrys. may have explained, that the strangers were not heathen (ekeinous gar oud' an eiasan taphenai, they would not have allowed such to be buried in or by the Holy City, much less have provided a place of burial for them), but foreign Jews: and if in taphos gegonen he polis he alludes to the description in Josephus, B. J. v. 12. 3. and 13. 7. this explanation of the term "strangers" would be the more apposite, as the myriads who perished in the siege were assembled from all parts of the world. The `soldiers' seem to be the mercenaries on the side of the Jews: five thousand Idumæans are mentioned, B. J. v. 6. 1. [74] The requirement for the apostolic office is here clearly indicated. The candidate must have associated with Christ and his apostles during the period from John's baptism to the Lord's ascension, i.e. during His public ministry. The character of the apostolate is also significantly implied in the term martus tes anastaseos autou. The resurrection was the great central theme of apostolic teaching and preaching (vid. Acts iv. 2, 33; xvii. 18, 32).--G.B.S. [75] Here the Edd. have hemeis; pothen delon; ex hon thaumatourgoumen. "ourselves: how is this proved? by the miracles we work." C. has not these words, which are not needed, but rather disturb the sense. [76] The words of the text (v. 23) Kai estesan duo are better rendered "put forward" (Rev. Vs.) than "appointed." (A.Y.) The meaning is that the company chose two persons as candidates, leaving the decision between them to the lot.--G.B.S. [77] Ouch haplos de prostithesin ekeinon, D. and E. have ouch haplos de ou protithesin ekeinon, according to which the sense would be the same: "Not without reason does he avoid putting Matthias first." [78] Here the Edd. add, ouchi ton exothen, "not by those without:" but these words are not found in our mss. of either text, nor in the Catena. [79] So, except E. all our mss. and the Catena: and Morel. Ben. But Sav. and Par. "they did not yet think themselves worthy to make the election by themselves: wherefore they desire to be informed by some sign." An unnecessary alteration; for the sign means some miraculous token. So OEcumen. [80] Mss. and Edd. pollo mallon entautha eplerose ton choron, apertise ten taxin. The Catena adds ho anadechtheis (anadeichtheis), which we have adopted. [81] Edd. Panu ge. Ou gar episkopou legeis ergon. Read Panu ge (ou gar;) episk. leg. ergon. [82] Sumbainei tina kleron diadexasthai andron mochtheron. The expression below, hoti mochtheros tis esti shows that the and. mochth., `ill-conditioned men,' are clerks. The offences meant seem to have been before ordination: and the difficulty is, How to deal with a clerk who ought not to have been ordained at all? You cannot cut him off from the order of clergy, there being no present actual delinquency to justify such a step. Then suppose you do not call him to account for the past, on the ground that the bishop who ordained him must be answerable: what are you to do, when this man should in the regular course be advanced to a higher order of the ministry? To refuse to ordain him, would be to publish his unworthiness, and call attention to the scandal of his having been ordained in the first instance: to advance him, would be even worse. [83] Here the Edd. add antisteson ten geennan, "put in the other balance--hell:" which, however, is not found in any of our mss. [84] hina hen hamarte hamartema monon, ekolazeto pikros. On this peculiar construction, see Field, Adnotat, in Hom. in Matt. p. 404. E.--In the next sentence St. Chrys. in applying the term hiereus to Moses, does not mean that Moses was a Priest, but that he held a station similar in some regards to that of Bishops afterwards. Aaron was properly the High Priest, but Moses was a type of Christian Bishops, considered as Chief Pastors and Rulers. [85] Mallon de nun oude meta to ekbenai delos tois pollois; ou gar estin autois polemos; & 135;lla kata tous poimenas ekeinous, k. t. l. Perhaps Chrys. is not fully reported here. The meaning seems to be: "The proverb, glukus ho polemos apeirois, may well be applied here; it is a fine thing to be a bishop, to those who have not tried it. Little do people think what this war is, before they have entered into it. But in our times, not only pro tou embenai, but even meta to ekbenai, after a good bishop has gone through with it, the generality of people do not see that there has been any war in the case. We bishops, in their view, are like Ezekiel's shepherds. And no marvel, for many among us are such." The author of the modern text has given a different turn to the sentiment. Here it is: "The same may well be said in the present case; or rather, we do say it before we have entered into the contest; but after we have embarked in it, we become not even visible to the generality. For to us now there is no war, against those who oppress the poor, nor do we endure to battle in defence of the flock; but like those shepherds, etc." [86] Vigils were celebrated in C.'s time with much pomp. A grand ceremonial of this kind was held in the first year of his episcopate, at the translation of the relics. [87] Poi& 251; gar suneidoti an (l. kan) gene spoudasas e, k. t. l. The meaning is strangely mistaken by the Lat. transl. Erasm. has, Quem enim conscium adibis si vel, etc. Ben. Quo uteris conscio si ambias vel, etc. The poiois ophthalmois following might have shown the meaning, not to mention the ungrammatical rendering of an gene spoudasas. [88] See de Sacerdot, lib. iv. in the opening, where this question is considered at length. [89] Parachoreso tes didaskalias himin: I will cede the teaching to you; let it be yours to teach by your actions, which is the more potent teaching. [90] Ta gar para philon legomena, Kan hubris e, phoreta. Apparently a quotation. [91] Edd. apuloimen ei me: "May I perish if, etc." but none of our mss. have this word. .

Homily IV.

Acts II. 1, 2

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven."

Dost thou perceive the type? What is this Pentecost? The time when the sickle was to be put to the harvest, and the ingathering was made. See now the reality, when the time was come to put in the sickle of the word: for here, as the sickle, keen-edged, came the Spirit down. For hear the words of Christ: "Lift up your eyes," He said, "and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest." (John iv. 35.) And again, "The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few." (Matt. ix. 38.) But as the first-fruits of this harvest, He himself took [our nature], and bore it up on high. Himself first put in the sickle. Therefore [92] also He calls the Word the Seed. "When," it says, "the day of Pentecost was fully come" (Luke viii. 5, 11): that is, when at the Pentecost, while about it, in short. [93] For it was essential that the present events likewise should take place during the feast, that those who had witnessed the crucifixion of Christ, might also behold these. "And suddenly there came a sound from heaven." (v. 2.) Why did this not come to pass without sensible tokens? For this reason. If even when the fact was such, men said, "They are full of new wine," what would they not have said, had it been otherwise? And it is not merely, "there came a sound," but, "from heaven." And the suddenness also startled them, and [94] brought all together to the spot. "As of a rushing mighty wind:" this betokens the exceeding vehemence of the Spirit. "And it filled all the house:" insomuch that those present both believed, and (Edd. toutous) in this manner were shown to be worthy. Nor is this all; but what is more awful still, "And there appeared unto them," it says, "cloven tongues like as of fire." (v. 3.) Observe how it is always, "like as;" and rightly: that you may have no gross sensible notions of the Spirit. Also, "as it were of a blast:" therefore it was not a wind. "Like as of fire." For when the Spirit was to be made known to John, then it came upon the head of Christ as in the form of a dove: but now, when a whole multitude was to be converted, it is "like as of fire. And it sat upon each of them." This means, that it remained and rested upon them." For the sitting is significant of settledness and continuance.

Was it upon the twelve that it came? Not so; but upon the hundred and twenty. For Peter would not have quoted to no purpose the testimony of the prophet, saying, "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord God, I will pour out of My spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." (Joel ii. 28.) "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost." (v. 4.) For, that the effect may not be to frighten only, therefore is it both "with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. And began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (Matt. iii. 11.) They receive no other sign, but this first; for it was new to them, and there was no need of any other sign. "And it sat upon each of them," says the writer. Observe now, how there is no longer any occasion for that person to grieve, who was not elected as was Matthias, "And they were all filled," he says; not merely received the grace of the Spirit, but "were filled. And began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." It would not have been said, All, the Apostles also being there present, unless the rest also were partakers. For were it not so, having above made mention of the Apostles distinctively and by name, he would not now have put them all in one with the rest. For if, where it was only to be mentioned that they were present, he makes mention of the Apostles apart, much more would he have done so in the case here supposed. [95] Observe, how when one is continuing in prayer, when one is in charity, then it is that the Spirit draws near. It put them in mind also of another vision: for as fire did He appear also in the bush. "As the Spirit gave them utterance, apophthengesthai (Exod. iii. 2.) For the things spoken by them were apophthegmata, profound utterances. "And," it says, "there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men." (v. 5.) The fact of their dwelling there was a sign of piety: that being of so many nations they should have left country, and home, and relations, and be abiding there. For, it says, "There were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded. (v. 6.) Since the event had taken place in a house, of course they came together from without. The multitude was confounded: was all in commotion. They marvelled; "Because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were amazed," it says, "and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?" (v. 7-13.) They immediately turned their eyes towards the Apostles. "And how" (it follows) "hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene:" mark how they run from east to west: [96] "and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And, they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine." O the excessive folly! O the excessive malignity! Why it was not even the season for that; for it was Pentecost. For this was what made it worse: that when those were confessing--men that were Jews, that were Romans, that were proselytes, yea perhaps that had crucified Him--yet these, after so great signs, say, "They are full of new wine!"

But let us look over what has been said from the beginning. (Recapitulation.) "And when the day of Pentecost," etc. "It filled," he says, "the house." That wind pnoe was a very pool of water. This betokened the copiousness, as the fire did the vehemence. This nowhere happened in the case of the Prophets: for to uninebriated souls such accesses are not attended with much disturbance; but "when they have well drunken," then indeed it is as here, but with the Prophets it is otherwise. [97] (Ez. iii. 3.) The roll of a book [98] is given him, and Ezekiel ate what he was about to utter. "And it became in his mouth," it is said, "as honey for sweetness." (And [99] again the hand of God touches the tongue of another Prophet; but here it is the Holy Ghost Himself: (Jer. i. 9) so equal is He in honor with the Father and the Son.) And again, on the other hand, Ezekiel calls it "Lamentations, and mourning, and woe." (Ez. ii. 10.) To them it might well be in the form of a book; for they still needed similitudes. Those had to deal with only one nation, and with their own people; but these with the whole world, and with men whom they never knew. Also Elisha receives the grace through the medium of a mantle (2 Kings xiii.); another by oil, as David (1 Sam. xvi. 13); and Moses by fire, as we read of him at the bush. (Exod. iii. 2.) But in the present case it is not so; for the fire itself sat upon them. (But wherefore did the fire not appear so as to fill the house? Because they would have been terrified.) But the story shows, that it is the same here as there. [100] For you are not to stop at this, that "there appeared unto them cloven tongues," but note that they were "of fire." Such a fire as this is able to kindle infinite fuel. Also, it is well said, Cloven, for they were from one root; that you may learn, that it was an operation sent from the Comforter. [101]

But observe how those men also were first shown to be worthy, and then received the Spirit as worthy. Thus, for instance, David: [102] what he did among the sheepfolds, the same he did after his victory and trophy; that it might be shown how simple and absolute was his faith. Again, see Moses despising royalty, and forsaking all, and after forty years taking the lead of the people (Exod. ii. 11); and Samuel occupied there in the temple (1 Sam. iii. 3); Elisha leaving all (1 Kings xix. 21); Ezekiel again, made manifest by what happened thereafter. [103] In this manner, you see, did these also leave all that they had. They learnt also what human infirmity is, by what they suffered; they learnt that it was not in vain they had done these good works. (1 Sam. ix. and xi. 6.) Even Saul, having first obtained witness that he was good, thereafter received the Spirit. But in the same manner as here did none of them receive. Thus Moses was the greatest of the Prophets, yet he, when others were to receive the Spirit, himself suffered diminution. [104] But here it is not so; but just as fire kindles as many flames as it will, so here the largeness of the Spirit was shown, in that each one received a fountain of the Spirit; as indeed He Himself had foretold, that those who believe in Him, should have "a well of water springing up into everlasting life." (John iv. 14.) And good reason that it should be so. For they did not go forth to argue with Pharaoh, but to wrestle with the devil. But the wonder is this, that when sent they made no objections; they said not, they were "weak in voice, and of a slow tongue." (Exod. iv. 10.) For Moses had taught them better. They said not, they were too young. (Jer. i. 6.) Jeremiah had made them wise. And yet they had heard of many fearful things, and much greater than were theirs of old time; but they feared to object.--And because they were angels of light, and ministers of things above ["Suddenly there came from heaven," etc.] To them of old, no one "from heaven" appears, while they as yet follow after a vocation on earth; but now that Man has gone up on high, the Spirit also descends mightily from on high. "As it were a rushing mighty wind;" making it manifest by this, that nothing shall be able to withstand them, but they shall blow away all adversaries like a heap of dust. "And it filled all the house." The house also was a symbol of the world. "And it sat upon each of them," [etc.] and "the multitude came together, and were confounded." Observe their piety; they pronounce no hasty judgment, but are perplexed: whereas those reckless ones pronounce at once, saying, "These men are full of new wine." Now it was in order that they might have it in their power, [105] in compliance with the Law, to appear thrice in the year in the Temple, that they dwelt there, these "devout men from all nations." Observe here, the writer has no intention of flattering them. For he does not say that they pronounced any opinion: but what? "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded." And well they might be; for they supposed the matter was now coming to an issue against them, on account of the outrage committed against Christ. Conscience also agitated their souls, the very blood being yet upon their hands, and every thing alarmed them. "Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?" For indeed this was confessed. ["And how hear we"] so much did the sound alarm them. ["Every man in our own tongue," etc.] for it found the greater part of the world assembled there. ["Parthians and Medes," etc.] This nerved the Apostles: for, what it was to speak in the Parthian tongue, they knew not but now learnt from what those said. Here is mention made of nations that were hostile to them, Cretans, Arabians, Egyptians, Persians: and that they would conquer them all was here made manifest. But as to their being in those countries, they were there in captivity, many of them: or else, the doctrines of the Law had become disseminated [among] the Gentiles in those countries. [106] So then the testimony comes from all quarters: from citizens, from foreigners, from proselytes. "We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God." For it was not only that they spoke (in their tongues), but the things they spoke were wonderful. [107] Well then might they be in doubt: for never had the like occurred. Observe the ingenuousness of these men. They were amazed and were in doubt, saying, "What meaneth this?" But "others mocking said, `These men are full of new wine'" (John viii. 48), and therefore mocked. O the effrontery! And what wonder is it? Since even of the Lord Himself, when casting out devils, they said that He had a devil! For so it is; wherever impudent assurance exists, it has but one object in view, to speak at all hazards, it cares not what; not that the man should say something real and relevant to the matter of discourse, but that he should speak no matter what. ["They are full of new wine."] Quite a thing of course (is not it?), [108] that men in the midst of such dangers, and dreading the worst, and in such despondency, have the courage to utter such things! And observe: since this was unlikely; because they would not have been drinking much [at that early hour], they ascribe the whole matter to the quality (of the wine), and say, "They are full" of it. "But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them." In a former place [109] you saw his provident forethought, here you see his manly courage. For if they were astonished and amazed, was it not as wonderful that he should be able in the midst of such a multitude to find language, he, an unlettered and ignorant man? If a man is troubled when he speaks among friends, much more might he be troubled among enemies and bloodthirsty men. That they are not drunken, he shows immediately by his very voice, that they are not beside themselves, as the soothsayers: and this too, that they were not constrained by some compulsory force. What is meant by, "with the eleven?" They expressed themselves through one common voice, and he was the mouth of all. The eleven stood by as witnesses to what he said. "He lifted up his voice," it is said. That is, he spoke with great confidence, that they might perceive the grace of the Spirit. He who had not endured the questioning of a poor girl, now in the midst of the people, all breathing murder, discourses with such confidence, that this very thing becomes an unquestionable proof of the Resurrection: in the midst of men who could deride and make a joke of such things as these! What effrontery, think you, must go to that! what impiety, what shamelessness! [110] For wherever the Holy Spirit is present, He makes men of gold out of men of clay. Look, I pray you, at Peter now: examine well that timid one, and devoid of understanding; as Christ said, "Are ye also yet without understanding?" (Matt. xv. 16) the man, who after that marvellous confession was called "Satan." (Ib. xvi. 23.) Consider also the unanimity of the Apostles. They themselves ceded to him the office of speaking; for it was not necessary that all should speak. "And he lifted up his voice," and spoke out to them with great boldness. Such a thing it is to be a spiritual man! Only let us also bring ourselves into a state meet for the grace from above, and all becomes easy. For as a man of fire falling into the midst of straw would take no harm, but do it to others: not he could take any harm, but they, in assailing him, destroy themselves. For the case here was just as if one carrying hay should attack one bearing fire: even so did the Apostles encounter these their adversaries with great boldness.

For what did it harm them, though they were so great a multitude? Did they not spend all their rage? did they not turn the distress upon themselves? Of all mankind were ever any so possessed with both rage and terror, as those became possessed? Were they not in an agony, and were dismayed, and trembled? For hear what they say, "Do ye wish to bring this man's blood upon us?" (Acts v. 28.) Did they [111] (the Apostles) not fight against poverty and hunger: against ignominy and infamy (for they were accounted deceivers): did they not fight [112] against ridicule and wrath and mockery?--for in their case the contraries met: some laughed at them, others punished them;--were they not made a mark for the wrathful passions, and for the merriment, [113] of whole cities? exposed to factions and conspiracies: to fire, and sword, and wild beasts? Did not war beset them from every quarter, in ten thousand forms? And were they any more affected in their minds by all these things, than they would have been at seeing them in a dream or in a picture? [114] With bare body they took the field against all the armed, though against them all men had arbitrary power [against them, were]: terrors of rulers, force of arms, in cities and strong walls: [115] without experience, without skill of the tongue, and in the condition of quite ordinary men, matched against juggling conjurors, against impostors, against the whole throng of sophists, of rhetoricians, of philosophers grown mouldy in the Academy and the walks of the Peripatetics, against all these they fought the battle out. And the man whose occupation had been about lakes, so mastered them, as if it cost him not so much ado as even a contest with dumb fishes: for just as if the opponents he had to outwit were indeed more mute than fishes, so easily did he get the better of them! And Plato, that talked a deal of nonsense in his day, is silent now, while this man utters his voice everywhere; not among his own countrymen alone, but also among Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and in India, and in every part of the earth, and to the extremities of the world. Where now is Greece, with her big pretentions? Where the name of Athens? Where the ravings of the philosophers? He of Galilee, he of Bethsaida, he, the uncouth rustic, has overcome them all. Are you not ashamed--confess it--at the very name of the country of him who has defeated you? But if you hear his own name too, and learn that he was called Cephas, much more will you hide your faces. This, this has undone you quite; because you esteem this a reproach, and account glibness of tongue a praise, and want of glibness a disgrace. You have not followed the road you ought to have chosen, but leaving the royal road, so easy, so smooth, you have trodden one rough, and steep, and laborious. And therefore you have not attained unto the kingdom of heaven.

Why then, it is asked, did not Christ exercise His influence upon Plato, and upon Pythagoras? Because the mind of Peter was much more philosophical [116] than their minds. They were in truth children shifted about on all sides by vain glory; but this man was a philosopher, one apt to receive grace. If you laugh at these words, it is no wonder; for those aforetime laughed, and said, the men were full of new wine. But afterwards, when they suffered those bitter calamities, exceeding all others in misery; when they saw their city falling in ruins, and the fire blazing, and the walls hurled to the ground, and those manifold frantic horrors, which no one can find words to express, they did not laugh then. And you will laugh then, if you have the mind to laugh, when the time of hell is close at hand, when the fire is kindled for your souls. But why do I speak of the future? Shall I show you what Peter is, and what Plato, the philosopher? Let us for the present examine their respective habits, let us see what were the pursuits of each. The one wasted his time about a set of idle and useless dogmas, and philosophical, as he says, [117] that we may learn that the soul of our philosopher becomes a fly. [118] Most truly said, a fly! not indeed changed into one, but a fly must have entered upon possession of the soul which dwelt in Plato; for what but a fly is worthy of such ideas! The man was full of irony, and of jealous feelings against every one else, as if he made it his ambition to introduce nothing useful, either out of his own head or other people's. Thus he adopted the metempsychosis from another, and from himself produced the Republic, in which he enacted those laws full of gross turpitude. Let the women, he says, be in common, and let the virgins go naked, and let them wrestle before the eyes of their lovers, and let there also be common fathers, and let the children begotten be common. But with us, not nature makes common fathers, but the philosophy of Peter does this; as for that other, it made away with all paternity. [119] For Plato's system only tended to make the real father next to unknown, while the false one was introduced. It plunged the soul into a kind of intoxication and filthy wallowing. Let all, he says, have intercourse with the women without fear. The reason why I do not examine the maxims of poets, is, that I may not be charged with ripping up fables. And yet I am speaking of fables much more ridiculous than even those. Where have the poets devised aught so portentous as this? But (not to enter into the discussion of his other maxims), what say you to these--when he equips the females with arms, and helmets, and greaves, and says that the human race has no occasion to differ from the canine! Since dogs, he says, the female and the male, do just the same things in common, so let the women do the same works as the men, and let all be turned upside down. For the devil has always endeavored by their means [120] to show that our race is not more honorable than that of brutes; and, in fact, some have gone to such a pitch of (kenodoxias) absurdity, as to affirm that the irrational creatures are endued with reason. And see in how many various ways he has run riot in the minds of those men! For whereas their leading men affirmed that our soul passes into flies, and dogs, and brute creatures; those who came after them, being ashamed of this, fell into another kind of turpitude, and invested the brute creatures with all rational science, and made out that the creatures--which were called into existence on our account--are in all respects more honorable than we! They even attribute to them foreknowledge and piety. The crow, they say, knows God, and the raven likewise, and they possess gifts of prophecy, and foretell the future; there is justice among them, and polity, and laws. Perhaps you do not credit the things I am telling you. And well may you not, nurtured as you have been with sound doctrine; since also, if a man were fed with this fare, he would never believe that there exists a human being who finds pleasure in eating dung. The dog [121] also among them is jealous, according to Plato. But when we tell them that these things are fables, and are full of absurdity, `You do not enter (enoesate) into the higher meaning,' say they. No, we do not enter into this your surpassing nonsense, and may we never do so: for it requires (of course! [122] ) an excessively profound mind, to inform me, what all this impiety and confusion would be at. Are you talking, senseless men, in the language of crows, as the children are wont (in play)? For you are in very deed children, even as they. But Peter never thought of saying any of these things: he uttered a voice, like a great light shining out in the dark, a voice which scattered the mist and darkness of the whole world. Again, his deportment, how gentle it was, how considerate (epieikes); how far above all vainglory; how he looked towards heaven without all self-elation, and this, even when raising up the dead! But if it had come to be in the power of any one of those senseless people (in mere fantasy of course) to do anything like it, would he not straightway have looked for an altar and a temple to be reared to him, and have wanted to be equal with the gods? since in fact when no such sign is forthcoming, they are forever indulging such fantastic conceits. And what, pray you, is that Minerva of theirs, and Apollo, and Juno? They are different kinds of demons among them. And there is a king of theirs, who thinks fit to die for the mere purpose of being accounted equal with the gods. But not so the men here: no, just the contrary. Hear how they speak on the occasion of the lame man's cure. "Ye men of Israel, why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made him to walk? (ch. iii. 12.) We also are men of like passions with you. (Ibid. xiv. 14.) But with those, great is the self-elation, great the bragging; all for the sake of men's honors, nothing for the pure love of truth and virtue. (philosophias eneken.) For where an action is done for glory, all is worthless. For though a man possess all, yet if he have not the mastery over this (lust), he forfeits all claim to true philosophy, he is in bondage to the more tyrannical and shameful passion. Contempt of glory; this it is that is sufficient to teach all that is good, and to banish from the soul every pernicious passion. I exhort you therefore to use the most strenuous endeavors to pluck out this passion by the very roots; by no other means can you have good esteem with God, and draw down upon you the benevolent regard of that Eye which never sleepeth. Wherefore, let us use all earnestness to obtain the enjoyment of that heavenly influence, and thus both escape the trial of present evils, and attain unto the future blessings, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to all ages. Amen.


[92] i.e. in reference to the harvest. The modern text has, "therefore He calls this the harvest:" missing the author's meaning, i.e. the allusion to the parable of the sower. [93] toutesti, pros te pentekoste peri auten hos eipein Pros, as in the phrase, einai v. ginesthai pros tini. Hom. in Matt. 289. B. Field, not. and similarly peri as in einai peri ti. Only OEcumen. has preserved the true reading, in his comment pros te p.; peri auten ede ten heorten. A. B. C. read, pro tes pentekostes peri auten hos eipein: so Cat. but with peri for pro. The others, ou pro tes p., alla peri auten, hos eipein. [94] In the mss. and Edd. the order of the following sentences is confused. It is here restored by bringing the clause, kai pantas ekei sunegagen into what appears to be its proper connection, and supplying the text to the comment pollen ten rhumen legei tou Pneumatos. [95] i.e. if the gift descended only upon the Twelve, there would have been specific and distinctive mention of them in this narrative, as there was in the former chapter; and with much more reason here than there. The writer would not have said merely, They were all together: it sat upon each one of them: they were all filled: if he had meant that the Spirit came only upon the Apostles. [96] i.e. Mark how the enumeration, "Parthians, and Medes," etc., goes from east to west. This comment having been transposed to the end of v. 12, was misunderstood: and E. has instead of it, "Do you see how it was, that, as if they had wings, they sped their way through the whole world?" [97] Ta gar toiauta nephouson men psuchon prospiptonta, ou polu* echei ton thorubon; hotan de methusosin tote men houtos, tois prophe* tais de heteros. In the modern text, which here also is followed by Erasm. and Edd. it is, alla tote men houtos ekeinois, tois prophetais de heteros. "But here indeed it is on this wise with them (the disciples), but with the Prophets otherwise."--The expression "uninebriated" relates to the Old Testament: no such fire there, no mighty rushing wind, no vehement commotion: this comes of "the new wine" of the Spirit; hotan methusosin, with allusion to John ii. 10. [98] So de Sancta Pentecoste, Hom. i. t. ii. 465. "Why does Ezekiel receive the gift of prophecy not by the likeness of fire, but by a book, while the Apostles receive the gifts by fire? For concerning him we read, that one gave him in his mouth a roll of a book, etc.: but concerning the Apostles not so, but "there appeared unto them tongues as of fire." Why is it a book and writing there, here tongue and fire? Because there the Prophet went his way to accuse sins, and to bewail Jewish calamities: whereas these went forth to consume the sins of the whole world: therefore he received a writing, to call to mind the coming calamities: these fire, to burn up the sins of the world, and utterly abolish them. For as fire falling among thorns will with ease destroy them, even so the grace of the Spirit consumed the sins of men." [99] This, which we have marked as parenthesis, seems to be out of its place: it interrupts what is said about Ezekiel, and besides is not relevant to the matter immediately in hand, 'Entautha de auto to Pn. to ;'A. k. t. l. would come in more suitably after the mention of the fire in the bush, in which God appeared to Moses. And so OEcumenius seems to have taken it. "But it is in the likeness of fire, because the Spirit also is God, and to prove by this also that the Spirit is of one Nature (homophues) with the Father, Who appears in this manner to Moses at the bush." [100] ;'Oti touto ekeino esti: i.e. The Spirit here given to the disciples, is the same that was given to those: but more intense in operation; therefore it appears not merely under the emblem of cloven tongues, but as tongues of fire. [101] Chrys. seems to understand by diamerizomenai (v. 3), divided, distributed among the members of the company, rather than of a cloven form, a forked appearance, as indicating the shape of the fire-like tongues. The former is the preferable interpretation. (So the Rev. Vers. vs. A.V.). The latter view cannot explain the singular verb which follows, ekathisen.--G.B.S. [102] hina deichthe autou gumne he pistis. Not, ut palam fieret fides ejus, fides ejus, Ben. but,quo ipsius nuda simplexque fides declararetur," Erasm. The meaning seems to be: David after the victory over Goliath, when the hearts of the people were turned to him, and he might have taken possession of the kingdom to which he was anointed, yet did not seek worldly greatness, but chose rather to suffer persecutions, etc.: as developed in the Homilies de Davide et Saule, t. iv. 752. Below, for anatrephomenon ("Samuel brought up in the temple,") A. has anastrephomenon, which we have adopted. [103] So C and Cat. B. transposes Elisha and Ezekiel, A. omits the clause. Chrys. elsewhere makes it a special praise of Ezekiel, that he chose rather to accompany his people into captivity, than to remain in his own land: Interp. in Isai. i. t. 1. 2. and ad Stagyr. ii. t. ii. 228. In this manner then (he would say here), Ez. "left all," and having thus given proof of his worth, received the gift of prophecy. The modern text reads: "Ezekiel again. And that the case was thus, is manifest from what followed. For indeed these also forsook all that they had. Therefore they then received the Spirit, when they had given proof of their own virtue."--By these (houtoi) we must understand the Old Test. saints just mentioned. It should rather have been ekeinoi, but Chrys. is negligent in the use of these pronouns. See Hom. in Matt. Field. Adnot. p. 709, B. [104] 'Elattouto. Alluding to Numb. xi. 17. "I will take of the Spirit that is upon thee, and will put it upon them." [105] ;'Ina de exe. (Cat. hina deixe.) OEcumen. hina echosi, "that they may have it in their power, according to the law of their fathers, to appear thrice in the year, etc." The modern text has, epei exen...dia touto. "Because it was permitted...therefore." [106] 'Ekei de en aichmalosia esan polloi e kai ekei diesparto ta ethne ta ton dogmaton. A. B. C. N. As ta ton d taken as apposition to ta ethne yields no satisfactory sense, we adopt from the modern text pros before ta ethne, and make, as there, ta ton d. the nom. to diesparto. And as in the next sentence Chrys. distinguishes citizens, foreign (Jews), and proselytes, and there is no mention of the last, unless it be in the clause e kai ekei diesparto, we infer that ta ton d. means the Law of Moses. "Or also in those countries (Parthia, Media, etc. in consequence of the dispersion of the Jews) the Law and its religion had been disseminated among the Gentiles. So that from all quarters, etc." Thus it is explained how there came to be present at Jerusalem "devout men" from Parthia and those other countries: there were many Jews there in captivity, and also proselytes of the Law from among the Gentiles.--In the modern text the passage is thus altered: "But, inasmuch as the Jews were in captivity, it is likely that there were then present with them many of the Gentiles: e hoti kai pros ta ethne ta ton dogmaton ede katesparto, kai dia touto polloi kai ex auton paresan ekei. Or, because ta ton d. had become disseminated among the Gentiles also, and therefore many also of them were there present, kata mnemen on ekousan. Here ta ton dogmaton is taken to mean `the doctrines of the Christian Faith:' as Erasmus renders the passage, Sive quod ad gentes quoque fidei dogmata seminata fuerint, et hanc ob causam complures ex iis aderant ut memorarent quæ audierant. It can hardly be supposed that St. Chrysostom meant to represent that some of these Parthians, Medes, etc. were Gentiles who had heard in their own country the tidings of the Faith of Christ, and therefore were present at Jerusalem: yet this is what he is made to say in this text. [107] It is impossible to gain from this language any clear view of the author's opinion of the gift of tongues. The uncertainty of the text here still further embarrasses the subject. That the narrative means that they received at Pentecost a miraculous gift of speaking foreign languages, is now almost unanimously maintained by modern scholars. The difficult question as to the gift of tongues as referred to in 1 Cor. xiv. should not lead to a weakening or explaining away of such unmistakable expressions as heterais glossais (4), hemeterais glossais (11), and te idi& 139; dialekto (6, 8). Cf. Mark xvi. 17.--G.B.S. [108] Panu ge (ou gar;) anthropoi k. t. l. See above, p. 47. note u. and 66, note c. The modern text has, Panu ge; hoti anthropoi k. t. l. Below, "Since this was improbable, therefore, to impose upon the hearers, and show that the men are drunken, they ascribe, etc." But in the old text it is, hoti ouk an emethusthesan, meaning, "because [so early in the day] they would not have been drinking much," (this is the force of the tense methusthenai as in John ii. 10) "therefore they ascribe all to the quality (of the wine);" because as OEcumen. says, explaining this remark of Chrys., the fumes of gleukos mount more quickly to the brain, etc. Erasmus, seemingly referring this to memestomenoi, translates hebetudini crapulæque rem totam ascribunt: Ben. even more strangely, `agendi et loquendi modo totum ascribunt. [109] 'Ekei: referring to ch. i. as expounded in Hom. iii. So OEcumen, in loc. ,'Ano men ten kedemonian epideiknutai, en hois to plethei epitrepei ten eklogen k. t. l. [110] Here the modern text (Edd.) enlarges by the additions "to account the wonder of the tongues the work of drunkenness? But not a whit did this annoy the Apostles; nor did it make them less bold at hearing such scoffing. By the presence of the Spirit they were now transformed, and were become superior to all bodily considerations." [111] The change of subject (from the Jews to the Apostles) is not expressed in the original. To remedy the confusion occasioned by this negligence, the modern text (Edd.) transposes this part: viz. after the sentence ending, "so great a multitude:" it has, "For tell me: did they not fight--in a picture?" And then, "What? I pray you; did they not exhaust, etc." Clearly the other is the original order. It is shown, first, how the Jews were utterly worsted, and how awfully the whole posture of affairs was reversed for them; and then, how victoriously the preachers of the new Faith maintained their ground against the whole world. [112] Edd. "Were they not subjected to the ridicule and mockery of those present? For in their case both these befel together: for some derided them, others mocked." Which is weak enough; but the original text could not be retained, because on the supposition that all this relates to the Jews then present, the mention of "wrath" and "punishment" would be irrelevant. [113] Euthumiais, i.e. "bursts of self-complacent mirth" (e.g. at Athens), opposed to thumois "explosions of wrath." Ben. without specifying the authority, notes a various reading, athumiais, which is found in none of the Paris copies, and is quite unmeaning. Edd. maniais. [114] Ben. interprets: "So unlooked for were these trials, that the Apostles seemed to themselves to be dreaming or beholding these things in a picture." But when the true order of the text is restored, no such far-fetched comment is needed. [115] The text is defective here, archonton phoboi, hoplon ischus; polesi kai teichesin ochurois. The text of the Edd. has: "And the wonder is, that with bare body they took the field against armed men, against rulers having power over them: without experience," etc. [116] St. Chrysostom's habitual use of the term philosophy is thus explained in the index of Mr. Field's edition of the Com. on St. Matt. "Philosophy, according to the custom of Chrys. is not Christian piety, not the exercise of any virtue, not a pious and chaste life, not virtue in general, but that part of virtue, which consists in subduing the carnal appetites and affections. Thus to Christian philosophy are to be referred: forbearance and long suffering; humblemindedness; contempt of wealth; an austere and monastic life; every other mortification (apatheia). Its contraries are: emulation (zelotupia, see below), envy and vainglory, and all other passions." [117] kai philosopha, phesin, hina: "And `philosophical,' forsooth:" but perhaps it should be kai ephilosophesen hina: "this was the upshot of his philosophizing." ;;E tou philosophou psuche: "the soul of the philosopher himself (A tou didaskalou), viz. equally with the souls of other men, becomes, for instance, a fly," etc. Comp. infra: "our soul passes into flies and dogs," etc. and Hom. in Ev. Joann. t. viii. 8. D. "they say that the souls of men become flies, gnats, shrubs."--Edd. "For what is the benefit from learning that the soul of the philosopher," etc. The next sentence (ontos muia--ouk eis muian metepipten (sc. he psuche), all' epebaine (sc. muia te en Plat. oikouse) psuche seems to mean, `He talks of the soul becoming a fly: and truly the soul in Plato might be claimed by a fly:' epeb. te ps. as e.g. is epibainein te eparchi& 139; to step into possession of, etc. Poias gar tauta ou muias; Edd. mataiologias; adding, Pophen de toiauta lerein epebaleto; "What could put it into his head to rave in this fashion?" [118] The author's depreciation of Plato contrasts unfavorably with the more generous estimates of a long line of Church Fathers from Justin to Augustin.--G.B.S. [119] 'Epei ekeino ge kai anerei. Erasmus translates, Quandoquidem et illud quod Plato docuit, sustulit: whence Ben. Nam illud Platonis hic (Petrus) sustulit: i.e. for Peter's doctrine (of chastity) has made an end of that lewd dogma of Plato's. But the following sentence rather implies that the meaning is as above given. [120] Di' auton, Ben. per illas, which they seem to refer to gunaikes. Erasm. per illos, which is doubtless right: by means of the philosophers, as below, en tais ekeinon psuchais. [121] Kai zeloi par autois ho kuon kata Platona. Edd. have this after "polity and laws," where it is clearly out of place, whatever it means. [122] Edd. Sphodra ge; ou gar phrenos batheias. Read Sphodra ge (ou gar); phr. b. as above, p. 22, note 1, and 28, note 1.

Also, see links to 600 other Chrysostom Manuscripts:

E-mail to: BELIEVE

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at: BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html