111

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 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 (πολλοῖς γοῦν τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο οὐδὲ γνώριμόν ἐστι) 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 (νενομοθέτηται) 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.” 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 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 ἐυαγγέλιον 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.” 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 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. 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 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. 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” 10 Ms. C. has οἰκτίρμονας, merciful; the rest, ἀκτήμονας, 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, Πάλιν ἀκτημοσύνην παιδεύων, ὅρα πῶς διὰ τῶν ἔργων αὐτὴν ἐπιδείκνυται, λέγων, Αἱ ἀλώπεκες, κ. τ. λ. 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. (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 others13, 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 13 i.e. as OEcumenius explains in l. ίνα μή τις νομίσῃ ἐτέρου ουνάμει τοῦτο γενέσθαι, 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. 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 (ἔθνος) 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 stab16 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 table17 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 16 Περιπείρουσι, 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 πανταχοῦ ἡ πλάνη ἑαυτὴν περιπείρει, for ἑαυτῇ περιπίπτει. 17 Συναλιζόμενος. In the margin of E.V. “Eating together with them.” The Catena here and below, had pr. man. the other reading, συναυλιζόμενος, 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, τουτέστι κοινωνῶν ἁλῶν, κοινωνῶν τραπέζης, “Partaking of the salt, partaking of the table.” 18 Chrys. here follows the interpretation which derives συναλιζόμενος (i. 4) from σύν and ἅλς (salt) hence, eating together. So several ancient authorities as Vulgate (convesceus) and even modern, as Meyer. But the preferable derivation is from σύν and ἁλής (crowded), hence to be assembled, to meet with (sc. ἀυτοῖς). So Olshausen, Hackett, Lechler, Thayer’s Lex. and most modern authorities.—G.B.S. 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. Be- sides, 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.

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 30 The emphatic position of ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ 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. 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. And31 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 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. 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 show34 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 shown36 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.” 34 Καὶ δεικνύντων ἡμῶν, C. the modern text has μή. 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 ᾽Αλλὰ μετὰ τὸ δεῖξαι (as above, καὶ δεικνύντων ἡμῶν, sc. γυμνὰς τὰς χεῖρας), τοῦτο πεποίηκεν, sc. φοβεῖ. The mss. except C and A, and the Edd. have ὃ before πεποίηκεν, which gives no sense. 37 Chrys. therefore explains these sayings of our Lord (polemically against the Arians) as οἰκονομία: i.e. the thing said is not objectively true, but the morality of all actions depends on the subjective condition of the προαίρεσις or purpose (παρὰ τὴν τῶν χρωμένων προαίρεσιν γιγνεται φαῦλον ἢ καλὸν, 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 οἰκονομία, 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 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 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 Πόρρωθεν γὰρ οὐκ ἐνῆν ἰδόντας γνῶναι; 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 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). For40 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).

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 (ὑπερέθετο) referred them to another Coming. It seems to me, that it was also on a sabbath-day55 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. (καλὥς). 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? 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 ᾽Ιουδας ᾽Ιακώβου (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 ὑιός. 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. 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 58 Παλὶν δὲ συναγαγὼν αὐτοὺς οὐτως κατῆλθεν. So the older text: i.e. When they were scattered every man to his own home, that disciple had taken her εἰς τὰ ἴδια. 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 Προτιμότερος, b.c.: προτιμώμενος A. and Catena: τοῦ χοροῦ πρῶτος, 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 βέλτιον γέγονε λοιπον πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ, κ. τ. λ. he has, βελτίων λοιπὸν ἦν γεγονως ό Πετρὸς αὐτὸς ὲαυτοῦ, κ. τ. λ. “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 πάντων παρόντων, i.e., all, both men and women. Chrys. is commenting on the address ἄνδρες αδελφοὶ 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. 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 (οἰκειοὕται) 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 62 λανθανόντως λέγει τὴν αἰτίαν, παιδευτικὴν οὖσαν: 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, Καὶ οὐ λέγει, κ. τ. λ. 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 οὐ λέγει γάρ. 63 Τοῦτο παραμυθίαν ἐκείνοις ἔφερε. Something seems to be omitted here. is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood.” (v. 19). Now the Jews64 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 (ὁ χορὸς) 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 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 ἐξ ἡμῶν, which is less apposite. 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), “which67 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. “Where68 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 mother69 and thy brethren seek 66 ῎Αλλως δὲ καὶ μεταβολῆς βίου, ἴσως δὲ καὶ προαιρέσεως ἦν ἡ ὀνομασία. 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 (προαίρεσις.)—Or, προαίρεσις (βίου) may be opposed to μεταβολὴ βίου 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 ἴσως δὲ καὶ seems best to suit the former explanation. 67 This clause of the text is added, though wanting in our mss. The comment is, ὥστε μηδὲ μακρὰν βαδίζουσιν ὁδὸν φόβον τινὰ γενέσθαι τρέμουσιν ἔτι καὶ δεδοικόσιν αὐτοῖς: 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, τοῦτό φησιν, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι μακρὰν οὐ βαδίζουσιν ὁδὸν, ὡς φόβον τινὰ μη γενέσθαι τρέμουσιν ἔτι καὶ δεδοικόσιν αὐτοῖς. 68 Here again, as usual, in the renewed exposition, the text is omitted. 69 ῾Η μητήρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἐζητοῦμέν σε. A. C. ὁ πατήρ σου κ. τ. λ. B. For ἐζητ. we must read ζητοῦσιν. 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 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. Together70” 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. Homily on that passage, Chrys. interprets that Mary presented herself on that occasion οὐδὲν οὐδέπω περὶ αὐτοῦ μέγα φανταζομένη, “having as yet no high idea of His Person,” and that both she and His brethren, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ προσεῖχον ψιλῷ “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, ἡ μήτηρ ἔλεγεν, ᾽Εγὼ καὶ ὁ πατήρ σου ὀδυνώμενοι ἐζητοῦμέν σε. It seems that Chrys. cited this passage also (hence our mss. have ἐζητοῦμεν for ζητοῦσι), 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 (οἱ ἐξ αὐτοῦ viz. the ἀδελφοὶ), 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 ᾽Επι τὸ αὐτὸ: a comment on v. 15. 71 Καίτοιγε ἰσότυπον ἅπασιν εἶχε τὴν κατάστασιν, 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 καίτοι οὐδὲ, 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. 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,” (πρὥτος τοῦ πράγματος αὐθεντει 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” (τοὕτο γὰρ αὐτοὺς μάλιστα ὡφέλει· Δείκνυσι πάλιν 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 72 κύριος ἐρημώσεως μεγάλης. Something perhaps is wanting between κύρ. and ἐρ. μ. Indeed the text seems to consist of little more than a few rough notes. 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.

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. Therefore92 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, and94 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. τούτους) 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 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 τουτέστι, πρὸς τῇ πεντηκοστῇ περὶ αὐτὴν ὡς εἰπεῖν Πρὸς, as in the phrase, εἶναι v. γίνεσθαι πρός τινι. Hom. in Matt. 289. B. Field, not. and similarly περὶ as in εἶναι περί τι. Only OEcumen. has preserved the true reading, in his comment πρὸς τῇ π.; περὶ αὐτὴν ἤδη τὴν ἑορτήν. A. B. C. read, πρὸ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς περὶ αὐτὴν ὡς εἰπεῖν: so Cat. but with περὶ for πρὸ. The others, οὐ πρὸ τῆς π., ἀλλὰ περὶ αὐτὴν, ὡς εἰπεῖν. 94 In the mss. and Edd. the order of the following sentences is confused. It is here restored by bringing the clause, καὶ πάντας ἐκεῖ συνήγαγεν into what appears to be its proper connection, and supplying the text to the comment πολλὴν τὴν ῥυμην λέγει τοῦ Πνεύματος. 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, ἀποφθέγγεσθαι (Exod. iii. 2.) For the things spoken by them were ἀποφθέγματα, 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) 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. “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 πνοὴ 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 book98 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.” (And99 again the hand of God touches the tongue of another Prophet; but here 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 Τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα νηφουσῶν μὲν ψυχῶν προσπίπτοντα, οὐ πολὺ* ἔχει τὸν θόρυβον· ὅταν δὲ μεθύσωσιν τότε μὲν οὕτως, τοῖς προφή* ταις δὲ ἑτέρως. In the modern text, which here also is followed by Erasm. and Edd. it is, ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὕτως ἐκείνοις, τοῖς προφήταις δὲ ἑτέρως. “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; ὅταν μεθύσωσιν, 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, ᾽Ενταῦθα δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ Πν. τὸ ῞Α. κ. τ. λ. 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 there- 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 (ὁμοφυὲς) with the Father, Who appears in this manner to Moses at the bush.” 100 ῞Οτι τοῦτο ἐκεῖνό ἐστι: 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 διαμεριζόμεναι (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, ἐκάθισεν.—G.B.S. 102 ἵνα δειχθῇ αὐτοῦ γυμνὴ ἡ πίστις. 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 ἀνατρεφόμενον (“Samuel brought up in the temple,”) A. has ἀναστρεφόμενον, which we have adopted. after.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, 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 (οὗτοι) we must understand the Old Test. saints just mentioned. It should rather have been ἐκεῖνοι, but Chrys. is negligent in the use of these pronouns. See Hom. in Matt. Field. Adnot. p. 709, B. 104 ᾽Ηλαττοῦτο. Alluding to Numb. xi. 17. “I will take of the Spirit that is upon thee, and will put it upon them.” 105 ῞Ινα δὲ ἐξῇ. (Cat. ἵνα δείξῃ.) OEcumen. ἵνα ἔχωσι, “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, ἐπεὶ ἐξῆν…διὰ τοῦτο. “Because it was permitted…therefore.” 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 106 ᾽Εκεῖ δὲ ἐν αἰχμαλωσία ἦσαν πολλοὶ ἢ καὶ ἐκεῖ διέσπαρτο τὰ ἔθνη τὰ τῶν δογμάτων. A. B. C. N. As τὰ τῶν δ taken as apposition to τὰ ἔθνη yields no satisfactory sense, we adopt from the modern text πρὸς before τὰ ἔθνη, and make, as there, τὰ τῶν δ. the nom. to διέσπαρτο. 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 ἢ καὶ ἐκεῖ διέσπαρτο, we infer that τὰ τῶν δ. 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: ἢ ὅτι καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἔθνη τὰ τῶν δογμάτῶν ἤδη κατέσπαρτο, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολλοὶ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν παρῆσαν ἐκεῖ. Or, because τὰ τῶν δ. had become disseminated among the Gentiles also, and therefore many also of them were there present, κατὰ μνημὴν ὦν ἤκουσαν. Here τὰ τῶν δογμάτων 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 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 place109 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 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 ἑτέραις γλώσσαις (4), ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις (11), and τῇ ἰδίU+0026 139· διαλέκτῳ (6, 8). Cf. Mark xvi. 17.—G.B.S. 108 Πάνυ γε (οὐ γάρ;) ἄνθρωποι κ. τ. λ. See above, p. 47. note u. and 66, note c. The modern text has, Πάνυ γε· ὅτι ἄνθρωποι κ. τ. λ. 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, ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἐμεθύσθησαν, meaning, “because [so early in the day] they would not have been drinking much,” (this is the force of the tense μεθυσθῆναι 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 γλεῦκος mount more quickly to the brain, etc. Erasmus, seemingly referring this to μεμεστωμένοι, translates hebetudini crapulæque rem totam ascribunt: Ben. even more strangely, ‘agendi et loquendi modo totum ascribunt. 109 ᾽Εκεῖ: referring to ch. i. as expounded in Hom. iii. So OEcumen, in loc. ῎Ανω μὲν τὴν κηδεμονίαν ἐπιδείκνυται, ἐν οἷς τῷ πλήθει ἐπιτρέπει τὴν ἐκλογὴν κ. τ. λ. 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 they111 (the Apostles) not fight against poverty and hunger: against ignominy and infamy (for they were accounted deceivers): did they not fight112 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 pas- 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. sions, 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.

Acts II. 14

“Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words.”

“Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem,” whom the writer above described as strangers. Here he directs his discourse to those others, the mockers,123 and while he seems to reason with those, he sets these right. For indeed it was divinely ordered that “some mocked,” that he might have a starting-point for his defence, and by means of that defence, might teach. “And all ye that dwell in Jerusalem.” It seems they accounted it a high encomium to dwell in Jerusalem too.124 “Be this,” says he, “known unto you, and hearken unto my words.” In the first instance he made them more disposed to attend to him. “For not as ye125 suppose,” says he, “are these drunken.” Do you observe the mildness of his defence? (v. 15.) Although having the greater part of the people on his side, he reasons with those others gently; first he removes the evil surmise, and then he establishes his apology. On this account, therefore, he does not say, “as ye mock,” or, “as ye deride,” but, “as ye suppose;” wishing to make it appear that they had not said this in earnest, and for the present taxing them with ignorance rather than with malice. “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” And why this? Is it not possible at the third hour to be drunken? But he did not insist upon this to the letter; for there was nothing of the kind 123 The ἐκεῖνοι, if the old text be correct, are the mockers, but these are not “the devout men out of every nation under heaven,” therefore οὕς ξένους εἶπεν ἀνωτέρω can hardly be meant to refer to the following clause, ἐνταῖθα πρὸς ἐκείνους κ. τ. λ. The omission of the text-words, and the seeming antithesis of ἀνωτέρω and ἐνταῦθα, caused a confusion which the modern text attempts to remedy by transposing τοὺς διαχλ. to the place of τούτους. “Whom the writer above called strangers, to those Peter here directs his speech, and he seems indeed to discourse with those, but corrects the mockers.” This just inverts Chrysostom’s meaning, which is clear enough from the following context. He says: “The ‘dwellers in Jerusalem’ are especially the devout men out of every nation mentioned above, and to instruct these (τούτους) is the real aim of the discourse, which however is addressed in the first instance to the others (ἐκείνους), whose mockery gave occasion to it. St. Peter stands up apparently for the purpose of defending himself and his brethren: but this is in fact quite a secondary object, and the apology becomes a sermon of doctrine.” 124 Καὶ τὸ ἐν ῾Ι. οἰκεῖν. Below he explains ἄνδρες ᾽Ιουδαῖοι to mean, “dwellers in Judea:” therefore the καὶ seems to mean, “to be not only such, but dwellers in Jerusalem also.” 125 Here our leading ms. after οὐ γαρ ὡς ὑμεῖς, has ἀποπληροῦται, φησὶ, καὶ ὑπολαμβάνεται ὅτι μεθύουσιν. “For not as ye.”—It is fulfilled (he says) and it is supposed that they are drunken!” which may have been said by Chrys., but certainly not in this place. about them; the others said it only in mockery.126 Hence we learn that on unessential points one must not spend many words. And besides, the sequel is enough to bear him out on this point: so now the discourse is for all in common. “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord God. (v. 16, 17. Joel ii. 28.) Nowhere as yet the name of Christ, nor His promises but the promise is that of the Father. Observe the wisdom: observe the considerate forbearance: (συγκατάβασιν.) He did not pass on to speak at once of the things relating to Christ; that He had promised this after His Crucifixion; truly that would have been to upset all. And yet, you will say, here was sufficient to prove His divinity. True, it was, if believed (and the very point was that it should be believed); but if not believed, it would have caused them to be stoned. “And I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh.” He offers even to them excellent hopes, if they would have them. And so far, he does not leave it to be regarded as the exclusive advantage of himself and his company; which would have made them be looked upon with an evil eye; thus cutting off all envious feeling. “And your sons shall prophesy.” And yet, he says, not yours this achievement, this distinction; the gift has passed over to your children. Himself and his company he calls their sons, and those [whom he is addressing] he calls his and their fathers. “And your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; and on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” So far he shows that he and his have found favor, in that they had received (καταξιωθέντας) [the Spirit]; not so they whom he is addressing; for that they had crucified the Lord. So Christ also, willing to mitigate their wrath, said, “By whom do your sons cast out devils?” (Matt. xii. 27.) He did not say, My disciples; for indeed it seemed a flattering mode of expression. And so Peter also did not say, ‘They are not drunk, but speak127 by the Spirit:’ but he takes refuge with the prophet, and under shelter of him, so speaks. As for the accusation of drunkenness, he cleared himself of that by his own assertion; but for the grace, he fetches the prophet as witness. “I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh.” “And your sons,” etc. To some the grace was imparted through dreams, to others it was openly poured forth. For indeed by dreams the prophets saw, and received revelations.

Acts II. 22

“Ye men of Israel, hear these my words.”

“Ye men of Israel”: it is not for flattery that he uses this term; but, as he has borne hard upon them, he relaxes a little, and puts them in mind of their great ancestor150 Israel. Here again he begins with an introduction, that they may not become excited, now that he is going to make express mention to them of Jesus: for in what preceded, there was no reason why they should be excited, while the Prophet was the subject of discourse: but the name of Jesus would have given offence at the very outset.—And he does not say, “Do as I bid you,” but, Hear; as being not at all exacting. And observe how he forbears to speak of the high matters, and begins with the very low: “Jesus,” he says: and then straightway mentions the place He belonged to, being one which was held in mean estimation: “Jesus of Nazareth”: and does not say anything great about Him, nor even such as one would say about a Prophet, so far: “Jesus,” he says, “of Nazareth, a man proved (to be) from God among you.” Observe; what great matter was this, to say that He was sent from God?151 For this was the point which on all occasions both He and John and the Apostles were studious to show. Thus hear John saying: “The same said unto me On whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding 150 τοῦ προπάτορος, A. C. F. D. and Cat. but τοῦ Δαυὶδ εὐκαίρως, B. E. Edd. OEcumenius fell into the same mistake and has τοῦ προπάτορος Δαυίδ. But it is evident that Chrys. is commenting on the address ῎Ανδρες ᾽Ισραηλῖται. 151 ῞Ορα, ποῖον ἦν τοῦτο μέγα, τὸ εἰπεῖν κ. τ. λ. i.e. “He says as yet οὐδὲν μέγα, nothing great, concerning Christ: nothing even that would be great if said of an ordinary Prophet. For, observe: ποῖον μέγα, what sort of great thing was it, to say that Christ was sent from God?” In the following sentences Chrys. seems to have been scarcely understood by his reporter. His meaning may be thus represented: “And yet, so it is: everywhere in the Scriptures we find examples of this remarkable μείωσις: “Christ was sent from God,” seems to be the point most studiously inculcated (τὸ σπουδαζόμενον): nay, we find it carried to the utmost (μεθ᾽ ὑπερβολῆς) in some of Christ’s own expressions. And so here: when Peter stands up—he, the leader of the Apostles, the lover of Christ, the good shepherd, the man entrusted with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the man who has received the deposit of the Wisdom of the Spirit—after he has subdued the audience by the terrors of the coming judgments, has shown that he and his company have received wonderful gifts as foretold by the Prophet, and has made it felt that they have a right to be believed: you may well expect after all this that his first word about Christ will be something great; that he will certainly launch out boldly into the declaration, He is risen! Only think, though, what boldness to say this in the midst of the murderers!—Nothing of the kind. He begins with, “Jesus the Nazarene, a man proved to be from God unto you by signs, etc. which—(He did? no, but) God did by Him, etc. Wait awhile, however: the Orator will say all that needs to be said in due time.” on him, this is He.” (John i. 33.) But Christ Himself does this to an extreme; Of Myself I am not come, He sent Me. (ib. vii. 28.) And everywhere in the Scriptures this seems the point most studiously insisted upon. Therefore also this holy leader of the blessed company, the lover of Christ, the good shepherd, the man put in trust with the keys of heaven, the man who received the Spiritual Wisdom, when he has first subdued the Jews by fear; and has shown what great things have been vouchsafed to the disciples, and what a right they have to be believed, then first proceeds to speak concerning Him. Only think what boldness it was to say it, in the midst of the murderers—that He is risen! And yet he does not all at once say, He is risen; but what?—“He came,” says he, “from God: this is manifest by the signs which”—he does not yet say, Jesus Himself wrought: but what?—“which God wrought by Him in the midst of you.” He calls themselves as witnesses. “A man proved (to be sent) from God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs, which God wrought by him in the midst of you, as also ye yourselves know.” Then, having fallen upon the mention of that their sacrilegious outrage, observe how he endeavors to quit them of the crime: “Him,” he says, “being by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God delivered up”: (v. 23) adding however, “ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:” for though it was predetermined, still they were murderers.152 “By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God:” all but using the same words as Joseph did; just as he said to his brethren; “Be not angry one with another by the way: God sent me hither.” (Gen. xlv. 5, 24.) It is God’s doing. “What of us, then?” (it might be said,) “it was even well done on our part.” That they may not say this, therefore it is that he adds, “By wicked hands ye have crucified and slain.”153 Here then he hints at Judas; while at the same time he shows them that it was not from any strength of theirs, and would not have been, if He had not Himself permitted it: it was God that delivered Him up. He has transferred the evil entire upon the head of Judas, now already parted from them; for he it was that delivered Him over to them by the kiss. Or, “By wicked hands,” refers to the soldiers: for neither is it simply, “Ye have slain,” but, By wicked men ye have done this.154 And observe how everywhere they make it of great importance that 152 Εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὡρισμένον ἦν, φησὶν, ὅμως ἀνδροφόνοι ἦσαν. B. C. after ἀπαλλ. τοῦ ἐγκλήματος, and before the text. As the sentence so placed seemed to make Chrys. contradict himself, the other mss. and Edd. before Ben. omit it. Something is wanting, which perhaps may be supplied from OEcumen. ᾽Αλλὰ καὶ ἀπαλλάσσων οὐκ ἀφίησιν αὐτοὺς πάντη τοῦ ἐγκλήματος. ᾽Επάγει γὰρ, ὅτι διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων ἀνείλετε. 153 In v. 23, the preferable reading is διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων, “through the hand of lawless men,” instead of διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων of the Text. Recep. So A, B, C, D, Tisch. W. and H., Lach. Treg. R.V. This reading is also to be preferred in accordance with Bengel’s first rule of text-criticism—Lectio difficilior principatum tenet.—G.B.S. 154 The confusion may be cleared up by supposing that Chrys. here commented upon the words διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων as admitting of a double connection: viz.: with ἔκδοτον λαβόντες and with προσπ. ἀνείλετε. In the former, it refers to Judas: while at the same time, it is shown that of themselves they had no power against Him. He was delivered up by the predestination and will of God, by means of the wicked hands of Judas; upon whom the Passion should first be confessed. Whom God Raised Up (v. 24), says he. This was the great thing; and observe how he sets it in the middle of his discourse: for the former matters had been confessed; both the miracles and the signs and the slaying—“Whom God,” says he, “raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be kept in its power.” It is something great and sublime that he has hinted at here. For the expression, “It was not possible,” even itself is that of one assigning something.155 It shows that death itself in holding Him had pangs as in travail, and was sore bestead:156 whereas, by pains, or, travail-pangs, of death, the Old Testament means danger and disaster: and that (already gone to his doom) the evil is shifted entire. But again, as ἔκδοτονis not put simply and without addition (ἁπλῶς), so neither (οὐδὲ) is ἀνείλετε: but “by wicked hands ye slew,” i.e. by the soldiers. 155 The text seems to be corrupt: καὶ αὐτὸ διδόντος ἔστιν τίδείκνυσιν ὅτι. B. omits ἔστιν τί. Perhaps καὶ αὐτὸ is derived from an abbreviation of κρατεῖσθαι αὐτόν: and διδόντος ἔστιν τι· may be, “is (the expression) of one assigning something, i.e. some special prerogative to Him:” or, possibly, “For the expression, Καθότι οὐκ ἦν δυνατὸν even of itself implies the granting of something (in His case):” viz. as a postulate. E. καὶ αὐτὸν διδόντα ἐμφαίνει κατασχεῖν· καὶ ὅτι, i.e. “that it was even He that gave death the power to hold Him:” this, which is adopted by Edd. is, however, not a various reading, but only an attempt to restore the passage. OEcumen. gives no assistance: he has only, διὰ δὲ τοῦ, καθότι οὐκ ἦν δυν. αὐτὸν κρατ., τὸ μεγαλεῖον αὐτοῦ παρίστησι, καὶ ὅτι οὐκέτι ἀποθνήσκει. In the next sentence E. and Edd. have: “For by ‘pains of death’ Scripture is everywhere wont to express ‘danger:’” but OEcumen. and Cat. agree with the old reading, ἡ Παλαία. Possibly the meaning of the whole passage may be somewhat as follows. “It is something great and sublime that Peter has darkly hinted in saying, ‘it was not possible that He should be holden of it.’ And the very expression καθότι implies that there is something to be thought of (comp. Caten. in 1). Then, in the Old. Test., the expression ὠδῖνες θανάτου means pains in which death is the agent; but here they are the pangs inflicted upon death itself, travailing in birth with Christ ‘the first-begotten from the dead.’ It shows then both that death could not endure to hold Him, and, that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more. For the assertion, etc. But then, without giving them time to ponder upon the meaning of what he has darkly hinted, he goes off to the Prophet,” etc.—On the expression ὠδῖνας λύειν Mr. Field, Index to Hom. in Matt. s. v., remarks, that “it is said sometimes of the childbearing woman herself, as p. 118. B., sometimes of the child born, as p. 375. A., sometimes of the person aiding in the delivery, as Job xxxix, 2. Hence the obscure passage Acts ii, 34 is to be explained. See Theophylact in 1.” 156 It is noteworthy that this interpretation of ὠδῖνας τοῦ θανάτου (24) is exactly that of Meyer who explains thus: “Death travailed in birth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With this event these pangs ceased, they were loosed; and because God had made Christ alive, God has loosed the pangs of death.” Other interpretations are: (1) The snares or bands of death, on the ground that ὠδῖνες is used in the lxx. to translate the Hebrew i חבל (e.g. Ps. xviii. 5), which has this meaning. So Olsh. (2) That the pains of Jesus connected with the whole experience of death are meant. He is popularly conceived as enduring these pains until the resurrection when God loosed He so rose as never more to die. For the assertion, “Seeing that it was not possible that He should be holden of it,” means this, that His rising was not common to the rest. Then, however, before their thoughts can enter at all into his meaning, he brings David upon them, an authority which sets aside all human reasoning. “For David saith (with reference) to Him.” (v. 25.) And observe how, once more, the testimony is lowly. For therefore he begins the citation further up, with the matters of lowlier import: therefore157 was death not in the number of grievous things because , says he, “I foresaw the Lord always before my face, that He is on my right hand that I should not be moved:” (v. 25–27) and, “that Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.” Then, having finished the citation from the Prophet, he adds; “Men and brethren.” (v. 29.) When he is about to say anything great, he uses this opening address, to rouse and to conciliate them. “Let me be allowed,” he says, “to speak freely to you of the patriarch David.” Remarkable lowliness, in a case where he was giving no hurt, nor was there any reason why the hearers should be angry. For he did not say, This is not said concerning David, but concerning the Christ. But in another point of view: by his reverential expression towards the blessed David, he awed them; speaking of an acknowledged fact as if it were a bold thing to say, and therefore begging them to pardon him for saying it. And thereupon his expression is not simply “concerning David,” but “concerning the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried:” he does not also say, “and is not risen again,” but in another way (though this too would have been no great thing to say), “And his sepulchre is with us unto this day,” he has said what comes to the same thing. Then—and even so he does not come to the mention of Christ, but what next?—he goes on with his encomium upon David, “Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that with an oath God had sworn unto him.” (v. 30.) But this he says, that were it but on account of the honor shown to David, and the descent from him, they may accept what is said concerning Christ’s resurrection, as seeing that it would be an injury to the prophecy, and a derogating from (τἥς εἰς αὐτοὺς τιμἥς) their honor, if this were not the fact. “And knowing,” he says, “that with an oath God had sworn unto him”—he does not say simply “promised”—“of the fruit of his loins after the flesh to raise up Christ, to seat Him upon his throne.” Observe how he has again only hinted at what is sublime. For now that he has soothed them with his expres- them,the conception being that he was under their power and constraint. We prefer this view. So Lechler, Gloag, Hackett.—G.B.S. 157 i.e. The former part of the passage cited, down to, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,” as far as the words go, is no more than David might say in reference to himself, or any other saint: viz. he set God always before his face, etc. therefore (διὰ τοῦτο, referring to v. 26. διὰ τοῦτο εὐφρ.) death was not in the number of things that cause grief. And St. Peter instead of going at once to that in the prophecy which is peculiar to Christ, with wise management begins with what is less exalted, ἅτε εἰσαγωγικωτέρων λόγων δεομένοις, OEcumen.—For διὰ τοῦτο οὐ τῶν λυπούντων ὁ θάνατος, E. and Edd. have ἵνα δείξη, ὅτι οὐ…“to show that death,” etc. sion, he confidently adds this: The prophet saith it “of His resurrection, that neither was His soul left in hell, nor did His flesh see corruption.” (v. 31.) This again is wonderful: it shows that His resurrection was not like that of other men. For though death laid hold on Him, yet it did not its own work then.—And, as regards the sin, he has spoken of that, covertly and darkly; of the punishment, he forbore to add anything; but that they had slain Him, this he has spoken out; for the rest he now comes to the sign given by God. And when it is once proved, that He, the slain, was just, was dear to God, then, though thou be silent of the punishment, be sure that he which did the sin will condemn himself more than ever thou canst condemn him. So then, that he refers all to the Father, is in order that they may receive what is said: and that assertion, “Not possible,” he fetches in from the prophecy. Well then, let us again look over what has been said.

“Jesus of Nazareth, a man proved (to be sent) from God unto you.” (Recapitulation of v. 22–31): one, of whom, by reason of His works, there can be no doubt; but who, on the contrary, is demonstrated. Thus also Nicodemus said, “No man can do these miracles which Thou doest—By miracles, and wonders, and signs which God wrought by Him in the midst of you” (John iii. 2): not secretly. Setting out from facts notorious to those whom he was addressing, he then comes to things hidden. Thereupon in saying, “By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,” (v. 23) he shows that it was not because they had the power to do it, and that there was a wisdom and a Divine arrangement in the event, seeing it was from God. He rapidly passes over the unpleasant part, adding, “Whom God raised up,” etc. (v. 24). For it is always a point of great importance with them to show that He was once dead. Though ye should deny it, says he, (ἐκεῖνοι) those (present) will bear witness to the fact. “Having loosed the pangs of death.” He that gives Death trouble, may much more give trouble to them that crucified Him: however, nothing of the kind is here said, as that He had power to slay you. Meanwhile,158 let us also learn thus to hold. For one that is in pain like a woman in travail, does not hold the thing held, and is not active but passive; and makes haste to cast it off. And it is well said: “For David saith in reference to him” (v. 25); that you may not refer that saying to the Prophet.—“Therefore being a Prophet, and knowing,” etc. (v. 30, 31.) Do you observe how he now interprets the prophecy, and does 158 τέως μανθάνωμεν καὶ ἡμεῖς οὕτω κατέχειν. As the text stands, this can only mean, “And here by the bye let us also learn how to hold fast Christ; not to hold Him with pain, like one in travail-pangs, who therefore cannot hold fast, but is in haste to be delivered,” etc. But this can hardly have been St. Chrysostom’s meaning. Something seems to be omitted after καὶ ἡμεῖς or οὕτω.—Edd. τέως δὲ μανθάνομεν καὶ ἡμεῖς διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων τί ἐστι τὸ κατέχειν. If this is: “What is the meaning of the expression κατέχειν, the emphatic καὶ ἡμεῖς is superfluous; and besides, the word κατέχειν does not occur in the text commented upon. OEcum. and the Catena give no help. not159 give it bare of comment? How did He “seat Him upon” David’s “throne?” For the kingdom after the Spirit is in heaven. Observe how, along with the resurrection, he has also declared the kingdom in the fact of His rising again. He shows that the Prophet was under constraint: for the prophecy was concerning Him. Why does he say, not, Concerning His kingdom (it was a great matter), but “Concerning His resurrection?” And how did He seat Him upon his (David’s) throne? Why, He reigns as King over Jews also, yea, what is much more, over them that crucified Him. “For His flesh saw no corruption.” This seems to be less than resurrection, but it is the same thing.

“This Jesus”—observe how he does not call Him otherwise—“hath God raised up; whereof all we are witnesses. Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted” (v. 33, 34): again he takes refuge with the Father, and yet it had been enough to say what precedes: but he knows what a great point this is. Here he has hinted at the Ascension also, and that Christ is in heaven: but neither does he say this openly. “And having received,” says he, “the promise of the Holy Ghost.” Observe how, in the beginning of his discourse, he does not say that Jesus Himself had sent It, but the Father: now, however, that he has mentioned His signs and the things done to Him by the Jews, and has spoken of His resurrection, he boldly introduces what he has to say about these matters, again adducing themselves as witnesses by both senses: “He hath shed forth this, which ye do see and hear.” And of the resurrection he has made continual mention, but of their outrageous deed he has spoken once for all. “And having received the promise of the Holy Ghost.” This again is great. “The promise,” he says; because promised before His Passion. Observe how he now makes it all His “He hath poured forth this”, covertly making a great point. For if it was He that poured it forth, it is of Him that the Prophet has spoken above, “In the last days I will pour forth of My Spirit on My Servants, and on Mine handmaids, and I will do wonders in the heaven above. (supra, v. 17.) Observe what he secretly puts into it! But then, because it was a great thing, he again veils it with the expression of “His having received of the Father.” He has spoken of the good things fulfilled, of the signs; has said, that He is king, the point that touched them; has said, that it is He that gives the Spirit. (Arist. Rhet. 1. 3.) (For, however much a person may say, if it does not issue in something advantageous, he speaks to no purpose.) Just as John: “The same,” says he, “shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. iii. 11.) And it shows that the Cross not only did not make Him less, but rendered Him even more illustrious, seeing that of old God promised it to Him, but now has given it. Or [it may be], “the promise” which He promised to us. He so foreknew it about to be, and has given it to 159 Edd. καὶ γυμνήν τίθησι δηλῶν πῶς. “And gives it bare (of comment), showing.” Montf. mistranslates γυμνὴν τιθ, nudam exponat, and notices the old reading (A. B. C ) with the remark, Unus Codex προφ. οὐ γυμνήν. Minus recte. But Chrys. is now commenting on v. 30, 31. “Above, St. Peter gave the prophecy by itself: now he adds his own exposition and reasoning, “Being therefore a Prophet.” etc. us greater after the resurrection. And, “hath poured it out,” he says; not160 requiring wor- thiness: and not simply gave, but with abundance. Whence161 does this appear? Henceforth after the mention of His giving the Spirit, he confidently speaks also of His ascension into heaven; and not only so, but again adducing the witness, and reminding them of that Person concerning Whom Christ once spake. (Matt. xxii. 43) “For not David,” says he “ascended into the heavens. (v. 34.) Here he no longer speaks in lowly phrase,162 having the confidence which results from the things said; nor does he say, “Be it permitted me to speak,” or the like: “But he saith himself; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” Now if He be David’s Lord, much more shall they not disdain Him. “Sit thou on My right hand;” he has set the whole matter here; “until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool:” here also he has brought upon them a great terror, just as in the beginning he showed what He does to His friends, what to his enemies. And again, as to the act of subjugation, not to provoke unbelief, he ascribes it to the Father. Since then these are great things that he has uttered, he again brings his discourse down to lowly matters. “Let therefore,” he says, “the whole house of Israel know assuredly: i.e. question ye not, nor doubt ye: then also in the tone of command it follows; “that God hath made Him both Lord”—this he says from David—“and Christ,” (v. 36), this from the Psalm:163 For when it would have been rightly concluded, “Let therefore the whole house of Israel know assuredly that” He sitteth on the right hand of God, this, which would have been great, he forbears, and brings in a different matter which is much more humble, and the expression “Hath made;” i.e. hath ordained: so that there is nothing about (οὐσίωσις) communication of substance here, but the expression relates to this which has been mentioned. “Even this Jesus, Whom ye crucified.” He does well to end with this, thereby agitating their minds. For when he has shown how great it is, he has then exposed their daring deed, so as to show it to be 160 ᾽Εξέχεε, φησὶν, οὐκ ἀξίωμα ζητῶν, καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς. Edd. ᾽Εξ., φ. ᾽Ενταῦθα τὸ ἀξίωμα ἐμφαίνει, καὶ ὅτι οὐχ ἅπλως. “Here he intimates the dignity: and that,” etc. But the meaning is, “He poured it forth, not requiring merit: i.e. not giving here and there to the most deserving, but as the phrase implies, with unsparing liberality.” μετὰ δαψιλείας. N. μεθ᾽ ὑπερβολῆς. 161 πόθεν τοῦτο; Edd. “Wherefore also to prove this very thing, he adds what follows.” The connection is, “He has shed forth. How so? It must be He; for not David ascended,” etc. 162 Here five of our mss. have μεθ᾽ ὑπερβολῆς, “hyperbolically:” but the reading of E. μεθ᾽ ὑποστολῆς is attested by OEcumen. and the Catena. 163 i.e. the expression “Lord” is derived from David’s, “My Lord:” the expression “Christ,” or rather καὶ Χριστὸν ὁ Θεὸς ἐποίησ εν, is from the Psalm: meaning perhaps the second Psalm. Edd. have, “this he says from David and from the Psalm,” after the text. greater, and to possess them with terror. For men are not so much attracted by benefits as they are chastened by fear.164

But the admirable and great ones, and beloved of God, need none of these motives: men, such as was Paul: not of the kingdom, not of hell, made he account. For this is indeed to love Christ, this to be no hireling, nor to reckon it a matter of trafficking and trading, but to be indeed virtuous, and to do all for the love of God. (Rom. ix. 3.) Then what tears does it not deserve, when, owing so large a measure, we do not even like traders seek the kingdom of heaven! He promises us so great things, and not even so is He worthy to be heard? What can come up to this enmity!165 And yet, they are mad after money-making, though it be with enemies, though it be with slaves, though it be with persons most hostile to them, that they come in contact, though it be with persons utterly evil, if only they expect that they shall be enabled by their means to make money, they will do everything, will flatter, and be obsequious, and make themselves slaves, and will esteem them more to be revered than all men, to get some advantage out of them: for the hope of money does not allow them to give a thought to any such considerations as these. But the Kingdom is not so powerful as money is; nay, rather, not in the smallest proportion as powerful. For166 it is no ordinary Being that promises: but this is greater than even the Kingdom itself that we receive it from such a Giver! But now the case is the same as if a king, wishing, after ten thousand other benefits, to make us his heirs and coheirs with his son should be despised: while some captain of a band of robbers, who has done ten thousand wrongs to us and to our parents, and is himself fraught with ten thousand wickednesses, and has utterly marred our honor and our welfare, 164 The two Old Test. pp. (Joel ii. 28–32; Ps. xvi. 8–11) which occur in this chapter are quoted from the lxx., the former freely, the latter with great exactness. The following peculiarities of phraseology are noticeable in the first passage. (1) “In the last days,” more definite expression for the Heb. and lxx. “afterward.” (2) The partitive expression: “I will pour out of my Spirit,” is after the lxx. vs. the original which reads: “I will pour out my spirit.” (3) The phrases: “saith God” and “they shall prophesy” (17, 18) are added to both Heb. and lxx. (4) “Vapor” is from lxx. for Heb. “columns.” (5) If we read καὶ ἐπιφάνη at the end of v. 20 (as Mey., W. and H.) it is from the lxx. an inaccurate trans. of Hebrew for “fearful,” occasioned by misunderstanding on the part of the Seventy of the derivation of the Heb. word. The second pp. follows the lxx. exactly and in several deviations from the original.— G.B.S. 165 Alluding to the Psalm above cited, “Until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” 166 In the modern text the connection is supplied, and the thought expanded. “And yet neither is it any ordinary being that promises it: but One who is beyond comparison greater than the Kingdom itself. Now when the promise is a Kingdom, and God the Giver thereof, it is a great thing, the very receiving from such a Giver. should, on presenting a single penny, receive our worship. God promises a Kingdom, and is despised: the Devil helps us to hell, and he is honored! Here God, there Devil. But let us see the difference of the tasks enjoined. For if there were none of these considerations in the case: if it were not, here God, there Devil; not, here one helping to a kingdom, there to a hell: the nature itself of the tasks enjoined were sufficient to induce us to comply with the former. For what does each enjoin? The one,167 the things which make glorious; the other the things which put to shame: one, the things which involve in ten thousand calamities and disgraces; the other, the things which have with them abundant refreshment. For look: the one saith, “Learn ye of Me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” (Matt. xi. 29): the other saith, Be thou savage, and ungentle, and passionate, and wrathful, and more a wild beast than a man. Let us see which is more useful, which, I pray you, more profitable. “Speak not of this,” say you.168 But consider that he is the devil: above all indeed, if that be shown: there is need also to undergo toils, and, on the other hand, the prize of victory will be greater. For not he that enjoins easy tasks is the kind (κηδεμὼν) benefactor, but he that enjoins what is for our good. Since fathers also enjoin disagreeable tasks; but for this169 they are fathers: and so again do masters to slaves: but 167 In the original the pronouns are ἐκεῖνος (God), οὗτος (the Devil; for which however our mss. have οὐ τὰ and αὐτὰ): then inversely, ἐκεῖνος (the Devil), οὗτος (God). The modern text reduces the antithesis to regularity by transposing the first and second clause, with ἐκεῖνος, οὗτος, in each member. Mr. Field, however, Hom. in Matt. 709 B. not. has remarked, that St. Chrys. is negligent in his use of these pronouns, and this passage may be added to those cited. 168 ῎Ιδωμεν τί χρησιμώτερον, τί δαὶ (δὲ, A. N.) ὠφελιμώτερον. (Here N. adds: Μὴ τοῦτο δῶμεν τί χρησιμώτερον· τὶ δὲ ὠφελιμώτερον̀) Μὴ τοῦτο φησὶν εἴπῃς· ἀλλ᾽ ἐννόησον ὅτι διάβολός ἐστιν· μάλιστα μὲν ἂν ἐκεῖνο δειχθῇ· δεῖ καὶ πόνους ὑποστῆναι καὶ πάλιν, κ. τ. λ. The addition in N. is perhaps the result of unintentional repetition. If meant for emendation, it supposes an antithesis of χρησ. and ὠφελιμώτερον: “let us grant which is more serviceable (to others): but (the question is) which is more profitable (to one’s self).” This, however, is not what the context requires. Rather it seems that something is omitted after εἴπῃς: e.g. ἀλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν τί εὐκολώτερον, “But let us see which is more easy.” In the following sentence, it is not clear whether μάλιστα μὲν belongs to δεῖ καὶ π. ὑ. “of course, if the former appear to be the case, it is necessary,” etc. or, to the preceding clause, as in the translation: “above all (consider that it is the devil who gives the bidding), if that appear to be the case (i.e. that it is the easier of the two): it is needful,” etc.—Edd. “But not only this, but bethink you that he indeed is the devil: for above all if that be shown, again the prize of victory shall be greater.” 169 διὰ τοῦτο, i. e. by enjoining τὰ συμφέροντα, although φορτικὰ, are fathers and masters shown to be truly such, whereas kidnappers who steal away children, seduce them by promising pleasure, and λυμεῶνες, masters who ruin their servants, let them have their own way.—Morel. Ben. ᾽Εκεῖνοι δὲ ἀνδραπ. καὶ λυμ. καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐνάντια: “but the others are kidnappers and destroyers, and all that is contrary (to fathers and masters).” Savil. as above. kidnappers and destroyers (λυμεὥνες) on the other hand, do just the reverse. And170 yet that the commands of Christ are attended with a pleasure, is manifest from that saying. For to what sort do you take the passionate man to belong, and to what the forbearing and meek? Does not the soul of the (ἐκείνου) one171 seem to be in a kind of solitary retreat, enjoying exceeding quiet; while that of (τούτου) the other is like a market-place and tumult and the midst of cities, where great is the clamor of those going out, the noise of camels, mules, asses: of men shouting loud to those that meet them, that they may not be trodden under foot: and again, of silver-beaters, of braziers, of men thrusting and pushing this way and that and some overborne, some overbearing? But the soul of (τούτου) the former is like some mountain-top, with its delicate air, its pure sunshine, its limpid gushing fountains, its multitude of charming flowers, while the vernal meads and gardens put on their plumage of shrubs and flowers, and glance with rifling waters: and if any sound is heard there, it is sweet, and calculated to affect the ear with a sense of much delight. For either the warbling birds perch on the outermost spray of the branching trees, and cicadas, nightingales and swallows, blended in one harmony, perform a kind of concerted music; or the zephyr gently stirring the leaves, draws whistling tones from pines and firs, resembling oft the notes of the swan: and roses, violets, and other flowers, gently swayed, and (κυανίζοντα) dark-dimpling, show like a sea just rippled over with gentle undulations. Nay, many are the images one might find. Thus, when one looks at the roses, one shall fancy that he beholds in them the rainbow; in the violets a waving sea; in the lilies, the sky. But172 not by the spectacle alone, and the beholding, does such an one then cause delight: but also in the very body of him that looks to the meadow, rather it refreshes him, and causes him to breathe freely, so 170 Πλὴν ὅτι καὶ ἡδονὴν ἔχει, δῆλον ἐκεῖθεν. We have supplied the interpretation in the translation. ᾽Εκεῖθεν, i.e. from that saying, “Come unto Me,” etc. D. has ἐντεῦθεν: i.e. “is manifest from the following consideration.” 171 Here is another instance of the negligent use of the pronouns ἐκεῖνος and οὗτος noticed above (note 1). In the modern text this is altered, besides other changes intended as improvements upon the ornate description following. We have retained the original text throughout. 172 Οὐ τῇ θέU+0026 139· δὲ μόνον οὐδὲ τῇ ὄψει τέρπει (Sav. τέρποιτο ἄν) τότε ὁ τοιοῦτος, ἀλλὰ καὶ (ἐν B. C ) τῷ σώματι αὐτῷ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν λειμῶνα ὁρῶντος, (τοῦ π. τ. λ. ὁ. om. Sav. with full stop at αὐτῷ., ἐκεινον (γὰρ add. B. Sav.) μᾶλλον ἀνίησι κ. τ. λ. Savile’s reading, adopted by Ben. rests on the sole authority of the New College ms. and is manifestly a correction, as the Paris Editor remarks. (This ms. has the clause τοῦ….ὁρῶντος, but dotted for correction or omission, and the γὰρ is added by a later hand.) But the passage seems to be incurably corrupt and only so much of the sense can be guessed at, that the delight is said not only to affect the eye, but to be felt through the whole frame of the beholder. that he thinks himself more in heaven than on earth. There is withal a sound of a different kind, when water from the mountain-steep, borne by its own force through ravines gently plashes over its pebbly bed with lulling noise, and so relaxes our frame with the pleasurable sensations, as quickly to draw over our eyes the soft languor of slumber. You have heard the description with pleasure: perhaps also it has made you enamored of solitude. But sweeter far than this solitude is the soul of the long-suffering. For it was not for the sake of describing a meadow, nor for the sake of making a display of language, that we have broached this similitude: but the object was, that, seeing how great is the delight of the long suffering, and how, by converse with a long suffering man, one would be far more both delighted and benefited, than by frequenting such spots, ye may follow after such men. For when not even a breath of violence proceeds from such a soul, but mild and engaging words, then indeed does that gentle softness of the zephyr find its counterpart: entreaties also, devoid of all arrogance, but forming the resemblance to those winged warblers,—how is not this far better? For not the body is fanned by the soft breeze of speech; no, it refreshes our souls173 heated and glowing. A physician, by ever so great attention, could not so speedily rid a man of the fever, as a patient man would cool, by the breath of his own words, a person who was passionate and burning with wrath. And why do I speak of a physician? Not even iron, made red-hot and dipped into water, so quickly parts with its heat, as does the passionate man when he comes in contact with the soul of the long-suffering. But as, if it chance that singing birds find their way into the market, they go for nothing there, just so is it with our precepts when they light upon souls addicted to wrathful passions. Assuredly, sweeter is gentleness than bitterness and frowardness.—Well, but the one was God’s bidding, the other the devil’s. Do you see that it was not for nothing that I said, even if there were no devil or God in the case, the things enjoined would be enough in themselves to (ἀποστἥσαι) revolt us? For the one is both agreeable to himself, and serviceable to others, the other displeasing to himself, and hurtful to others. Nothing is more unpleasant than a man in a passion, nothing more noisome, more odious, more shocking, as also nothing more pleasing than one who knows not what it is to be in a passion. Better dwell with a wild beast than with a passionate man. For the beast, when once tamed, abides by its law; but the man, no matter how often you have tamed him, again turns wild, unless174 however he should of himself settle down into some such habit (of gentleness).

Acts II. 37

“Now when they heard these words (E.V. ‘this,’) they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?”

Do you see what a great thing gentleness is? More than any vehemence, it pricks our hearts, inflicts a keener wound. For as in the case of bodies which have become callous, the man that strikes upon them does not affect the sense so powerfully, but if he first mollify them and make them tender, then he pierces them effectually; so in this instance also, it is necessary first to mollify. But that which softens, is not wrath, not vehement accusation, not personal abuse; it is gentleness. The former indeed rather aggravate the callousness, this last alone removes it. If then you are desirous to reprove any delinquent, approach him with all possible mildness. For see here; he gently reminds them of the outrages they have committed, adding no comment; he declares the gift of God, he goes on to speak of the grace which bore testimony to the event, and so draws out his discourse to a still greater length. So they stood in awe of the gentleness of Peter, in that he, speaking to men who had crucified his Master, and breathed murder against himself and his companions, discoursed to them in the character of an affectionate father and teacher. Not merely were they persuaded; they even condemned themselves, they came to a sense of their past behavior. For he gave no room for their anger to be roused, and darken their judgment, but by means of humility he dispersed, as it were, the mist and darkness of their indignation, and then pointed out to them the daring outrage they had committed. For so it is; when we say of ourselves that we are injured, the opposite party endeavor to prove that they have not done the injury; but when we say, we have not been injured, but have rather done the wrong, the others take the contrary line. If, therefore, you wish to place your enemy (εἰς ἀγώνα) in the wrong, beware of accusing him; nay (ἀγώνισαι), plead for him, he will be sure to find himself guilty. There is a natural spirit of opposition in man. Such was the conduct of Peter. He did not accuse them harshly; on the contrary, he almost endeavored to plead for them, as far as was possible. And this was the very reason that he penetrated into their souls. You will ask, where is the proof that they were pricked? In their own words; for what say they? “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Whom they had called deceivers, they call “brethren:” not that hereby they put themselves on an equality with them, but rather by way of attracting their brotherly affection and kindness: and besides,175 because the Apostles had deigned to call them by 175 This is strangely rendered by Ben. At alioquin, postquam illos sic appellare dignati fuerant, et dixerant. Erasmus rightly, Et aliter: quoniam illi eos primum ita appellare dignati fuerunt. OEcumen. “And because Peter in the beginning of his discourse had so addressed them, hence they themselves had a handle for so addressing the Apostles.” this title. And, say they, “What shall we do?” They did not straightway say, Well then, we repent; but they surrendered themselves to the disciples. Just as a person on the point of shipwreck, upon seeing the pilot, or in sickness the physician, would put all into his hands, and do his bidding in everything; so have these also confessed that they are in extreme peril, and destitute of all hope of salvation. They did not say, How shall we be saved? but, “What shall we do?” Here again Peter, though the question is put to all, is the man to answer. “Re- pent,” says he, “and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ.” (v. 38.) He does not yet say, Believe, but, “Be baptized every one of you.” For176 this they received in baptism. Then he speaks of the gain; “For the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” If you are to receive a gift, if baptism conveys remission, why delay? He next gives a persuasive turn to his address, adding, “For the promise is unto you” (v. 39): for he had spoken of a promise above. “And to your children,” he says: the gift is greater, when these are to be heirs of the blessings. “And to all,” he continues, “that are afar off:” if to those that are afar off, much more to you that are near: “even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” Observe the time he takes for saying, “To those that are afar off.” It is when he finds them conciliated and self-accusing. For when the soul pronounces sentence against itself, no longer can it feel envy. “And with many other words did he testify, and exhort, saying.” (v. 40.) Observe how, throughout, the writer studies brevity, and how free he is from ambition and display. “He testified and exhorted, saying.” This is the perfection of teaching, comprising something of fear and something of love. “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” He says nothing of the future, all is about the present, by which indeed men are chiefly swayed; he shows that the Gospel releases from present177 evils as well. “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” (v. 41.) Think you not this cheered the Apostles more than the miracle? “And they continued steadfastly and with one accord in the Apostles’ doctrine and fellowship.”178 (v. 42.) Here are two virtues, perseverance and concord. “In 176 Τοῦτο γὰρ ἐν τῷ βαπτίσματι παρέλαβον. St. Chrysostom cannot mean to say that they received the gift of faith in baptism, not having it before: (see Mark xvi. 16, Acts viii. 37.) But the meaning seems to be, with allusion to the traditio symboli in baptism, “He does not as yet say, “Believe:” the question, “Dost thou believe?” would be put to them in their baptism, when the Creed was delivered to them. So that the injunction “Believe” is in fact included in the “Be baptized.” 177 We adopt the reading of A. N. The other mss. have καὶ τῶν παρόντων καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ἀπαλλάττει κακῶν, “both from present and from future evils.” Below, v. 42, ὁμοθυμαδὸν, which Chrys. seems to have had in his copy, was probably derived into this verse after προσκαρτ. from προσκαρτ. ὁμοθ. v. 46. 178 The exact force of κοινωνία here has been much disputed. By many it is thought to mean communication (to the needy) in the having all things common (κοινά), Ols., Lechler, et al. By others it is understood to refer to the Lord’s Supper, but against this view is the fact that κοινωνία did not become a name for the sacrament until the third or fourth century. Others render: fellowship understanding either the participation in common the Apostles’ doctrine,” he says: for they again taught them; “and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayer.” All in common, all with perseverance. “And fear came upon every soul” (v. 43): of those that believed. For they did not despise the Apostles, like common men, nor did they fix their regard on that which was visible merely. Verily, their thoughts were kindled into a glow.179 And as Peter had before spoken much, and declared the promises, and the things to come, well might they be beside themselves with fear. The wonders also bore witness to the words: “Many wonders and signs were done by the Apostles.” As was the case with Christ; first there were signs, then teaching, then wonders; so was it now. “And all that believed were together, and had all things common.” (v. 44.) Consider what an advance was here immediately! For the fellowship was not only in prayers, nor in doctrine alone, but also in (πολιτεία) social relations. “And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.” See what fear was wrought in them! “And they parted them,” he says, showing the (τὸ οἰκονομικὸν) wise management: “As every man had need.” Not recklessly, like some philosophers among the Greeks, of whom some gave up their land, others cast into the sea great quantities of money; but this was no contempt of riches, but only folly and madness. For universally the devil has made it his endeavor to disparage the creatures of God, as if it were impossible to make good use of riches. “And continuing daily with one accord in the temple” (v. 46), they enjoyed the benefit of teaching. Consider how these Jews did nothing else great or small, than assiduously attend at the temple. For, as having become more earnest, they had increased devotion also to the place. For the Apostles did not for the present pluck them away from this object, for fear of injuring them. “And breaking bread from house to house, did take their portion of food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people.” (v. 47.) It seems to me that in mentioning “bread,” he here signifies fasting and hard life; for they “took their portion of food,” not of dainty fare. “With gladness,” he says. Seest thou that not the dainty fare, but the (τροφἥς οὐ τρυφἥς) food made the enjoyment. For they that fare daintily are under punishment and pain; but not so these. Do you see that the words of Peter contain this also, namely, the regulation of life? “And singleness of heart.” For no gladness can exist where there is no simplicity. How had they “favor with all the people?” On account of their alms deeds. For do not look to the fact, that the chief priests for envy and spite rose up against them, but rather consider that “they had favor with the people.”—“And the Lord added to the Church daily (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό) together such meals (ἀγάπαι) or the enjoyment of mutual sympathy, helpfulness and encouragement—the fellowship of Christian friendship. So Bengel, Mey., Hack., Gloag. This view is the preferable one.—G.B.S. 179 Of our mss. N. E. have the true reading, πεπύρωτο, which is attested by the Catena: the rest, πεπώρωτο “were hardened.” as should be saved.—And180 all that believed were together.” Once more, the unanimity, the charity, which is the cause of all good things!181

“Now when they heard this,” etc. “Then Peter said unto them,” etc. (Recapitulation, v. 37.) What had been said was not enough. For those sayings indeed were sufficient to bring them to faith; but these are to show what things the believer behooves to do. And he said not, In the Cross, but, “In the name of Jesus Christ let every one of you be baptized.” (v. 38.) And he does not put them continually in mind of the Cross, that he may not seem to reproach them, but he says simply, “Repent:” and why? That we may be punished? No: “And let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.” And yet quite other is the law; of this world’s tribunals: but in the case of the Gospel proclamation (κηρύγματος); when the delinquent has confessed, then is he saved! Observe how Peter does not instantly hurry over this, but he specifies also the conditions, and adds, “Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;” an assertion accredited by the fact, that the Apostles themselves had received that gift. “For the promise,” etc. (v. 39.) “The promise,” i.e. the gift of the Holy Ghost.182 So far, he speaks of the easy part, and that which has with it a great gift; and 180 This citation from v. 44. is not misplaced: it refers to the words ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ with which in Chrysostom’s copy and many considerable authorities, this verse ended. (῾Ο Κύριος προσε. τ. σωζ. καθ᾽ ἡμέραν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτο. Πέτρος δὲ καὶ ᾽Ι. ἀνέβαινον κ. τ. λ. Lachm.)—In the opening of the next paragraph, the modern text has: “And with many other words he testified. This he says, showing that what had been said,” etc. But it is evident that the recapitulation begins here, with v. 37. and τὰ λεχθέντα, and ἐκεῖνα, mean the preceding discourse, v. 14–36.; ταῦτα, not “the many other words,” v. 40. but, “Repent and be baptized.” 181 The main lines of the picture which Luke here draws of the Apostolic community are: (1) Constant teaching and exhortation on the part of the Apostles. (2) Christian fellowship, with prayer and the regular observance of the Lord’s Supper. (3) The doing of miracles. (4) The contribution of all to the common fund—not all at once, but gradually and as occasion required—as the imperfects and καθότι ἄν τις χρείαν ειχεν (v. 44) show. (5) The confident hope and exultant joy with which the work of the new kingdom was carried forward in the conviction that the gospel was for all (v. 39). The πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακράν must, we think, refer to the heathen (Calv., Beng., Lech., De W., Lange, Alf., Hack., Gl.) and not merely to distant members of the Jewish nation (Baumg., Mey.).—G.B.S. 182 In the old text (mss. and Catena) after τῶν πλειόνων λόγων τὸ κεφάλαιον comes the clause τοῦτό ἐστι, φησὶν, ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ ῾Α. Πν. where it is clearly misplaced: for τὸ εὕκολον κ. τ. λ. is, “Be baptized, and ye shall receive,” etc., and τότε ἐπὶ τὸν βίον ἄγει refers to v. 40.: “And with many other words,” of which πλειόνων λόγων the κεφάλαιον is, “Save yourselves,” etc. Hence the clause must belong to v. 39. and accordingly the Catena gives the whole passage from ᾽Αξιόπιστος ὁ λόγος to ἐπὶ τὸ βαπτ. ἐξέρχονται. as the comment on v. 38, 39. We have restored the proper order, and supplied the omitted citations.—The modern text after τὸ κεφάλαιον, has καὶ τοῦτο προστίθησι, δεικνὺς, ὅτι ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ ῾Α. Πν. “Since the hearer, etc. this also he adds, showing that it is the gift of the Holy Ghost.”—But the “hearer” is the person hearing or reading the narrative. then he leads them to practice: for it will be to them a ground of earnestness, to have tasted already of those so great blessings “and with many other words did he testify,” etc. (v. 40). Since, however, the hearer would desire to learn what was the sum and, substance of these further words, he tells us this: “Saying, save yourselves from this untoward generation.” “They then, that gladly received his words,” etc. (v. 41) they approved of what had been said, although fraught with terror, and after their assent given, proceed at once to baptism.183 “And they continued” it is written, “steadfastly in the doctrine” (or, “teaching”) “of the Apostles” (v. 42): for it was not for one day, no nor for two or three days that they were under teaching as being persons who had gone over to a different course of life.184 “And they continued with one accord in the Apostles’ doctrine,” etc. The expression is not, ὁμοὕ “together,” but ὁμοθυμαδὸν, “with one accord;” (“and daily,” he says [afterwards], “they were continuing with one accord in the temple,”) i.e. with one soul.185 And here again in his conciseness, he does not relate the teaching given; for as young children, the Apostles nourished them with spiritual food. “And fear came upon every soul” (v. 43): clearly, of those, as well, who did not believe; namely, upon seeing so great a change all at once effected, and besides in consequence of the miracles. “And all that believed were together, and had all things in common,” etc. (v. 44.) They are all become angels on a sudden; all of them continuing in prayer and hearing, they saw that spiritual things are common, and no one there has more than other, and they speedily came together (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ), to the same thing in common, even to the imparting to all.186 “And all the believing” (v. 44), it says, were ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ: and to see that this does not mean that they were together in place, observe what follows “And had all things common”. “All,” it says: not one with the exception of another. This was an angelic commonwealth, not to call anything of theirs their own. Forthwith the 183 Here E. strangely inserts the formula of recapitulation, ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν ἄνωθεν τὰ λεγόμενα: received by Sav., Ben. but bracketted by Morel. 184 Here the mss. have: “And fear came,” etc., v. 43, with its comment, which we have restored to its proper place. 185 Οὐχὶ ὁμοῦ δὲ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἦσαν· “καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τε φησὶν, προσκαρτ. ὁμοθυμ. ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ,” τουτέστι, μιᾷ ψυχῇ. B. C. F. D. St. Chrys. here returns to v. 42. in which he read in his copy the word ὁμοθυμαδόν. Commenting on that expression, he refers to v. 46 (as his remark on that verse above was that they were taught, τῆς διδασκαλίας ἀπέλαυον, in the Temple). Or perhaps this clause may have been added by the scribe, because he did not find προσκαρτ. ὁμοθ. in v. 42, but did find it in v. 46.—E. “But he says not ὁμοῦ, but ὁμοθ since it is possible to be ὁμοῦ yet not ὁμοθ., when people are divided in opinion. And with words he exhorted. And here again,” etc. So Edd. 186 ᾽Επὶ τοῦτο, ἐπὶ τὸ πᾶσι μεταδοῦναι B. C D. F. N. Cat. on v. 46, but on v. 45, Cat. has ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὶ, which is doubtless the true reading: for which the innovator, not understanding it, has ἐπὶ τὸ τὰ αὐτῶν πᾶσι διαδοῦναι. On ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ compare the comment on ch. iv. 32. in Hom. xi. §1. root of evils was cut out. By what they did, they showed what they had heard: this was that which he said, “Save yourselves from this untoward generation.”—“And daily continuing with one accord in the temple.” (v. 46.) Since they are become three thousand, they take them abroad now: and187 withal, the boldness imparted by the Spirit being great: and daily they went up as to a sacred place, as frequently we find Peter and John doing this: for at present they disturbed none of the Jewish observances. And this honor too passed over to the place; the eating in the house. In what house? In the Temple.188 Observe the increase of piety. They cast away their riches, and rejoiced, and had great gladness, for greater were the riches they received without labor (ἄπονα Cat. al. ἀγαθά). None reproached, none envied, none grudged; no pride, no contempt was there. As children they did indeed account themselves to be under teaching: as new born babes, such was their disposition. Yet why use this faint image? If you remember how it was when God shook our city with an earthquake, how subdued all men were. (Infra, Hom. xli. §2.) Such was the case then with those converts. No knavery, no villany then: such is the effect of fear, of affliction! No189 talk of “mine” and “thine” then. Hence gladness waited at their table; no one seemed to eat of his own, or of another’s;—I grant this may seem a riddle. Neither did they consider their brethren’s property foreign to themselves; it was190 the property of a Master; nor again deemed they aught their own, all was the brethren’s. The poor man knew no shame, the rich no haughtiness. This is gladness. The latter deemed himself the obliged and fortunate party; the others felt themselves as honored herein, and closely were they bound together. For indeed, because when people make doles of money, there are apt to be insults, pride, grudging; therefore says the Apostle, “Not grudgingly, or of necessity.”—(2 Cor. ix. 7.) “With gladness and simplicity of heart,” etc. See of how many things he bears witness to them! Genuine faith, upright conduct, perseverance in hearing, in prayers, in singleness, in cheerfulness. “Praising God.” (v. 47.) Two things there were which might deject them; their abstemious living, and the loss of their property. Yet on both these accounts did they rejoice. “And having favor with all the people.” For who but must love men of this character, 187 ἅμα τῆς τούτων (N. and Cat. τοῦ Πνεύματος) παρρησίας (παρουσίας B.) πολλῆς οὔσης, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν τε κ. τ. λ. B. C. D. F. N. Cat. We have adopted the reading preserved by N. and the Catena.—E. and Edd. “Who also with boldness, seeing there was great boldness now, daily went up and continued in the Temple.” 188 καὶ αὐτὴ (l. αὕτη δὲ ἡ τιμὴ εἰς τὸν τόπον διέβαινε τὸ ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ ἐσθίειν· ποίU+0026 251· οἴκω; ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ; B. C. D. F. Cat. This “eating in the house” refers to the clause κλῶντες τε κατ᾽ οἶκον ἄρτον. If the passage be sound, Chrys. here represents that the Temple was honored by the breaking of bread (the Holy Eucharist?), there—Edd. from E. καὶ αὐτὴ δὲ ἡ εἰς τὸν τόπον τιμὴ διέβαινε πρὸς τὸν τοῦ ἱεροῦ Δεσπότην· “And the honor itself paid to the place passed over to the Lord of the Temple.” 189 Edd. add, τὸ ψυχρὸν ῥU+0026 210·μα, “That cold expression.” 190 Δεσποτικὰ, i.e. of Christ their common Master. But Erasm. Erant enim ut dominorum, and so Ben. as common fathers? They conceived no malice toward each other; they committed all to the grace of God. “With all the people.” Fear there was none; yea, though they had taken their position in the midst of dangers.191 By singleness, however, he denotes their entire virtue, far surpassing their contempt of riches, their abstinence, and their preseverance in prayer. For thus also they offered pure praise to God: this is to praise God. But observe also here how they immediately obtain their reward. “Having favor with all the people.” They were engaging, and highly beloved. For who would not prize and admire their simplicity of character; who would not be linked to one in whom was nothing underhand? To whom too does salvation belong, but to these? To whom those great marvels? Was it not to shepherds that the Gospel was first preached? and to Joseph,192 being a man of simple mind, insomuch that he did not let a suspicion of adultery frighten him into doing wrong? Did not God elect rustics, those artless men? For it is written, “Blessed is every simple soul.” (Prov. xi. 25.) And again, “He that walketh simply, walketh surely.” (Prov. x. 9.) “True,” you will say, “but prudence also is needed.” Why, what is simplicity, I pray you, but prudence? For when you suspect no evil, neither can you fabricate any: when you have no annoyances, neither can you remember injuries. Has any one insulted you? You were not pained. Has any one reviled you? You were nothing hurt. Has he envied you? Still you had no hurt. Simplicity is a high road to true philosophy. None so beautiful in soul as the simple. For as in regard of personal appearance, he that is sullen, and downcast, and reserved (σύννους), even if he be goodlooking, loses much of his beauty; while he that relaxes his countenance, and gently smiles, enhances his good looks; so in respect of the soul, he that is reserved, if he have ten thousand good points, disfigures them; but the frank and simple, just the reverse. A man of this last description may be safely made a friend, and when at variance easily reconciled. No need of guards and outposts, no need of chains and fetters with such an one; but great is his own freedom, and that of those who associate with him. But what, you will say, will such a man do if he fall among wicked people? God, Who has commanded us to be simple-minded, will stretch out His hand. What was more guileless than David? What more wicked than Saul? Yet who triumphed? Again, in Joseph’s case; did not he in simplicity approach his master’s wife, she him with wicked art? Yet what, I pray, was he the worse? Furthermore, what more simple than was Abel? what more malicious than Cain? And Joseph again, had he not dealt artlessly with his brethren? Was not this the cause of his eminence, that he spoke out unsuspiciously, while they received his words in malice? He declared once and again his dreams unreservedly; and then again he set off to them carrying provisions; he used no caution; he 191 καὶ ταῦτα ἐν μέσοις κινδύνοις ἐμβεβληκότων αὐτῶν. Erasm. omits the two last words: Ben. in media pericula conjectis. The meaning is: “Not even in the midst of dangers, which they themselves had boldly charged, or, invaded.” 192 Although he speaks below of Joseph the Patriarch, it seems that the husband of Mary is meant here. committed all to God: nay, the more they held him in the light of an enemy, the more did he treat them as brothers. God had power not to have suffered him to fall into their hands; but that the wonder might be made manifest, how, though they do their worst, he shall be higher than they: though the blow do come upon him, it comes from another, not from himself. On the contrary, the wicked man strikes himself first, and none other than himself. “For193 alone,” it is said, “shall he bear his troubles.” (Prov. ix. 12.) Ever in him the soul is full of dejection, his thoughts being ever entangled: whether he must hear aught or say aught, he does all with complaints, with accusation. Far, very far from such do friendship and harmony make their abode: but fightings are there, and enmities, and all unpleasantness. They that are such suspect even themselves. To these not even sleep is sweet, nor anything else. And have they a wife also, lo, they are enemies and at war with all: what endless jealousies, what unceasing fear! Aye, the wicked, πονηρὸς has his name from πονεἵν, “to have trouble.” And, indeed, thus the Scripture is ever calling “wickedness” by the name of labor; as, for instance, “Under his tongue is toil and labor;” and again, “In the midst of them is toil and labor.” (Ps. x. 7; xc. 10; and lv. 11.)

Now if any one should wonder, whence those who had at first been of this last class, now are so different, let him learn that affliction was the cause, affliction, that school-mistress of heavenly wisdom, that mother of piety. When riches were done away with, wickedness also disappeared. True, say you, for this is the very thing I am asking about; but whence comes all the wickedness there is now? How is it that it came into the minds of those three thousand and five thousand straightway, to choose virtue, and that they simultaneously became Christian philosophers, whereas now hardly one is to be found? how was it that they then were in such harmony? What was it, that made them resolute and active? What was it that so suddenly inflamed them? The reason is, that they drew near with much piety; that honors were not so sought after as they are now; that they transferred their thoughts to things future, and looked for nothing of things present. This is the sign of an ardent mind, to encounter perils; this was their idea of Christianity. We take a different view, we seek our comfort here. The result is, that we shall not even obtain this, when the time is come. “What are we to do?” asked those men. We, just the contrary—“What shall we do?” What behooved to be done, they did. We, quite the reverse.194 Those men condemned themselves, despaired 193 Μόνος γὰρ, φησὶν, ἀντλήσει τὰ κακά. A. omits this and the next clause: E. substitutes, “so is he even to himself an enemy. Of such an one the soul is,” etc. so Edd. 194 We adopt the reading preserved by A. N. (what is also contained in the modern text with additions meant for explanation.) “Τί ποιήσωμεν;” ἠρώτων ἐκεῖνοι. ῾Ημεῖς δὲ τὸ ἐναντίον· Τί ποιήσομεν; ῞Απερ ἔδει γενέσθαι ἐποίουν. ῾Ημεῖς δε τοὐναντίον. The modern text, after ἠρ. ἐκεῖνοι, inserts, ἀπογινώσκοντες ἑαυτῶν· “despairing of themselves:” and, after the second question, λέγομεν, ἐπιδεικνύμενοι πρὸς τοὺς παρόντας, καὶ μέγα φρονοῦντες ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς· “Say (we), showing off ourselves to those present, and thinking great things of ourselves.” B. C. omit, perhaps by oversight, the clauses between, Τί ποιήσωμεν (B. τί ποιήσομεν); and, ῞Απερ ἔδεἵ. In the following of saving themselves. This is what made them such as they were. They knew what a gift they had received. But how can you become like them, when you do everything in an opposite spirit? They heard, and were forthwith baptized. They did not speak those cold words which we do now, nor did they contrive delays (p. 47, note 3); and yet they had heard all the requirements: but that word, “Save yourselves from this generation,” made them to be not sluggish; rather they welcomed the exhortation; and that they did welcome it, they proved by their deeds, they showed what manner of men they were. They entered at once the lists, and took off the coat; whereas we do enter, but we intend to fight with our coat on. This is the cause that our antagonist has so little trouble, for we get entangled in our own movements, and are continually thrown down. We do precisely the same thing as he who, having195 to cope with a man frantic, breathing fire; and seeing him, a professed wrestler, covered with dust, tawny, stripped, clotted with dirt from the sand and sun, and running down with sweat and oil and dirt; himself, smelling of perfumes, should put on his silken garments, and his gold shoes, and his robe hanging down to his heels, and his golden trinkets on the head, and so descend into the arena, and grapple with him. Such a one will not only be impeded, but being taken up with the sole idea of not staining or rending his fine clothes, will tumble at the very first onset, and withal will suffer that which he chiefly dreaded, the damage of those his fond delights. The time for the contest is come, and say, are you putting on your silks? It is the time of exercise, the hour of the race, and are you adorning yourself as for a procession? Look not to outward things, but to the inward. For by the thoughts about these things the soul is hampered on all sides, as if by strong cords, so that she cannot let you raise a hand, or contend against the adversary; and makes you soft and effeminate. One may think himself, even when released from all these ties, well off, to be enabled to conquer that impure power. And on this account Christ too did not allow the parting with riches alone to suffice, but what saith He? “Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and come and follow Me.” (Mark x. 21.) Now if, even when we cast away our riches, we are not yet in a safe position, but stand still in need of some further art and close practice; much more, if we retain them, shall we fail to achieve great things, and, instead thereof, become a laughingstock to the spectators, and to the evil one himself. For even though there were no devil, though there were none to wrestle with us, yet ten thousand roads on all sides lead the lover of money to hell. Where now are they who ask why the devil was made (διατί ὁ δ. γέγονεν;)? Behold here the devil has no hand in the work, we do it all ourselves. Of a truth they of the hills might have a right to speak thus, who after they had given proof of their temperance, their contempt of wealth and disregard of all such things, have infinitely preferred to abandon sentences, the force of the verbs κατέγνωσαν, ἀπέγνωσαν, ἔγνωσαν might be rendered thus: “They knew themselves guilty, knew that in them was no power to save themselves—knew what a gift they received.” 195 πρὸς ἄνδρα μαινόμενον ἔχων, πῦρ πνέοντα. E. F. D. and Edd. omit these words. father, and houses, and lands, and wife, and children. Yet, they are the last to speak so: but the men who at no time ought to say it, these do say it. Those are indeed wrestlings with the devil; these he does not think worth entering into. You will say, But it is the devil who instils this same covetousness. Well, flee from it, do not harbor it, O man. Suppose now, you see one flinging out filth from some upper story, and at the same time a person seeing it thrown out, yet standing there and receiving it all on his head: you not only do not pity him, but you are angry, and tell him it serves him right; and, “Do not be a fool,” everyone cries out to him, and lays the blame not so much on the other for shooting out the filth, as on him for letting it come on him. But now, you know that covetousness is of the devil; you know that it is the cause of ten thousand evils; you see him flinging out, like filth, his noisome imaginations; and do you not see that you are receiving on your bare head his nastiness, when it needed but to turn aside a little to escape it altogether? Just as our man by shifting his position would have escaped; so, do you refuse to admit such imaginations, ward off the lust. And how am I to do this? you will ask. Were you a Gentile, and had eyes for things present alone, the matter perhaps might be one of considerable difficulty, and yet even the Gentiles have achieved as much; but you—a man in expectation of heaven and heavenly bliss—and you to ask, “How am I to repel bad thoughts?” Were I saying the contrary, then you might doubt: did I say, covet riches, “How shall I covet riches,” you might answer, “seeing such things as I do?” Tell me, if gold and precious stones were set before you, and I were to say, Desire lead, would there not be reason for hesitation? For you would say, How can I? But if I said, Do not desire it; this had been plainer to understand. I do not marvel at those who despise, but at those who despise not riches. This is the character of a soul exceeding full of stupidity, no better than flies and gnats, a soul crawling upon the earth, wallowing in filth, destitute of all high ideas. What is it you say? Are you destined to inherit eternal life; and do you say, how shall I despise the present life for the future? What, can the things be put in competition?196 You are to receive a royal vest; and say you, How shall I despise these rags? You are going to be led into the king’s palace; and do you say, How shall I despise this present hovel? Of a truth, we ourselves are to blame in every point, we who do not choose to let ourselves be stirred up ever so little. For the willing have succeeded, and that with great zeal and facility. Would that you might be persuaded by our exhortation, and succeed too, and become imitators of those who have been successful, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, and power, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Acts III. 1

“Now Peter and John went up together into the temple, at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.”

Everywhere we find these two Apostles in great harmony together. “To him Simon Peter beckoned.” (John xiii. 24.) These two also “came together to the sepulchre. (Ib. xx. 3 et seq.) And concerning John, Peter said unto Christ, “And what shall this man do?” (Ib. xxi. 21.) Now as for the other miracles, the writer of this book omits them; but he mentions the miracle by which they were all197 put in commotion. Observe again that they do not come to them purposely; so clear were they of ambition, so closely did they imitate their Master. Why now did they go up to the temple? Did they still live as Jews? No, but for expediency (χρησίμως).198 A miraculous sign again takes place, which both confirms the converts, and draws over the rest; and such, as they were a sign for having wrought.199 The disease was in the nature of the man, and baffled the art of medicine. He had been forty years lame (ch. iv. 20), as the writer says afterwards, and no one during all that time had cured him. And the most obstinate diseases are those which are born with men. It was a great calamity, insomuch that even to provide for himself his necessary sustenance was impossible for him. The man was conspicuous both from the place, and from his malady. Hear how the matter is related. “And a certain man, lame from his mother’s womb, was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple.” (v. 2.) He sought to receive alms, and he did not know who the men were. “Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look on us.” (v. 3, 4.) Yet, not even so were the man’s thoughts elevated, but he persisted in his importunity. For such is poverty; upon a refusal, 197 OEcumen. has preserved the true reading: ἀφ᾽ οὗ πάντες ἐκινήθησαν. Mss. and Cat. ἐκίνησεν. (N. in the margin, by a later hand, ἐνίκησε.) E. and Edd. ὃ δὲ τολλὴν εἶχε τὴν ἔκπληξιν καὶ πάντας ἐξένισε, τοῦτο λέγει. 198 There is no evidence that Peter and John attended upon the Jewish worship simply “for expediency.” There is much to the contrary. The early Christians had no idea of ceasing to be Jews. Peter at this time supposed it to be necessary for the Gentile converts to be circumcised (Gal. ii.). It was incident to the gradual separation of Christianity from Judaism that those who had been zealous adherents of the latter should suppose that its forms were still to be the moulds of the new system. They were not for this reason less honestly and genuinely Christian, but had not yet apprehended the principle of Christian liberty as Paul afterward expounded it. The point of difficulty was not so much the entrance of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God as the question whether they should enter through the gate of Judaism.—G.B.S. 199 καὶ οἷον σημεῖον ἦσαν ποιήσαντες. E. “And a miracle such as they had not yet wrought.” So Edd. it compels people still to persist. Let this put us to shame who fall back in our prayers. But observe, I pray you, Peter’s gentleness: for he said, “Look on us.” So truly did their very bearing, of itself, betoken their character. “And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have I give thee.” (v. 5, 6.) He did not say, I give thee something much better than silver or gold: but what? “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up.” (v. 7.) Such was also the way of Christ. Often He healed by word, often by an act, often also He stretched forth the hand, where men were somewhat weak in faith, that the cure might not appear to be spontaneous. “And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up.” This act made manifest the Resurrection, for it was an image of the Resurrection. “And immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he leaping up stood, and walked.” (v. 8.) Perhaps it was by way of trying himself that he put it thus to further proof, whether perchance the thing done might not be to no purpose. His feet were weak; it was not that he had lost them. Some say that he did not even know how to walk.200 “And entered with them into the temple.” Of a truth it was marvellous. The Apostles do not urge him; but of his own accord he follows, by the act of following pointing out his benefactors. “And leaping and praising God;” not admiring them, but God that wrought by them. The man was grateful.

“Now201 Peter and John went up together into the temple,” etc. You observe how they continued in prayer. “The ninth hour:” there they prayed together. “And a certain man,” etc. The man was in the act of being carried at that instant. “Whom they laid daily:” (his bearers carried him away:) “at the gate,” etc. just when people went into the temple. And that you may not suppose that they carried him for some other purpose, but that it was in order that he might receive alms, hear what the writer says: “so that he might receive alms of those entering into the temple.” (Recapitulation of vv. 1–8.) And this is the reason why he also makes mention of the places, to give evidence of what he relates. “And how was it,” you may ask, “that they did not present him to Christ?” Perhaps they were certain unbelieving men, that haunted the temple, as in fact neither did they present him to the Apostles, when they saw them entering, after having done such great miracles. “He asked,” it is written, “to receive an alms.” (v. 3.) Their bearing marked them as certain devout and righteous men. “And Peter fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said,” etc. (v. 4, 5.) And observe how 200 OEcumen. “That he leaped was either because he was incredulous of what had happened, or, by way of trying his power of stepping more surely and firmly, or, the man did not know how to walk.” 201 E. and Edd. “But let us look over again what has been said. ‘They went up,’ he says, ‘at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.’ Perhaps just at that time they carried and laid the lame man, when people,” etc. In the old text the clause αὐτὸν βαστάζοντες ἀπήνεγκαν (which should be οἱ βαστ. αὐτὸν) seems meant to explain καθ᾽ ἡμέραν: they bore him daily, and the same persons carried him away. John is everywhere silent, while Peter makes excuse for him also; “Silver and gold,” he says, “have I none.” (v. 6.) He does not say, I have none here, as we are wont to speak, but absolutely, I have none. “What then?” he might say, “do you take no notice of me, your suppliant?” Not so, but of what I have, receive thou. Do you remark how unassuming Peter is, how he makes no display even to the object of his beneficence? “In the name,” etc. “And he took him by the hand,” etc. (v. 7.) And the mouth and the hand did all. Such202 sort of persons were the Jews; lame, and the right thing being to ask for health, these same ask for money, grovelling on the ground: for this it was that they beset the temple—to get money. What then does Peter? He did not despise him; he did not look about for some rich subject; he did not say, If the miracle is not done to some great one (εἰς ἐκεἵνον), nothing great is done: he did not look for some honor from him, no, nor heal him in the presence of people; for the man was at the entrance, not where the multitude were, that is, within. But Peter sought no such object; nor upon entering did he proclaim the matter: no, it was by his bearing that he attracted the lame man to ask. And the wonder is, that he believed so readily. For those who are set free from diseases of long standing, hardly believe their very eyesight. Once healed, he remains with the Apostles, giving thanks to God. “And he entered,” it is said, “with them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.” (v. 8.) Observe how restless he is, in the eagerness of his delight, at the same time shutting the mouths of the Jews. Also, that he leaped, was to prevent the suspicion of hypocrisy; for after all, this was beyond the possibility of deception. For if previously he was totally unable to walk, even when hunger pressed hard (and indeed he would not have chosen to share with his bearers the proceeds of his begging, if he had been able to manage for himself), this holds still more in the present case. And how should he have feigned in behalf of those who had given him no alms? But the man was grateful, even after his recovery. And thus on either side his faith is shown, both by his thankfulness, and by the recent event.

He was so203 well known to all, that “they recognized him. And all the people,” it says, “saw him walking and praising God; and they recognized (ἐπεγίνωσκον) that it was he 202 E. and Edd. τοιοῦτοί τινες ἦσαν καὶ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι (for οἱ ᾽Ι.) χωλεύοντες…οἱ δὲ (for αὐτοὶ) μᾶλλον χρήματα αἰτοῦσι…οἳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο…“Such sort of people were also [the] Jews, being lame (i e. like many beggars among ourselves): even when they have only to ask for health, yet they rather ask for money…who even for this reason beset the temple,” etc. But the meaning seems rather to be: “See here an emblem of the Jews. Lame, and needing but,” etc. 203 οὕτω πᾶσι γνωριμὸς ἦν ὅτι ἐπεγίνωσκον, A. B. C. D. F. Sav. Morel. Ben. But Commelin. and Ed. Par. Ben. 2. after Erasm. adopt the reading of E. οὐ μὴν πᾶσι γνώριμος ἦν ὅθεν καὶ: because of the following comment on ἐπεγίνωσκον. But the meaning is: They were all acquainted with him (it could not be otherwise): but seeing him walking and leaping, they found it difficult to believe that it was he, and yet they could not doubt it. This is well denoted by ἐπεγίνωσκον: for we use this word, ἐπὶ τῶν μόλις γνωριζομένων: strange as it was, they were satisfied that it was he, the man whom they all knew so well. which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple.” (v. 9.) It is well said, “they recognized,” inasmuch as he was one unknown now by reason of what had happened: for we use this term with regard to objects, which we find a difficulty in recognizing. “And they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.” Needs must it be believed that204 the name of Christ remits sins, seeing it produces even such effects as this. (“And as he held Peter and John, all the people came together at the porch that is called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.” (v. 11.) From his good feelings and love towards the Apostles, the lame man would not leave them; perhaps he was thanking them openly, and praising them. “And all the people,” it is said, “ran together unto them. And when Peter saw them, he answered.” (v. 12.) Again it is he who acts, and addresses the people.

And in the former instance, it was the circumstance of the tongues that aroused them to hearing, now it was this miracle; then, he took occasion to speak from their accusations now, from their supposition. Let us then consider, in what this address differs from the former, and in what it agrees with that. The former was held in a house, before any one has come over, and before they themselves have wrought anything; this, when all are wondering, and the healed man is standing by; when none doubt, as in the other case where some said “These men are full of new wine.” (Acts xii. 13.) At the one, he was surrounded by all the Apostles as he spoke; but at this, he has John alone; for by this time he is bold, and become more energetic. Such is the nature of virtue; once started, it advances, and never stops. Observe also how it was divinely ordered, that the miracle should take place in the temple, that others also might wax bold, while the Apostles work not in holes (εἰς καταδύσεις) and corners, and in secret: though not in the interior of the temple either, where the greater number were. How then, I pray you, was it believed? The man himself who was healed proclaimed the benefit. For there was no reason why he should lie, nor why he should have joined a different set of people.205 Either then it was because of the spaciousness of the place, that he there wrought the miracle, or because the spot was retired. And observe the event. They went up for one object, and they accomplished another. Thus also did Cornelius: he prayed and fasted206 . But hitherto they always call Him, “of Nazareth.” “In the name 204 ῎Εδει πιστευθῆναι διότι, B. C. δί ὅτι A. This seems to be the comment on the remaining clause of v. 10, which we have supplied: but the meaning is obscure. The modern text has ἔδει γοὖν π. ὅτι. 205 οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ἐψεύσατο, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἄλλους τινὰς ἦλθεν. It is not clear who are the ἄλλοι τινὲς: and something is wanting. In fact, this part of the Homily is very defective. The next sentence seems to refer to the mention of the porch called Solomon’s, but evidently supposes something preceding: e.g. “The miracle was performed at the Beautiful Gate, beside which was the Porch called Solomon’s.” 206 E. and Edd. Κορνήλιος ἄλλα νηστεύων ηὔχετο, καὶ ἄλλα ὁρᾷ. “Cornelius prayed with fasting, for one object: and sees a vision of something other than he thought for.” of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” said Peter, walk. For in the first instance, the thing required was, that He should be believed in.

Let us not, I pray you, give over at the beginning of the story:207 and if one has named some particular achievement of virtue, and then has dropped it for awhile, let us begin over again. If we get into the right mood (ἐν ἕξει), we shall soon arrive at the end, soon reach the summit. For earnestness, it is said, begets earnestness, and dulness begets dulness. He who has effected some little reformation, thereby receives encouragement to approach greater things, and thence again to go on something more than that; and just as it is with fire, the more wood it lays hold on, the more vehement it becomes, so likewise zeal, the more pious reflections it kindles, the more effectually is it armed against their opposites. As, for example: There are set in us, like so many thorns, perjury, falsehood hypocrisy, deceit, dishonesty, abusiveness, scoffing, buffoonery, indecency, scurrility; again under another head, covetousness, rapacity, injustice, calumny, insidiousness; again, wicked lust, uncleanness, lewdness, fornication, adultery; again, envy, emulation, anger, wrath, rancor, revenge, blasphemy, and numberless others. If we effect a reformation in the first instances, not only in them will the success have been achieved, but through them in the following cases also. For reason has then gained more strength to overthrow those other vices. For instance, if he, who has frequently sworn, once extirpates that satanic habit, he has not only gained this point, but a habit of piety in other respects will have been brought in. For no one, I suppose, averse to swearing would easily consent to do any other wicked act; he will feel a reverence for the virtue already acquired. Just as the man who wears a beautiful robe, will blush to roll himself in the mire; so is it also here. From this beginning he will come to learn not to be angry, not to strike, not to insult. For if once he has come right in little matters, the whole affair is done. Often, however, something of this sort takes place, that a person has once reformed, and then again through carelessness falls back into the old sins but too readily, so that the case becomes irremediable. For instance, we have made it a law to ourselves not to swear; we have got on well, for some three, or even four days; after that being hard put to it, we scattered away the whole of our collected gain; we then fall into indolence and recklessness. Still it is not right to give over; one must set to work zealously again. For it is said, he that has built up a house, and then sees his building pulled down, will have less spirit for building again. Yes, but for all this, one must not be dispirited, but must once more set to work zealously.

Acts III. 12

“And when Peter saw it, he answered unto the people, Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this, or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we have made this man to walk?”

There is greater freedom of speech in this harangue, than in the former. Not that he was afraid on the former occasion, but the persons whom he addressed there, being jesters and scoffers, would not have borne it. Hence in the beginning of that address he also bespeaks their attention by his preamble; “Be this known unto you, and hearken to my words.” (ch. ii. 14.) But here there is no need of this management. (κατασκευἥς.) For his hearers were not in a state of indifference. The miracle had aroused them all; they were even full of fear and amazement. Wherefore also there was no need of beginning at that point, but rather with a different topic; by which, in fact, he powerfully conciliated them, namely, by rejecting the glory which was to be had from them. For nothing is so advantageous, and so likely to pacify the hearers, as to say nothing about one’s self of an honorable nature, but, on the contrary, to obviate all surmise of wishing to do so. And, in truth, much more did they increase their glory by despising glory, and showing that what had just taken place was no human act, but a Divine work; and that it was their part to join with the beholders in admiration, rather than to receive it from them. Do you see how clear of all ambition he is, and how he repels the honor paid to him? In the same manner also did the ancient fathers; for instance, Daniel said, “Not for any wisdom that is in me.” (Dan. ii. 30.) And again Joseph, “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Gen. xi. 8.) And David, “When the lion and the bear came, in the name of the Lord I rent them with my hands.” (1 Sam. xvii. 34.) And so likewise here the Apostles, “Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?” (v. 13.) Nay, not even this;210 for not by our own merit did we draw down the Divine influence. “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers.” See how assiduously he thrusts himself (εἰσωθει) upon the fathers of old, lest he should appear to be introducing a new doctrine. In the former address he appealed to the patriarch David, here he appeals to Abraham and the rest. “Hath glorified His Servant211 Jesus.” Again a lowly expression, like as in the opening address.

Acts IV. 1

“And as they spake unto the people, there came unto them the priests, and the captain of the temple.”

Ere yet they had time to take breath after their first trials, straightway they enter into others. And observe how the events are disposed. First, they were all mocked together; this was no small trial: secondly, they enter into dangers. And these two things do not take place in immediate succession; but when first the Apostles have won admiration by their two discourses, and after that have performed a notable miracle, thereupon it is that, after they are waxen bold, through God’s disposal, they enter the lists. But I wish you to consider, how those same persons, who in the case of Christ must need look out for one to deliver Him up to them, now with their own hands arrest the Apostles, having become more audacious and more impudent since the Crucifixion. In truth, sin, while it is yet struggling to the birth, is attended with some sense of shame; but when once fully born, it makes those more shameless who practise it. “And the captain of the temple,” it is said. The object again was to attach a public criminality to what was doing, and not to prosecute it as the act of private individuals: such in fact was constantly their plan of proceeding.

“Being grieved that they taught the people.” (v. 2.) Not merely because they taught, but because they declared, not alone that Christ Himself was risen from the dead, but moreover, that we through Him do rise again. “Because they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” So mighty was His Resurrection, that to others also He is the cause of a resurrection.246 “And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day; for it was now eventide. (v. 3.) What impudence! They247 feared not the multitude; for this also the captain of the temple was with them: they had their hands still reeking with the blood of the former victim. “For it was now eventide,” it is said. It was with the wish to abate their spirit that those men did this, and guarded them; but the delay only served to make the Apostles more intrepid. And consider who these are who are arrested. 246 It is more likely that καταγγέλειν ἐν τῶ ᾽Ιησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν κ. τ. λ. means “to declare in (the case of) Jesus the resurrection,” i.e. that the reference is specifically to the resurrection of Jesus instead of (as Chrys.) to the resurrection generally.—G.B.S. 247 So A. C. N. Cat. but B. omits οὐκ. Edd. “They had their hands still reeking with the blood of their former victim and they were not chilled (ἐνάρκων), but again laid them upon others, to fill them with fresh blood. Or perhaps also they feared them as having now become a multitude, and for this reason the captain,” etc. But the statement, οὐκ ἔδεισαν τὸ πλῆθος is explained in the Recapitulation: they led Christ to trial immediately, for fear of the multitude; but not so here. They are the chiefs of the Apostles, who are now become a pattern to the rest, that they should no longer crave each other’s support, nor want to be together. “Howbeit, many having heard the word, believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.” (v. 4.) How was this? Did they see them in honor? Did they not behold them put in bonds? How then did they believe? Do you see the evident efficacy? And yet even those that believed already might well have become weaker. But no, it is no longer so: for Peter’s sermon had laid the seed deep into them, and had taken a hold upon their understandings. Therefore were their enemies incensed, that they did not fear them, that they made no account of their present troubles. For, say they, if He that was crucified effects such great things, and makes the lame to walk, we fear not these men either.248 This again is of God’s ordering. For those who now believe were more numerous than the former. Therefore it was that in their presence they bound the Apostles, to make them also more fearful. But the reverse took place. And they examine them not before the people, but privately, that the hearers may not profit by their boldness.

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the High Priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the High Priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.” (v. 5, 6.) For now along with the other evils (of the times249), the Law was no longer observed. And again they set off the business with the form of a tribunal, to constitute them guilty by their iniquitous sentence. “And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” (v. 7.) And yet they knew it well; for it was because they were “grieved that they preached through Jesus the resurrection” that they arrested them. Then for what purpose do they question them? They expected the numbers present would make them recant, and thought by this means to have put all right again. Observe then what they say: “And by what name have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them.” (v. 8.) And now, I pray you, call to mind Christ’s saying; “When they deliver you up unto the synagogues, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall speak; for it is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. (Luke xii. 11, 14.) So that it was a mighty Power they enjoyed. 248 C. D. E. F. ῎Εἰ γὰρ ὁ σταυρωθεὶς, φησὶ τοιαῦτα ἐργάζεται, καὶ τὸν χωλὸν ἀνέστησεν, οὐ φοβούμεθα οὐδὲ τούτους. A. B. N. ἐργάζεται, οὐδὲ τούτους φοβούμεθα· τὸν χωλὸν ἀνέστησε, and so Cat. which however has ἔστησαν. The meaning is obscure, especially the emphatic οὐδὲ τούτους: but perhaps it may be explained: “He was crucified; they did their worst to Him, to how little purpose! therefore neither need we fear these men, what they can do to us.” But the report is otherwise so defective and confused, that perhaps what Chrys. actually said here was meant of the priests: “We were able to crucify the Master, therefore we do not fear these common men, His followers, though, as they say, it is He that does these works, that made the lame man walk.” 249 Something is wanting here: perhaps a remark on the mention of Annas as the high-priest, whereas elsewhere Caiaphas appears to have been high-priest shortly before. What then says Peter? “Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel.” Mark the Christian wisdom of the man; how full of confidence it is: he utters not a word of insult, but says with respect, “Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we be this day called to account of the good deed done to the impotent man.” He takes them in hand right valiantly; by the opening of his speech he exposes250 them, and reminds them of the former things: that it is for a work of beneficence they are calling them to account. As if he had said, “In all fairness we ought to have been crowned for this deed, and proclaimed benefactors; but since “we are even put upon our trial for a good deed done to an impotent man,” not a rich man, not powerful, not noble—and yet who would feel envy in a case like this?” It is a most forcible (ἀπαγγελια, al. ἐπαγγελία) way of putting the case; and he shows that they are piercing their own selves:—“By what means this man is made whole: be it known unto you all, and to all the people Israel; that by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth:”—this is what would vex them most. For this was that which Christ had told the disciples, “What ye hear in the ear that preach ye upon the housetops.—That in the name of Jesus Christ,” he says, “of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole.” (v. 10). (Matt. x. 27.) Think not, he says that we conceal the country, or the nature of the death. “Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand before you whole.” Again the death, again the resurrection. “This is the stone,” he says, “which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.” (v. 11.) He reminds them also of a saying which was enough to frighten them. For it had been said, “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Matt. xxi. 44.)—Neither is there salvation in any other, (v. 12.) Peter says. What wounds, think you, must these words inflict on them! “For there is none other name,” he continues, “under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Here he utters also lofty words. For when251 the object is, not to carry some point successfully, but only to show boldness he does not spare; for he was not afraid of 250 ἀπὸ τοῦ προοιμίου διεκωμῴδησεν, i.e. “You, the rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,—to make it a crime,” etc. For this, which is the reading of the other mss. and the Catena, E. alone has καὶ διεκωδώνισε, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνέμνησεν κ. τ. λ. “And he rung them, nay, rather also reminded them,” etc. Διακωδωνίζειν is a word elsewhere used by St. Chrys., and would suit the passage very well, either as “he put their unsoundness to the proof (like false metal, or cracked earthenware),” or “he sounded an alarm in their ears:” but the other is equally suitable, and better accredited here. Below, ᾽Επειδὴ δὲ καὶ κρινόμεθα κ. τ. λ.—Cat. ἐπεὶ δέ. Edd. νῦν δέ. 251 ῞Οταν γὰρ μὴ ᾖ τι κατορθῶσαι. Quando enim non est aliquid præclare agendum. Ben. Non est corrigendum aliquid, Erasm. But see the comment in the recapitulation. “Where need was to teach, they allege prophecies; where, to show boldness, they affirm peremptorily.” κατορθῶσαι, “to carry their point,” “to come off in the right;” viz. here, to convince by argument. striking too deep. Nor does he say simply, “By another;” but, “Neither is there salvation in any other:” that is, He is able to save us. In this way he subdued their threatening.

“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” (v. 13.) The two unlearned men beat down with their rhetoric them and the chief priests. For it was not they that spake, but the grace of the Spirit. “And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” (v. 14.) Great was the boldness of the man; that even in the judgment-hall he has not left them. For had they said that the fact was not so, there was he to refute them. “But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What are we to do to these men?” (v. 15.) See the difficulty they are in, and how the fear of men again does everything. As in the case of Christ, they were not able (as the saying is) to undo what is done,252 nor to cast it into the shade, but for all their hindering, the Faith did but gain ground the more; so was it now. “What shall we do?” O the folly! to suppose that those who had tasted of the conflict, would now take fright at it: to expect, impotent as their efforts had proved in the beginning, to effect something new, after such a specimen of oratory as had been exhibited! The more they wished to hinder, the more the business grew upon their hands. But what say they? “For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straightly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach, in the name of Jesus.” (v. 16–18.) See what effrontery is shown by these, and what greatness of mind by the Apostles. “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people.” (v. 19–21.) The miracles shut their mouths: they would not so much as let them finish their speech, but cut them short in the middle, most insolently. “For all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was showed.” (v. 22.) But let us look over what has been said from the beginning.

“And as they spake unto the people, etc. Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” (Recapitulation, v. 1, 2.) So253 then 252 ἀνατρέψαι (φησὶν) τὸ γενόμενον οὐκ ἔνι, A. B. C. Cat. A proverbial expression. Edd. ἀνατρέψαι τὸ γενόμενον οὐκ ἴσχυσαν, “Since then they had not power to undo,” etc. 253 We have supplied the text, instead of which C. inserts, “What shall we do to these men?” adopted by E. and Edd. Below, after the text 5. 28. E. inserts the latter part of v. 17. “Let us straitly threaten them,” etc. at first they did all for the sake of man’s opinion (or glory): but now another motive was added: that they should not be thought guilty of murder, as they said subsequently, “Do ye wish to bring this man’s blood on us?” (ch. v. 28.) O the folly! Persuaded that He was risen, and having received this proof of it,254 they expected that He Whom death could not hold, could be cast into the shade by their machinations! What can match the folly of this!255 Such is the nature of wickedness: it has no eyes for anything, but on all occasions it is thrown into perturbation. Finding themselves overborne, they felt like persons who have been outwitted: as is the case with people who have been forestalled and made a sport of in some matter. And yet256 they everywhere affirmed that it was God that raised Him: but257 it was “in the Name of Jesus” that they spake; showing that Jesus was risen. “Through Jesus, the resurrection of the dead”: for they themselves also held a resurrection: a cold and puerile doctrine, indeed, but still they held it. Why this alone, was it not sufficient to induce them to do nothing to them—I mean, that the disciples with such boldness bore themselves in the way they did? Say, wherefore, O Jew, dost thou disbelieve? Thou oughtest to have attended to the sign done, and to the words, not to the evil disposition of the many. “By their teaching the people.”258 For already they were in ill repute with them by reason of what they had done to Christ; so that they were rather increasing their own obloquy. “And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold until the morrow; for it was now eventide.” (v. 3.) In the case of Christ, however, they did not so; but having taken Him at midnight, they immediately led him away, and made no delay, being exceedingly in fear of the multitude: whereas in the case of the Apostles here, they were bold. And they no more take them to Pilate, being 254 All our mss. and Cat. πεισθέντος ὅτι ἀνέστη, καὶ τοῦτο (A. C. N. τούτου, Cat. τὸ) τεκμ. λαβ., ὅτι ἐστὶ Θεὸς, except that B. reads ὅτι ἂν ἔστη Θεός. Hence we read, ὅτι ἀνέστῃ. The repetition of these words may have led to the alteration. 255 The modern text adds, “And marvel not that they again attempt what had been vainly essayed before.” 256 Καὶ μὴν ἄνω καὶ κάτω ἔλεγον. E. F. D. for the sake of connection insert διὰ τοῦτο before ἔλεγον, adopted in Edd. 257 The same mss. and Edd. “And that in the Name of Jesus, this man stands before you whole.” And below: “And besides, they themselves held, etc.…: but now they disbelieve and are troubled, taking counsel to do something to them.” Again, after “the wickedness of the many:”—“And pray why do they not deliver them up to the Romans? Already they were,” etc. All these variations are due to the innovator, who did not perceive that the recapitulation began at the place marked above. 258 The modern text inserts Καὶ τί δήποτε οὐ παραδιδόασιν αὐτοὺς ῾Ρωμαίοις; “And why do they not deliver them over to the Romans? Already they were,” etc. And after ὥστε μᾶλλον ἑαυτοὺς ἐκακιζον, the same adds, ὑπερτιθέμενοι τὴν αὐτῶν ἔνδειξιν· and below, “But concerning these, they neither were bold, nor yet do they take them to Pilate.” ashamed and blushing at the thought of the former affair, lest they should also be taken to task for that.

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes were gathered together at Jerusalem.” (v. 5.) Again in Jerusalem: and there it is that men’s blood is poured out; no reverence for their city either; “And Annas, and Caiaphas,” etc. (v. 6.) “And Annas,” it says, “and Caiaphas.” His maid-servant it was that questioned Peter, and he could not bear it: in his house it was that Peter denied, when Another was in bonds there: but now, when he has come into the midst of them all, see how he speaks! “By what name have ye done this?” Why dost thou not speak it, what it is, but keepest that out of sight? “By what name have ye done this?” (v. 7.) And yet he affirmed, It was not we that did it. “Ye rulers of the people,” etc. (v. 8.) Observe his wisdom: he does not say outright, “In the Name of Jesus we did it,” but how? “In His Name this man”—He does not say, “was made whole by us;” but—“doth stand here before you whole.” And again, “If we be examined concerning the good deed done to the impotent man.” (v. 9.) He hits them hard, that they are always making a crime of such acts, finding fault with works of beneficence done to men: and he reminds them of their former doings, that they run to do murder, and not only so, but make a crime of doing good deeds. Do you observe too (in point of rhetoric) with what dignity they express themselves?259 Even in the use of words they were becoming expert by practice, and henceforth they were not to be beaten down.260 “Be it known unto you all,” etc. (v. 10.) Whereby he shows them that they rather do, in spite of themselves, preach Christ; themselves extol the doctrine, by their examining and questioning. O exceeding boldness—“Whom ye crucified! Whom God raised up”—this is bolder still! Think not that we hide what there is to be ashamed of. He says this all but tauntingly: and not merely says it, but dwells upon the matter. “This,” says he, “is the Stone which was set at naught by you builders;” and then he goes on to teach them, saying in addition, “Which is made the head of the corner” (v. 11.); that is to say, that the Stone is indeed approved! Great was the boldness they now had, in consequence of the miracle. And when there was need to teach, observe how they speak and allege many prophecies; but when the point was to use boldness of speech, then they only speak peremptorily. Thus “Neither,” says he, “is there any other name under heaven 259 πῶς ἔχει καὶ τὸ βαρὺ τὰ ῥU+0026 208·ματα; καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐγυμνάζοντο. i.e. “how their words have the rhetorical quality of τὸ βαρύ—grave and dignified impressiveness. Even in these, i.e. in the use of words,” etc. 260 Chrys. rightly remarks upon the great boldness and force of Peter’s answer to the Sanhedrin (8–12). The ἐι ἀνακρινόμεθα, κ. τ. λ. (9) is ironical: “If for doing a good deed a man must make answer.” Then follow the bold declarations which are almost of the nature of a challenge (10) “Be it known to you all,” etc., and the assertion that it was in the name which they despised—the “Nazarene”—that the miracle had been wrought and all this is pointed by the contrast: “Ye crucified” but “God raised” and the charge of opposition to the divine plan in that they had rejected the stone which God had made the head of the corner.—G.B.S. given among men whereby we must be saved.” (v. 12.) It is manifest to all, he says, because not to us alone was that Name given; he cites even themselves as witnesses. For, since they asked, “In what name did ye it?” “In Christ’s,” says he: “there is none other name. How is it that ye ask? On all hands this is palpable. “For there exists not another name under heaven, whereby we must be saved.” This is the language of a soul which has renounced (κατεγνωκυίας) this present life. His exceeding out-spokenness proves here, that when he speaks in lowly terms of Christ, he does it not of fear, but of wise forbearance (συγκαταβαίνων): but now that it was the fitting time, he speaks not in lowly terms: by this very thing intending to strike dismay into them. Behold another miracle not less than the former. “And beholding the boldness of Peter and John,” etc. “And they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.” (v. 13.) Not without a meaning has the Evangelist set down this passage; but in saying, “they recognized them that they had been with Jesus,” he means, in His Passion: for only these were with Him at that time, and then indeed they had seen them humble, dejected: and this it was that most surprised them: the greatness of the change. For in fact Annas and Caiaphas with their company were there, and these then also had stood by Him, and their boldness now amazed them. “And beholding the boldness.” For261 not only their words; their very bearing showed it; that they should stand there so intrepidly to be tried in a cause like this, and with uttermost peril impending over them! Not only by their words, but by their gesture also, and their look and voice, and, in short, by everything about them, they manifested the boldness with which they confronted the people. From the things they uttered, they marvelled, perhaps: “that they were unlearned and common men:” for one may be unlearned, yet not a common or private man, and a common man, yet not unlearned. “Having perceived,” it says. Whence? From262 what they 261 Οὐ γὰρ τὰ ῥU+0026 208·ματα μόνον, καὶ τὰ σχήματα ἐδείκνυντο τὸ ἀφροντίστως εστάναι περὶ τοιούτων κρινομένους. A. C. but the former has ἐδείκνυον, N. ἐδείκνυ. Our other mss. have, οὐ γὰρ τοῖς ῥU+0026 208·μασι μόνον ἐδείκνυντο ἀφροντιστοῦντες π. τ. κρινόμενοι: which is only an attempt to make the passage grammatical. The comment is on the word θεωροῦντες: they beheld the boldness, for not words only, their gestures also, declared it.—Below, τὴν παρρησίαν ἐνέφαινον τὴν κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ. ᾽Εξ ὧν ἐφθέγγοντο ἐθαύμαζον ἴσως. Edd. τὴν παρρ. ἐνέφαινον ἐπὶ τοῦ λαοῦ ἐξ ὧν ἐφθέγγοντο. ᾽Εθαύμαζον δὲ ἴσως. 262 ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔλεγον; Edd. and Erasm. take this affirmatively: but this can hardly be the Author’s meaning; as he has just said that “from the things they uttered, they marvelled” that the speakers should be illiterate and common men. Something perhaps is wanting: e.g. “Not from the matter, but from the dialect, or from the brevity and abruptness of Peter’s style, or, from the appearance of the men.—In the mss. the next sentence is, ὥστε ἐπέσκηψαν ἂν αὐτοῖς, Extrema auctoritate mandassent iis, Erasm. Acrius in eos egissent, Ben. Here and in what follows we have endeavored to restore the proper order. In the mss. in consequence, as it seems, of a confusion between the two clauses, οὐ δυνάμεθα ἀρνήσασθαι, and οὐ δυνάμεθα γὰρ…μὴ λαλεῖν, the order of the comments is deranged: viz. “So that they would—been with them.” “And they recognized—stopped their mouths:” “‘Whether it be right—judge ye.’ When the terror—mere bravery. ‘Whether it be right,’ he says, and, said? Peter does not draw out long speeches, but then by his very manner and method (τἥς ἀπαγγελίας καὶ τἥς συνθήκης) he declares his confidence. “And they recognized them that they had been with Jesus.” Which circumstance made them believe that it was from Him they had learned these things, and that they did all in the character of His disciples.263 But not less than the voice of these, the miracle uttered a voice of its own: and that sign itself stopped their mouths. “And beholding the man,” etc. So that they would have been peremptory (ἐπέσκηψαν) with them, if the man had not been with them. “We cannot deny it.” So that they would have denied it, if the thing had not been so: if the testimony had not been that of the people in general. “But that it spread no further among the people.” (v. 17.) And yet it was palpable to all men! But such is the nature of wickedness: everywhere it is shamed. “Let us straitly threaten them.” What sayest thou? Threaten? And expect ye to stop the preaching? And264 yet all beginnings are hard and trying. Ye slew the Master, and did not stop it: and now, if ye threaten, do ye expect to turn us back? The imprisonment did not prevail with us to speak submissively, and shall ye prevail? “And they called them, and commanded them,” etc. (v. 18, 19.) It265 had been much better for them to let them go. “And Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” When the terror was abated (for that command was tantamount to their being dismissed), then also the Apostles speak more ‘We cannot deny it.’ So that they would—better to let them go. ‘Whether it be right—more than unto God.’ Here by God—His Resurrection.” 263 The author seems to give two different interpretations of the statement: “They recognized them that they had been with Jesus.” (1) They perceived that these were the men whom they had before seen in company with Jesus. (2) They saw that their words and acts betokened association with Jesus. It is evident that the former only is meant in this place.—G.B.S. 264 Καίτοι πανταχοῦ αἱ ἀρχαὶ δειναὶ καὶ δύσκολοι. “If at the beginning you failed, how can you expect to succeed now? for the beginning being always the hardest part of any difficult undertaking, if you could not stop it then, much less afterwards.” The modern text unnecessarily alters it to οὕπω π. αἱ ἀ. χαλεπαί τε καὶ δυσκ. 265 Πολλῷ μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς βέλτιον ἦν αὐτοὺς ἀφεῖναι. N. has a colon at αὐτοῖς, which perhaps is better; then the first clause may be the comment on τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι: “not to speak at all: much more to them. It had been better to dismiss them (at once).” For this sentence E. alone has, Πάνυ γε, τοὺς οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς ἡγουμένους καὶ ἀπειλοῦντας: “Aye, men who make nothing of you for all your threatening:” which is adopted by Edd. mildly: so far were they from mere bravery: “Whether266 it be right,” says he: and “We cannot but speak. Whether it be right in the sight of God to obey you rather than God.” (v. 20.) Here by “God” they mean Christ, for he it was that commanded them. And once more they confirm the fact of His Resurrection. “For we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard:” so that we are witnesses who have a right to be believed. “So when they had further threatened them.” (v. 21.) Again they threatened in vain. “They let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.” So then the people glorified God, but these endeavored to destroy them: such fighters against God were they! Whereby they made them more conspicuous and illustrious. “For My strength,” it is said, “is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor. xii. 9.)

Already these as martyrs have borne testimony: set in the battle against all, they said, “We cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard.” If the things we speak be false, reprehend them; if true, why hinderest thou? Such is philosophy! Those, in perplexity, these in gladness: those covered with exceeding shame, these doing all with boldness: those in fear, these in confidence. For who, I would ask, were the frightened? those who said, “That it spread no further among people,” or these who said, “we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard?” And these had a delight, a freedom of speech, a joy surpassing all; those a despondency, a shame, a fear; for they feared the people. But these were not afraid of those; on the contrary, while these spake what they would, those did not what they would. Which were in chains and dangers? was it not these last?

Let us then hold fast to virtue; let not these words end only in delight, and in a certain elevation of the spirits. This is not the theatre, for singers (κιθαρώδων), and tragedians, and musicians (κιθαριστὥν), where the fruit consists only in the enjoyment and where the enjoyment itself passes with the passing day. Nay, would that it were enjoyment alone, and not mischief also with the enjoyment! But so it is: each man carries home with him much of what he has witnessed there, sticking to him like the infection of a plague: and one indeed, of the younger sort, having culled such snatches of song here and there of those satanic plays,267 as he could fix in his memory, goes singing them about the house: while another, a senior, and forsooth too staid for such levity, does not this indeed, but what is there spoken, 266 E. and Edd. “That a notable miracle is done, we cannot deny:” and below “Here they say, of God, for, ‘of Christ.’ Do you see how that is fulfilled which He said unto them, ‘Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves; fear them not.’ Then once more they confirm,” etc. For τοῦ Θεοῦ, A. B. have τοῦ Χριστοῦ. 267 The various readings are ᾀσμάτων for δραμάτων, and μέρη for μέλη. Below, τῶν δὲ ἐκεῖσε λεγομένων καὶ κηρυγμάτων καὶ ῥημάτων μέμνηται πάντων. The mod, omits καὶ κηρ. The meaning is, “He cannot carry away in his memory the preaching which he hears in Church: but the preachments (proclamations) which he hears in the theatre he remember, every word.” both the preachments and the very words, he remembers it all; and another again, some filthy and absurd ditty. From this place you depart, taking nothing with you.—We have laid down a law—nay, not we: God forbid! for it is said, “Call no man your master upon the earth” (Matt. xxiii. 8); Christ has laid down a law that none should swear. Now, say, what has been done with regard to this law? For I will not cease speaking of it; “lest,” as the Apostle saith, “if I come again, I must not spare.” (2 Cor. xiii. 2.) I ask then, have you laid the matter to heart? have you thought of it seriously? have you been in earnest about it, or must we again take up the same subject? Nay, rather, whether you have or not, we will resume it, that you may think seriously about it, or, if you have laid it to heart, may again do this the more surely, and exhort others also. With what then, I pray you, with what shall we begin? Shall it be with the Old Testament? For indeed this also is to our shame, that the precepts of the Law, which we ought to surpass, we do not even thus observe! For we ought not to be hearing such matters as these: these are precepts adapted to the poor Jewish level (τἥς ᾽Ιουδαἳκἥς εὐτελείας): we ought to be hearing those counsels of perfection; “Cast away thy property, stand courageously, and give up thy life in behalf of the Gospel, scorn all the goods of earth, have nothing in common with this present life; if any wrong thee, do him good; if any defraud thee, bless him; if any revile thee, show him honor; be above everything.” (S. Ambros. de Off. i. 2.) These and such as these are what we ought to be hearing. But here are we discoursing about swearing; and our case is just the same as if, when a person ought to be a philosopher, one should take him away from the great masters, and set him to spell syllables letter by letter! Just think now what a disgrace it would be for a man having a flowing beard, and with staff in hand, and cope on shoulders,268 to go to school with children, and be set the same tasks with them: would it not be above measure ridiculous? And yet the ridicule which belongs to us is even greater. For not as the difference between philosophy and the spelling-lesson, so is that between the Jewish polity and ours: no indeed, but as the difference between angels and men. Say now, if one could fetch down an angel from heaven, and should bid him stand here and listen to our preaching, as one whose duty it is to conform himself thereto, would it not be shameful and preposterous? But if to be yet, like children, under teaching about these things be ridiculous; what must it be, not even to attend to these things: how great the condemnation, how great the shame! To be Christians still, and to have to learn that it is not right to swear! However, let us put up with that, lest we incur even worse ridicule.

Acts IV. 23

“And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.”

Not for their own glory did they tell the tale—how should such be their motive?—but what they displayed was the proofs therein exhibited of the grace of Christ. All that their adversaries had said, this they told; their own part, it is likely, they omitted: this made the hearers all the more courageous. What then? These again flee to the true Succor, to the Alliance invincible, and again, “with one accord. And when they heard that,” it is said, “with one accord they lifted up their voice to God, and said:” (v. 24) and with great earnestness, for it is no prayer made at random. Observe with what exquisite propriety their prayers are framed: thus, when they besought to be shown who was meet for the Apostleship, they said, “Thou, Lord, which knowest the heart of all men, show:” (ch. i. 24) for it was a subject for Prescience there: but here, where the thing needed was that the mouths of their adversaries should be stopped, they speak of lordship; wherefore they begin thus: Lord, “(Δέσποτα) the God that madest heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who,272 by the Holy Ghost through the mouth of Thy servant, David our father, didst say, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ.” (v. 24–26.) It is to sue God, as one may say upon His own covenants, that they thus produce this prophecy: and at the same time to comfort themselves with the thought, that in vain are all the imaginations of their foes. This then is what they say: Bring those words into accomplishment, and show that they “imagine vain things.—For of a truth,” they proceed, “there were gathered together in this city, against Thy holy Child Jesus, (Παἵδα) Whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings.” (v. 27–29.) Observe their largeness of mind (φιλοσοφίαν). These are not words of imprecation. In saying, “their threatenings, they do not mean this or that thing specifically threatened, but only in general, the fact of their threatening, perhaps, as being formidable. In fact, the writer is concise in his narrative. And observe, they do not say, “Crush them, cast them down;” but what? “And grant unto Thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak Thy word.” Let us also learn thus to pray. And yet how full of wrath 272 The various readings are: ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν διὰ Πνεύματος ῾Αγίου στόματος Δ. παιδός σου, Α. Ν. τοῦ π. ἡμῶν, om. C. ὁ ἐκ στόματος τοῦ π. ἡμῶν Δ. καὶ παιδός σου, Β. ὁ διὰ στόμ. Δ. τοῦ παιδὸς σοῦ, D. F. τοῦ, om. E. one would be, when fallen among men intent upon killing him, and making threats to that effect? how full of animosity? But not so these saints. “By stretching forth Thine hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done by the Name of Thy holy Child Jesus.” (v. 30.) If in that Name the mighty deeds are wrought, great will be the boldness.

“And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together.” (v. 31.) This was the proof that they were heard, and of His visitation. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” What means, “They were filled?” It means, They were inflamed; and the Gift burned up within them. “And they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” (v. 32.) Do you see that together with the grace of God they also contributed their part? For everywhere it ought to be well observed, that together with the grace of God they do their part likewise. Just as Peter said above, “Silver and gold have I none”; and again, that “they were all273 together.” (ch. iii. 6.) But in this place, having mentioned that they were heard, the sacred writer proceeds to speak also of them, what virtue they showed. Moreover, he is just about to enter upon the narrative of Sapphira and Ananias, and with a view to show the detestable conduct of that pair, he first discourses of the noble behavior of the rest. Now say, did their love beget their poverty, or the poverty the love? In my opinion, the love begat the poverty, and then the poverty drew tight the cords of love. For observe what he says: “They were all of one heart and of one soul.” Behold,274 heart and soul are what make the “together.” “Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power the Apostles rendered their testimony (ἀπεδίδουν) of the resurrection.” (v. 33.) The phrase betokens them to be as persons put in trust with a deposit: he speaks of it as a debt or obligation: that is, their testimony they with boldness did render, or pay off, to all. “And great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked.” (v. 34.) Their feeling was just as if they were under the paternal roof, all for awhile275 sharing alike. It is not to be said, that though indeed they maintained the rest, yet they did it with the feeling that the means whereof they maintained them were still their own. No, the admirable circumstance is this, that they first alienated their property, and so maintained the rest, on purpose that the maintenance might not come as of their own private means, but as of the common property. “For as many as were possessors of 273 ᾽Επὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, At the same, as interpreted in a former Homily, vii. §. 2. For the next sentence, E. has Πάλιν ἐνταῦθα δηλῶν τὸ αὐτὸ λέγει, ὅτι τοῦ πλήθους, κ. τ. λ. “Here again explaining the ‘τὸ αὐτὸ,’” etc.—It is in allusion to the same expression that he says a little further on, ᾽Ιδοὺ καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ τὸ αὐτό. 274 i.e. the ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ is not local, but moral, the union of all believers in one heart and soul: q.d. “Do not object that it is impossible for all believers to be together now.” 275 The Catena has preserved the true reading, τέως, for which A. C. N. have ἅτε ὡς, B. F. D. ἅτε. E. substitutes υἱοί. lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” (v. 35.) A great mark of honor this, that “they laid them at the Apostles’ feet. And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (‘which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation.’)” (v. 36.) I do not think that this is the same with the companion of Matthias; for that person was also called Justus and Barsabas, but this, Joses and “Barnabas” “son of consolation“. I suppose he also received the name from his virtue, as being qualified and suited for this duty. “A Levite, and of the country of Cyprus by birth.” Observe on all occasions how the writer indicates the breaking up of the Law. But how was he also a “Cyprian by birth?” Because they then even removed to other countries, and still were called Levites. “Having land, sold it, and brought the price, and laid it at the Apostles’ feet.276”

Let us now look over again what has been said. “And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.” (Re- capitulation, v. 23.) See the unostentatious conduct of the Apostles, and their largeness of mind. They did not go about boasting, and say, “How we served (ἀπεχρησάμεθα) the priests!” nor were they ambitious of honor: but, we read, “they came unto their own company. Observe how they do not cast themselves upon temptations, but when the temptations present themselves, with courage endure them. Had it been some other of the disciples, perhaps, emboldened by the countenance of the multitude, he might have insulted, might have vented ever so many harsh expressions. But not so these true philosophers; they do all with mildness and with gentleness. “And when they heard that, we read, with one accord they lifted up their voice to God.” (v. 24.) That shout proceeded from delight and great emotion. Such indeed are the prayers which do their work, prayers replete with true philosophy, prayers offered up for such objects, by such persons, on such occasions, in such a manner; whereas all others are abominable and profane. “Lord, Thou the God that madest heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” Observe how they say nothing idle, no old wives’ talk and fables, but speak of His power. Just as Christ Himself said to the Jews, “If I by the Spirit of God do cast out devils:” behold the Father also speaks by the Spirit. For what saith it? “Lord, the God Who,277 by the Holy Ghost, through the mouth of our father Thy servant David 276 A. B. C. N. τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων. ὅρα τὸ ἄτυφον. U+0026 173·Ιδωμεν λοιπὸν ἄνωθεν τὰ εἰρημένα. Καὶ τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων τὴν φιλοσοφίαν. The clause ὅρα τὸ ἄτυφον is to be restored to its place after the second τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων, as in the modern text, ὅρα τῶν ᾽Α. τὸ ἄ. και τὴν φ. 277 Against the Arians, who from such texts as Matt. xii. 28, inferred the inferiority of the Son, Chrys. says, “Observe, the Father Himself is here said to speak by the Holy Ghost.” This is lost in the modern text, which substitutes Σωτὴρ for Πατήρ. The text is given in our mss. with these variations. Comp. note a. A. C. Δέσποτα ὁ Θεὸς (ὁ Cat.) τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (ὁ Ν.) διὰ Πν. ῾Α στόματος Δ. Β. Δεσπ. ὁ Θ. τῶν πάτρων ἡμῶν ὁ διὰ Πν. ῾Α διὰ στομ. Δ. E. F. D. Δεσπ. ὁ Θ. ὁ διὰ στομ. Δ.omitting διὰ Πν. ῾Α., but recognizing this clause in the comment. “Observe how they say nothing idle, but speak of His power only: or rather, just as Christ said to the Jews, If I by the didst say, Why did the nations rage?” (v. 25.) Scripture is wont thus to speak of one as of many. “For of a truth, Lord, against Thy Holy Child Jesus, Whom Thou didst anoint,278 both Herod and Pontius Pilate,” etc. (v. 27.) Observe how, even in prayer, they circumstantially describe the Passion, and refer all to God.—That is, Not they had power to do this: but Thou didst it all, Thou279 that didst permit, that dost call to account, and yet didst bring to accomplishment, Thou the All-skilful and Wise, that didst serve Thee of Thine enemies for Thine own pleasure. (v. 28.) “For to do whatever Thy hand,” etc. Here they discourse of His exceeding Skill and Wisdom and Power. So then, as enemies they came together, and with murderous purpose, and as opposing themselves, but they did what things Thou wouldest: “For to do,” as it is said, “whatsoever Thy hand and Thy purpose determined before to be done.” What means, “Thy hand?” Here he seems to me to denote280 one and the same thing by power and purpose, meaning that for Thee it is enough but to will: for it is not by power that one determines. “Whatsoever Thy hand,” etc. i.e. Whatsoever Thou didst ordain: either this is the meaning, or, that by His hand He did effect. “And now, Lord, regard their threatenings.” (v. 29.) As at that time, it is said, they “imagined vain things,” so “now,” grant that their imaginations may be in vain: i.e. let not their threatenings come into accomplishment. And this they said not because they would themselves deprecate any hardship, but for the preaching’s sake. For they do not say, “and deliver us out of dangers;” but what? “And grant unto Thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak Thy word.” Thou Who didst bring to pass the former designs, bring these also to accomplishment. Observe,281 how Spirit of God do speak, so these also say, ‘By the Holy Ghost.’ Behold, the Saviour also speaks by the Spirit. And hear what it is that they say, ‘Lord, the God Who by the mouth of David,’” etc. 278 In the mss. this clause of v. 27, with the following comment, ὅρα πῶς, κ. τ. λ. is set in the midst of the comment on v. 29: viz. before the sentence which (in the old text) also begins with ὅρα πῶς. It is certainly misplaced there. See note 5.—Διαιροῦσι τὸ πάθος seems to refer to the mention of Herod and Pontius Pilate. 279 ὁ ἐπιτρέψας, ὁ καὶ ἐγκαλῶν καὶ εἰς πέρας ἀγαγών. The meaning seems to be, that though permitting, He calls to account, and though holding men responsible, yet brought it to pass. The modern text omits ὁ καὶ ἐγκαλῶν, and adds εἰργάσω at the end. 280 τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ βουλήν. i.e. “hand” means “power,” and “hand” (or, power) and “purpose,” or, “will” here make one notion, “Thy will which is also power,” for to Thee to will is to prevail: not two notions, for we do not say that power determines, but only the will.—The Edd. however, adopt from E. τὴν χεῖρα for τὸ αὐτὸ, which spoils the sense. “By the hand he means the power and the purpose.”—Below, B. C. have ὅτι τῇ χειρὶ διέταττεν (A. omits the clause), we retain from E. F. D. διέπραττεν.—OEcum. “The hand and the counsel mean the same thing: for where there is power, there is no need of counsel. What Thou didst order from the beginning is done.” 281 Here the mss. insert, ῝Ον ἔχρισας, φησίν. U+0026 169·Ορα πῶς, κ. τ. λ. “Observe how, even in prayer, they circumstantially describe the Passion, and refer all to God,” etc. And then: “Observe how they ask all,” etc. See note 2.—Here for the latter ὅρα or ὁρᾷς πῶς of the old text, E. has εἶδες πῶς. they affirm God to be the Author of their confidence; and how they ask all for God’s sake, nothing for their own glory or ambition. They promise for their own part, that they will not be dismayed; but they pray that signs may be wrought “by stretching forth Thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done:” (v. 30) for without these, however great the zeal they showed, they would be striving to no purpose. God assented to their prayer, and manifested this, by shaking the place. For “when they had prayed,” it is said, “the place was shaken.” (v. 31.) And wherefore this was done, hear from the prophet, when he says, “He looketh on the earth, and maketh it to tremble. (Ps. civ. 32.) For by this He made it manifest that He is present to their prayers. And again, another prophet saith, “The earth was shaken, and did tremble at the presence of the Lord.” (Ps. xviii. 7; lxviii. 8.) And God did this, both to make it more awful, and to lead them on to a courageous trust. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” They282 gained increased boldness. As it was the beginning (of their work), and they had besought a sensible sign for their persuasion (πρὸς τὸ πεισθἥναι αὐτους)—but after this we nowhere find the like happening—therefore great was the encouragement they received. In fact, they had no means of proving that He was risen, save by miraculous signs. So that it was not only their own assurance (ἀσφαλείαν) that they sought: but that they might not be put to shame, but that they might speak with boldness. “The place was shaken,” and that made them all the more unshaken. For this is sometimes a token of wrath, sometimes of favor and providence, but on the present occasion, of wrath. For283 in those times it took place in an unusual manner. Thus, at the Crucifixion, the earth was shaken: and the Lord Himself says, “Then there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.” (Matt. xxiv. 7.) But then the wrath of which it was a sign was against the adversaries: as for the disciples, it filled them with the Spirit. Observe, even the Apostles, after the prayer, are “filled with the 282 Edd. καὶ εἰς παρρησίαν πλείονα ἀλείφων, as the conclusion of the preceding sentence before the (omitted) text. “And anointing them (as wrestlers) unto greater boldness.” Then, “For since it was the beginning (of their work), they besought also a sensible sign in order that they might be believed (πρὸς τὸ πιστευθῆναι αὐτοὺς, but after this, etc.). Great was the encouragement they thus received from their prayer. And with good reason they crave the grace of signs, for they had no other means,” etc. 283 ᾽Επεὶ τότε ξένως γέγονεν. Καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἐσταυρώθη, ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ. Edd. ᾽Επὶ δὲ τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους ξένως καὶ παρὰ φύσιν γέγονε· καὶ γὰρ τότε πᾶσα ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ. “But at the Passion of our Saviour it happened in an unusual manner and preternaturally: for then all the earth was shaken.” Instead of the next sentence, “And the Lord Himself,” etc. E. has, “to the intent the power of Him that was crucified should everywhere be known, and that the Sufferer was God, and not simply man. But further: although it was a token of wrath, yet was it of His wrath against the adversaries,” etc., but Edd. follow the old text here. Holy Ghost.” “And284 the multitudes of them that believed,” etc. (v. 32.) Great, you perceive, is the virtue of this thing, seeing their was need of this (grace) even in that Company. For this is the foundation of all that is good, this of which he now for the second time makes mention, exhorting all men to the contempt of riches: “Neither285 said any of them that aught of the things he possessed was his own,” “but they had all things common.” For that this was in consequence not merely of the miraculous signs, but of their own purpose, is manifest by the case of Sapphira and Ananias. “And with great power gave the Apostles witness,” etc. (v. 33.) Not in word, but with power the Apostles exhibited their testimony of the Resurrection: just as Paul saith, “And my preaching was not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but with manifestation of the Spirit and of power.” And it is not merely, With power, but, “With great power.” (1 Cor. ii. 4.) “And great grace,” it says, “was upon them all; for neither was there any among them that lacked.” (v. 34.) This is why the grace (was upon them all,) for that “there was none that lacked:” that is, from the exceeding ardor of the givers, none was in want. For they did not give in part, and in part reserve: nor yet in giving all, give it as their own. And they lived moreover in great abundance: they removed all inequality from among them, and made a goodly order. “For as many as were possessors,” etc. And with great respect they did this: for they did not presume to give into their hands, nor did they ostentatiously present, but brought to the Apostles’ feet. To them they left it to be the dispensers, made them the owners, that thenceforth all should be defrayed as from common, not from private, property.286 This was also a help to them against vain-glory. If this were done now, we should live more pleasant lives, both rich and poor, nor would it be more pleasant to the poor than to the rich themselves. And if you please, let us now for 284 A. B. C. omit the text: D. F. Edd. insert from v. 33, 34. “And great grace was upon them all, neither was there any among them that lacked:” E. “And with great power, etc. and great grace,” etc. Τοῦ πράγματος ἡ δύναμις, i.e. of the having all things common, as below, p. 163. C. has πνεύματος, which Saville adopts. 285 The innovator, mistaking the meaning of τὸ δεύτερον (viz the reference to ch. ii. 44), has, Saying above (v. 32), Neither said any of them, etc., and here (v. 34), “Neither was there any among them that lacked.” So Edd. 286 The strong expressions of Chrys. concerning the community of goods at Jerusalem are quite different from the guarded and limiting statements of most modern commentators who seem bent upon showing that it was only a case of remarkable liberality, e.g. Hackett in loco: “Common in the use of their property, not necessarily in their possession of it.” Our author’s statements agree better with the New Test. notices on the subject. The main facts are these. (1) There was a real and general community of property. The statements in Acts on this point are clear and strong: καὶ εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά (ii. 44); They were selling and distributing their real and personal property—τὰ κτήματα καὶ τὰς ὑπάρξεις (ii. 45). Nor did any one say that anything of his possessions was his own, ἀλλ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἅπαντα κοινά, (iv. 32); “As many as (ὅσοι) were possessors of lands or houses,” sold them, brought the money and distribution was made to the needs of each (iv. 34, 35). This is more than distin- awhile depict it in words, and derive at least this pleasure from it, since you have no mind for it in your actions. For at any rate this is evident, even from the facts which took place then, that by selling their possessions they did not come to be in need, but made them rich that were in need. However, let us now depict this state of things in words, and let all sell their possessions, and bring them into the common stock—in words, I mean: let none be excited, rich or poor. How much gold think you would be collected? For my part, I conjecture— for of course it is not possible to speak exactly—that supposing all here, men and women, to empty out their whole property, lands, possessions, houses,—for I will not speak of slaves, since at that time there was no such thing, but doubtless such as were slaves they sat at liberty,—perhaps ten hundred thousand pounds weight of gold would be the amount collected: nay, twice or thrice as much. For consider; at what number of “juga”287 (yokes) is our city rated? How many (of the population) shall we say are Christians? shall we say an hundred thousand, and the rest Greeks and Jews? Then what thousands (of pounds) of gold would be collected! And what is the number of poor? I do not think more than fifty thousand. guished liberality or mere prevailing willingness to give. (2) This peculiar phenomenon was connected with the habit of living together as a group or family, on the part of the Jerusalem Christians (i. 13; ii. 42–44). It was an evidence that they were peculiarly one in heart and soul, that no member of this closely-knit community was allowed to suffer while others could supply him (iv. 32–34). (3) The arrangement was purely voluntary. There was no law or demand in the case. Ananias and Sapphira (v. 1–11) were not punished for contributing to the common treasury only a part of the price of the land but as verse 4 clearly shows, for falsely presenting it as the whole. Yet the fact that they wished to have it thought that they had brought all seems to show that to bring all was customary and expected. (4) This community of goods was both local and temporary. It seems to have been confined to Jerusalem. There is no allusion to it in the Epistles. It sprang out of the ardor of brotherly love in the early years of the Christian community at Jerusalem and in view of the special needs of many of its members. The special poverty of the church at Jerusalem which made contributions from other churches necessary, may have resulted in part, as Meyer suggests, from the working of this plan. (5) The custom can hardly be explained apart from the expectation of the nearness of the Parousia. In the Thessalonian church all labor for self-support was upon the point of ceasing for the same reason. 1 Thess. iii, 10, sq.—G.B.S. 287 εἰς πόσον ἰούγων ἀριθμὸν συντείνει; The word here used perplexed the scribes of later times when it had become obsolete, and N. has ἰούλων, B. ἰούγγων, C. όγγων(sic), only A. ex corr. ἰούγων. The innovator substitutes μιγάδων and συντελεῖ. The meaning is, At what number of juga is our city assessed to the imperial tributes? Justinian Novell. xvii. c. 8. prescribes that the imperial πράκτορες, exactores, shall be compelled to insert in their returns (ἀποχαί) the exact quantity “of zygocephala or juga or jugalia or whatever else be the term used in different localities:” τὸ πόσον τῶν ζυγοκεφάλων ἢ ἰο ύγων ἢ ἰουγαλίων, ἢ ὅπως δήποτε ἂν αὐτὰ κατὰ χῶραν καλοῖεν. See Du Fresne Gloss. s. vv. It seems that each holding of land was rated or assessed at so many juga or yokes of oxen; moreover the term jugum is equivalent to a measure of land, as Varro remarks that land is measured in some places by juga, in others by jugera. Then to feed that number daily, what abundance there would be! And yet if the food were received in common, all taking their meals together, it would require no such great outlay after all. But, you will ask, what should we do after the money was spent? And do you think it ever could be spent? Would not the grace of God be ten thousand fold greater? Would not the grace of God be indeed richly poured out? Nay, should we not make it a heaven upon earth? If, where the numbers were three thousand and five thousand, the doing of this thing had such splendid success, and none of them complained of poverty, how much more glorious would this be in so vast a multitude? And even of those that are without, who would not contribute?—But, to show that it is the living separately that is expensive and causes poverty, let there be a house in which are ten children: and the wife and the man, let the one work at her wool, the other bring his earnings from his outdoor occupation: now tell me, in which way would these spend most? by taking their meals together and occupying one house, or by living separately? Of course, by living separately. For if the ten children must live apart, they would need ten several rooms, ten tables, ten attendants, and the income otherwise in proportion. Is it not for this very reason, that where there is a great number of servants, they have all one table, that the expense may not be so great? For so it is, division always makes diminution, concord and agreement make increase. The dwellers in the monasteries live just as the faithful did then: now did ever any of these die of hunger? was ever any of them not provided for with plenty of everything? Now, it seems, people are more afraid of this than of falling into a boundless and bottomless deep. But if we had made actual trial of this,288 then indeed we should boldly venture upon this plan (τοὕ πράγματος). What grace too, think you, would there not be! For if at that time, when there was no believer but only the three thousand and the five thousand: when all, throughout the world, were enemies, when they could nowhere look for comfort, they yet boldly entered upon this plan with such success; how much more would this be the case now, when by the grace of God there are believers everywhere throughout the world? What Gentile would be left? For my part, I think there would not be one: we should so attract all, and draw them to us? But yet if we do but make289 fair progress, I trust in God that even this shall be realized. Only do as I say, 288 i.e. People now are more afraid of this (the cenobiticals way of life), than they are of launching into the sea of this world’s temptations: whereas if we had made trial of this, we should boldly venture upon the practice so happily adopted by the first Christians. (τοῦ πράγματος as above, p. 73, note 3.) 289 ᾽Εὰν ὁδῷ προβαίνωμεν. B. unnecessarily inserts ταύτῃ, which Ben. adopts. “Si hac via progrediamur.” ῾Οδῷ προβαίνειν (or ὁδῷ βαδίζειν) is a common phrase in St. Chrys. Applied to persons, it means “to be fairly started and getting on:” to things, “to be in train,” as in Hom. i. ὁδῷ καὶ τὰ ἅλλα προὔβαινεν, “the rest would follow in course.” and let us successfully achieve things in their regular order; if God grant life, I trust that we shall soon bring you over to this way of life.

In the first place, as regards that law about swearing: accomplish that; establish it firmly: and let him that has kept it make known him that has not, and call him to account withal and rebuke him sternly. For the (supra, Hom. viii.) appointed time (ἡ προθεσμία), is at hand and I am holding inquisition in the matter, and him that is found guilty I will banish and exclude. But God forbid that any such should be found among us; rather may it appear, that all have strictly kept this spiritual watchword. And as in war it is by the watchword that friends and strangers are shown, so let it be now; for indeed now also we are engaged in a war; that we may know our brethren that are properly such. For what a good thing it is that we should have this to be our cognizance both here and in a foreign land! What a weapon this, against the very head of the devil! A mouth that cannot swear will soon both engage God in prayers, and smite the devil a deadly blow. A mouth that cannot swear will also be incapable of using insulting language. Cast out this fire from your tongue, as you would from a house: this fire, drag it out. Give your tongue a little rest: make the sore less virulent. Yea, I beseech you, do this, that I may go on to set you another lesson: for as long as this is not rightly done, I dare not pass on to any other. Let this lesson be got perfectly, and you shall have a consciousness of the achievement, and then I will introduce you to other laws, or rather not I, but Christ. Implant in your soul this good thing, and by little and little ye shall be a paradise of God, far better than that paradise of old. No serpent among you, no deadly tree, nor any such thing. Fix this habit deep. If this be done, not ye only that are present shall be benefitted, but all that are in all the world; and not they alone, but those that are to succeed hereafter. For a good habit having once entered, and being kept by all, will be handed on to long ages, and no circumstances shall be able to erase it. If he that gathered sticks on the sabbath was stoned,—the man that is doing a far more heinous work than that gathering, the man that is amassing a load of sins, for such is the multitude of oaths, what shall he undergo? what shall he not have to endure? You will receive great assistance from God, if this be well achieved by you. If I were to say, Be not abusive, immediately you will plead to me your indignation; should I say, Be not envious, you will urge some other excuse. But in this case you have nothing of the kind to say. On which account I began with the easy precepts, which indeed is also the uniform practice in all arts. And thus one comes to the higher duties, by learning first those which are easier far. How easy it is you will see, when by the grace of God having succeeded in this, you shall receive another precept.

Put it in my power to speak out boldly, in the presence both of Gentiles and of Jews, and, above all, of God. Yea, I entreat you by the love, by the pangs wherewith I have travailed for your birth, “my little children.” I will not add what follows, “of whom I travail in birth again;” nor will I say, “until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. iv. 19). For I am persuaded, that Christ has been formed in you. Other language I will use towards you; “My brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and my crown.” (Phil. iv. 1.) Believe me that I shall use no other language. If at this moment there were placed upon my head ten thousand richlyjewelled royal crowns, they could not give me the joy which I feel at your growth in holiness; or rather, I do not think the monarch himself has such a joy, as that wherewith I joy over you. Let him have come home, victorious over all the nations at war with him, let him have won many other crowns besides the crown of his right; and receive other diadems as tokens of his victory: I do not think he would joy over his trophies, as I joy over your soul’s progress. For I exult, as if I had a thousand crowns on my head; and well may I rejoice. For if by the grace of God you achieve this good habit, you will have gained a thousand battles far more difficult than his; by wrestling and fighting with malicious demons, and fiendish spirits, with the tongue, not with sword, but by the will. For consider how much is gained, if so be that you do succeed! You have eradicated, first, a heinous habit; secondly, an evil conceit, the source of all evil, namely, the opinion that the thing is indifferent and can do no hurt; thirdly, wrath; fourthly, covetousness; for all these are the offspring of swearing. Nay, hence you will acquire a sure footing in the way to all other virtues. For as when children learn their letters, they learn not them alone, but by means of them are gradually taught to read; so shall it be with you. That evil conceit will no longer deceive you, you will not say, This is indifferent; you will no longer speak by mere habit, but will manfully stand against all, so that having perfected in all parts that virtue which is after God, you may reap eternal blessings, through the grace and loving-kindness of His Only-Begotten Son, to Whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power and honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts IV. 36, 37

And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation), a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles’ feet.”

The writer is now about to relate the affair of Ananias and Sapphira, and in order to show that the man’s sin was of the worst description, he first mentions him who performed the virtuous deed; that, there being so great a multitude all doing the same, so great grace, so great miracles, he, taught by none of these, but blinded by covetousness, brought destruction upon his own head. “Having land,—meaning that this was all he possessed,—sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles’ feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the Apostles’ feet.” (ch. v. 1, 2.) The aggravating circumstance was, that the sin was concerted, and none other saw what was done. How came it into the mind of this hapless wretch to commit this crime? “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” (v. 3.) Observe even in this, a great miracle performed, greater far than the former. “Whiles it remained,” says he, “was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” (v. 4.) That is, “Was there any obligation and force? do we constrain you against your will?” “Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost.” (v. 5.) This miracle is greater than that of the lame man, in respect of the death inflicted, and the knowing what was in the thought of the heart, even what was done in secret.290 “And great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, and wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much?” (v. 6–8.) The woman he would fain save, for the man had been the author of the sin: therefore he gives her time to clear herself, and opportunity for repentance, saying, “Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Holy Ghost? Behold, the feet of them which have buried 290 Chrys. evidently regards the death of Ananias and Sapphira as a miracle wrought by Peter (so Meyer). All that the narrative states is that Peter disclosed the sin of Ananias and foretold the fate of his wife (Lechler). The middle position seems preferable: Peter acted as the instrument of God, the agent of the divine retribution. His will acted in conscious harmony with the divine purpose of which it was the organ (so Gloag).—G.B.S. thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then she fell down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost; and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things.” (v. 9–11.)

After this fear had come upon them, he wrought more miracles; both Peter and the rest; “And by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them,” i.e. to the Apostles; “but the people magnified them,” i.e. the Jewish people. If291 “no man durst join himself unto them,” the Apostles, “there were,” however, “the more added unto the Lord, believers, multitudes both of men and of women, insomuch that they brought out into the streets their impotent folk, and laid them upon couches and beds, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.” (v. 12–15.) For Peter was the wonderful one, and he to whom they more gave heed both because of his public harangue, the first and the second and the third, and because of the miracle; for he it was that wrought the miracle, the first, the second, the third: for the present miracle was twofold: first, the convicting the thoughts of the heart, and next the inflicting of death at his word of command. “That at the least the shadow of Peter passing by,” etc. This had not occurred in the history of Christ; but see here what He had told them actually coming to pass, that “they which believe on Me, the works that I do shall they do also; and greater works than these shall they do.” (John xiv. 12.) “There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed every one.” (v. 16.)

And now I would have you observe the way in which their whole life is interwoven. First there was despondency on account of Christ taken from them, and then came joy because of the Spirit descending upon them; again, dejection because of the scoffers, and then joy in the result of their own apology. And here again we find both dejection and gladness. In that they were become conspicuous, and that God made revelations to them, there was gladness: in that they had cut off some of their own company, there was sadness. Once more: 291 Εἰ οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα κολλᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς τ. ἀποστ. For εἰ, which is the reading of A., and seems to be the true reading, B. C. N. have ἤ. The passage is corrupt, but the sense may be restored by inserting the words of the sacred text as above: i.e. To them, the Apostles, none durst join himself, but believers were the more added to the Lord, etc. Then ὁ γὰρ Πετρὸς κ. τ. λ. falls into its natural place as the comment on Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκία. But with the other reading, ἢ, the sense may be completed as below, p. 78, viz. “or, no man durst,” etc., [so that they were allowed to remain undisturbed in Solomon’s porch.] The modern text, after “the people magnified them,” substitutes: Εἰκότως· καὶ γὰρ ὁ Π. κ. τ. λ. “With reason. For indeed Peter was henceforth terrible, inflicting punishment, exposing even the thoughts of the mind: to whom also they gave more heed by reason of the miracle,” etc. again there is gladness upon their success, and again sadness by reason of the High Priest. And so it will be seen to be the case throughout. And the same will be found to hold in the case of the ancient saints likewise.—But let us look over again what has been said.

“They sold them,” it is written, “and brought the prices, and laid them down at the Apostles’ feet.” (Recapitulation. iv. 34–37.) See, my beloved brethren, how instead of leaving the Apostles to sell, they themselves sold, and presented the prices to them. “But292 a certain man named Ananias,” etc. (v. 1.) This history touches Bishops too, and very forcibly. And the wife of Ananias was privy to the thing done: therefore he examines her. But perhaps some one will say that he dealt very harshly with her. What do you mean? What harshness? If for gathering sticks a man is to be stoned, much rather ought he for sacrilege; for this money was become sacred. He that has chosen to sell his goods and distribute them, and then withdraws them, is guilty of sacrilege. But if he is sacrilegious, who resumes from his own, much more he who takes from what is not his own. And do not think that because the consequence is not now the same, the crime will go unpunished. Do you see that this is the charge brought against Ananias, that having made the money sacred, he afterwards secreted it? Couldest thou not, said Peter, after selling thy land, use the proceeds as thine own? Wast thou forbidden? Wherefore after thou hadst promised it? See how at the very beginning, the devil made his attack; in the very midst of such signs and wonders, how this man was hardened! Something of the same kind had happened upon a time in the Old Testament. The son of Charmi coveted the devoted thing: for observe there also what vengeance ensues upon the sin. Sacrilege, beloved, is a most grievous crime, insulting, and full of contempt. We neither obliged thee to sell, the Apostle says, nor to give thy money when thou hadst sold; of thine own free choice thou didst it; why hast thou then stolen from the sacred treasury? “Why,” he says, “hath Satan filled thine heart?” (v. 3.) Well, if Satan did the thing, why is the man made guilty of it? For admitting the influence of the devil, and being filled with it. You will say, they ought to have corrected him. But he would not have received correction; for he that has seen such things as he had seen, and is none the better, would certainly be none the better for anything else that could be done; the matter was not one to be simply passed over: like a gangrene, it must be cut out, that it might not infect the rest of the body. As it is, both the man himself is benefitted in regard that he is not left to advance further in wickedness, and the rest, in that they are made more earnest; otherwise the contrary would have ensued. In the next place, Peter proves him guilty, and shows that the deed was not hidden from him, and then pronounces the sentence. But wherefore, upon what purpose hast thou done this? Didst thou wish to keep it? Thou oughtest to have kept it all along, and 292 The modern text inserts here: “But not so Ananias: he secretes a part of the price of the field which he sold: wherefore also he is punished as one who did not manage his business rightly, and who was convicted of stealing what was his own.” never to have professed to give it. The sacrilege, beloved, is a grievous one. For another, it may be, coveted what was not his own: but it was at thy discretion to keep what was thine own. Why then didst thou first make it sacred, and then take it? Out of excessive contempt hast thou done this. The deed does not admit of pardon, it is past pleading for.—Therefore let it be no stumbling-block to any, if at present also there are sacrilegious persons. If there were such persons then, much more now, when evils are many. But let us “rebuke them before all, that others also may fear.” (1 Tim. v. 20.) Judas was sacrilegious, but it was no stumbling-block to the disciples. Do you see how many evils spring from love of money? “And great fear, it is said, came on all them that heard these things.” (v. 5.) That man was punished, and others profited thereby. Not without cause. And yet, signs had been wrought before: true, but there was not such a sense of fear. So true is that saying, “The Lord is known by executing judgments.” (Ps. ix. 16.) The same thing had occurred in the case of the Ark: Uzzah was punished and fear came upon the rest. (2 Sam. vi. 7.) But in that instance the king through fear removed from him the Ark; but here the disciples became more earnestly heedful. “And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in,” etc. (v. 7.) But observe how Peter, instead of sending for her, waited till she entered; and how none of the others durst carry out the intelligence. Such the teacher’s awfulness, such the disciples’ reverence, such the obedience! “An interval of three hours,”—and yet the woman did not hear of it, and none of those present reported it, although there was time enough for it to be noised abroad; but they were afraid. This circumstance the Evangelist relates with wonder even, when he says, “Not knowing what was done, came in.” “And Peter answered unto her,” etc. (v. 8.) And yet she might have perceived even from this that Peter knew the secret. For why, having questioned none other, does he question you? Was it not clear that he asked because he knew? But so great was her hardness, it would not let her attempt to evade the guilt; and with great confidence she replied; for she thought she was speaking only to a man. The aggravation of the sin was, that they committed it as with one soul, just as upon a settled compact between them. “How is it that ye have agreed together,” he said, “to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door.” (v. 9.) First he makes her learn the sin, and then shows that she will justly suffer the same punishment with her husband, since she has committed the same wickedness: “And they shall carry thee out. And she fell down straightway at his feet,” for she was standing near him, “and yielded up the ghost.” (v. 10.) So entirely by their own act had they invited upon themselves the vengeance! Who after that would not be struck with awe? who would not fear the Apostle? who would not marvel? who not be afraid? “And they were with one accord, all of them in Solomon’s porch,” (v. 12) no longer in a house, but having occupied the very Temple, they there passed their time! No longer they guarded themselves against touching the unclean; nay, without scruple they handled the dead. And observe how, while to their own people they are severe, against the aliens they do not exercise their power. “But293 the people,” he says, “magnified them.” (v. 13.) And as he had mentioned their being “in Solomon’s porch,” that you may not wonder how the multitude allowed this, he tells us that they did not dare even to approach them: for “no man,” he says, “durst join himself unto them.” “But believers were the more added unto the Lord, multitudes both of men and women: insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.” (v. 14, 15.) Great faith, surpassing what had been shown in the case of Christ. How comes this? Because Christ declared: “And greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto My Father.” (John xiv. 12.) And these things the people do, while the Apostles remain there, and are not moving about from place to place: also from other places they were all bringing their sick on beds and couches: and from all quarters accrued to them fresh tribute of wonder; from them that believed, from them that were healed, from him that was punished; from their boldness of speech towards those (their adversaries), from the virtuous behavior of the believers: for certainly the effect produced was not owing to the miracles only. For though the Apostles themselves modestly ascribe it all to this cause, declaring that they did these things in the name of Christ, yet at the same time the life and noble conduct of the men helped to produce this effect. “And believers were more added unto the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” Observe, how he now no longer tells the number of them that believe; at such a rate was the faith making way even to an immense multitude, and so widely was the Resurrection proclaimed. So then “the people magnified them:” but they were now no longer lightly to be despised as once they were: for in a little moment, at a single turn of the scale, such have been the effects produced by the fisherman and by the publican! Earth was become a heaven, for manner of life, for boldness of speech, for wonders, for all besides; like Angels were they looked upon with wonder: all unconcerued for ridicule, for threats, for perils: compassionate294 were they, and beneficent; some of them they succoured with money, and some with words, and some with healing of their bodies and of their souls; no kind of healing (πἅν εἶδος ἰατρείας) but they accomplished.

Peter all but pleads for himself, when at the point to inflict the punishment, and at the same time gives a lesson to the rest. For because the act would seem exceeding stern, therefore 293 Edd. from E., omitting this and the following sentence, insert v. 14, 15, and below, John xiv. 12, both of which are wanting in the old text. 294 Edd. from E. “But not only for this reason, but because, being exceedingly humane and beneficent, they succored some with money, some with healing of their bodies. Why hath Satan filled thine heart? Peter,” etc. it is that he does so much295 in the case.296 In respect of the woman also the process of judgment was terrible. But297 see how many evils grow out of the sacrilege: covetousness, contempt of God, impiety; and upon these too he pleaded for himself before the assembly, in that he did not immediately proceed to punishment, but first exposed the sin. None groaned, none lamented, all were terrified. For as their faith increased, the signs also were multiplied, and great was the fear among their own company: for the things which are from without do not so militate (πολεμεἵ) against our peace, as do the acts of our own people. If we be firmly joined together, no298 warfare will be hard: but the mischief would be the being divided and broken up. Now they went about in the public place: with boldness they attacked even the market, and in the midst of enemies they prevailed, and that saying was fulfilled, “Be Thou Ruler in the midst among Thine enemies.” (Ps. cx. 2.) This was a greater miracle, that they, arrested, cast into prison, should do such acts as these!

If those for lying suffered such things, what shall not the perjured suffer? Because she simply affirmed, “Yea, for so much,” ye see what she suffered. Bethink you then; they that swear and forswear themselves, of what should they be worthy? It299 comes in opportunely 295 E. Edd. “therefore both in the case of the man himself, and in that of the wife, he makes the judgment terrible.” 296 Our author touches upon the difficulty which has so often been found in this narrative on account of the apparent disproportion of the penalty to the offence. But it is to be remembered that: (1) The narrative presents the sin as the most heinous—lying to God—trying to deceive the Holy Spirit whose organs the Apostles were. It was a deliberate conspiracy for this purpose. (2) These persons were members of the church who professed to possess and should have possessed the Holy Spirit. Instead they had been overcome by a Satanic principle which here makes its manifestation in pride and hypocrisy. The selfishness of the deed is the more grievous because of the great piety and sacrifice of the act which was counterfeited. Pride is the greater evil, the higher the virtue which it simulates. (3) Such a retributive miracle, besides being just in itself, may have been specially necessary in this early stage of the church’s life to warn against deception and fraud and to emphasize the principles of honor in the early church. “So terrible was this judgment in order to guard the first operations of the Holy Spirit” (Neander).—G.B.S. 297 Edd. from E. “Now if, their sin being inexcusable, he had not inflicted such punishment on them both, what contempt of God would thence have arisen! And that this was the reason, is evident from the fact, that he did not immediately,” etc. 298 E. Edd. “There will be none to war upon us: just as, if we be put asunder one from another, on the contrary all will set upon us. Hence it was that they henceforth were of good courage, and with boldness attacked,” etc. 299 Εὔκαιρον καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Παλαιᾶς δεῖξαι τὸ χαλεπὸν τῆς ἐπιορκίας τήμερον. Meaning perhaps that this had occurred in one of the Scripture Lessons for the day. Below, Καθάπερ γὰρ δρέπανον ὅπουπερ ἂν ἐμπεσῃ οὐκ ἂν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ ἀνελκυσθείη μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποτεμνομένης τῆς κεφαλῆς. So A. B. N. Savil. and C., which last however has ἀπὸ for ἀποτεμνομένης. Hales ap. Sav. suggests, that ἀποτεμν. τῆς κεφ. ought to be rejected: it is better however to supply εἰς τράχηλον before ἐμπέσῃ as in the translation. The meaning is explained in Serm. to-day even from the Old Testament to show you the heinousness of perjury. “There was,” it says, “a flying sickle, ten cubits in breadth.” (Zech. v. 2.) The “flying” betokens the swift advent of the vengeance which pursues oaths; that it is many cubits in length and breadth, signifies the force and magnitude of the woes; that it comes flying “from heaven,” is to show that the vengeance comes from the judgment-seat on high: that it is in the form of a sickle,” denotes the inevitableness of the doom: for just as the sickle, where it comes and has hooked the neck, is not drawn back with nothing but itself, but with the head reaped off, even so the vengeance which comes upon the swearers is severe, and will not desist until it have completed its work. But if we swear and escape, let us not be confident; this is but to our woe. For what think ye? How many, since Ananias and Sapphira, have dared the same with them? How is it then, say you, that they have not met with the same fate? Not because it was allowed in them, but because they are reserved for a greater punishment. For those who often sin and are not punished, have greater reason to fear and dread than if they were punished. For the vengeance is increased for them by their present impunity and the longsuffering of God. Then let us not look to this, that we are not punished; but let us consider whether we have not sinned: if sinning we are not punished, we have the more reason to tremble. Say, if you have a slave, and you only threaten him, and do not beat him; when is he most in fear, when most inclined to run away? Is is not when you only threaten him? And hence we advise each other not to be continually using threats, thereby choosing rather to agitate the mind by the terror, and lacerating it worse than with blows. For in the one instance the punishment is momentary, but in the other it is perpetual. If then no one feels the stroke of the sickle, do not look to this, but rather let each consider whether he commits such sins. Many like things are done now as were done before the Flood, yet no flood has been sent: because there is a hell threatened, and vengeance. Many sin as the people did in Sodom, yet no rain of fire has been poured down; because a river of fire is prepared. Many go the lengths of Pharaoh; yet they have not fared like Pharaoh, they have not been drowned in a Red Sea: for the sea that awaits them, is the sea of the bottomless pit, where the punishment is not accompanied with insensibility, where there is no suffocation to end all, but in ever lengthened torture, in burning, in strangling, they are consumed there. Many have of- ad.Pop. Antioch. xv. t. ii. 158. D. “A flying sword, one might manage to escape from, δρεπάνην δὲ εἰς τὸν τράχηλον ἐμπεσοῦσαν καὶ ἀντὶ σχοινίου γενομένην, οὐδεὶς ἂν διαφύγοι, but from a sickle darted round the neck and catching it as a halter would, there can be no escape.” Hence it appears that the innovator has quite mistaken the Author’s meaning. He reads, Καθάπερ γὰρ δρέπανον εἰς τράχηλον ἐμπεσὸν οὐκ ἂν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ ἀνελκυσθείη, μένει δὲ πῶς ἔτι καὶ ἀποτεμνομένης τῆς κεφαλῆς: i.e. “having cut off one head, it still remains, that it may cut off more:” which is irrelevant to the matter in hand, viz. how τὸ δρέπανοειδὲς denotes τὸ ἄφυκτον τῆς τιμωρίας. Of the Edd. Savile alone retains the old and genuine reading. Montf. strangely remarks, “Savilianam lectionem esse Morelliana quam sequimur obscuriorem.” fended like the Israelites, but no serpents have devoured them: there awaits them the worm that never dieth. Many have been like Gehazi, yet they have not been struck with leprosy: for instead of leprosy, it remains for them to be cut asunder, and numbered among the hypocrites. Many have both sworn and forsworn; but if they have indeed escaped, let us not be confident: the gnashing of teeth awaits them. Yea, here too they will suffer many grievous woes, though, it may be, not immediately, but after further transgressions, that the vengeance may be the greater; for even we often set out at first with small sins, and then through great offences lose all. Therefore when you see anything happening to you, call to mind that particular sin of yours. The sons of Jacob are an example of this. Remember Joseph’s brothers; they had sold their brother, they had even attempted to slay him; nay, they had slain him, as far as inclination went; they had deceived and grieved the old man; they suffered nothing. After many years they are brought into extreme peril, and now they are put in remembrance of this their sin. Exceeding wisely is this circumstance brought in. Hear what they say: “We are verily guilty concerning our brother.” (Gen. xlii. 21.) In this manner then do thou also, when anything happens, say, We are verily guilty, because we have not obeyed Christ; because we have sworn; my much swearing, and my false swearing, has fallen upon my own head. Confess thou; since they also confessed, and were saved. For what though the punishment follow not immediately? Since Ahab also did not immediately after his sin in the matter of Naboth suffer that vengeance which he yet at last suffered. (1 Kings xxi. 19.) And what is the reason of this? God sets thee a time, in which to wash thyself clean; but if thou persist, at last He will send down the vengeance. You have seen the fate of liars. Consider what is the fate of false swearers, consider, and desist. It is impossible a swearer should not forswear himself, whether he will or not; and no perjurer can be saved. One false oath sufficeth to finish all, to draw down upon us the whole measure of vengeance. Let us then take heed to ourselves, that we may escape the punishment due to this offence, and be deemed worthy of the loving kindness of God, through the grace and mercies of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Acts V. 17, 18

“Then having risen up, the high-priest and they that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees) were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the Apostles, and put them in the common prison.”

“Having risen up,” that is, being300 roused, being excited at the things taking place, the high-priest and they which were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees) were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the Apostles:” they now assault them more vigorously: “and put them in the common prison;” but did not forthwith bring them to trial, because they expected them again to be softened down. “But the Angel of the Lord opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” “And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught.” (v. 19–21.) This was done both for the encouragement of the disciples, and for the benefit and instruction of the others. And observe how the proceeding in the present instance is just the same as in what Christ Himself did. Namely, in His miracles though He does not let men see them in the act of being wrought, He furnishes the means whereby they may be apprised of the things wrought: thus, in His Resurrection, He did not let them see how He rose: in the water made wine, the guests do not see it done, for they have been drinking much, and the discernment He leaves to others. Just so in the present case, they do not see them in the act of being brought forth, but the proofs from which they might gather what had been done, they do see. And it was by night that the Angel put them forth. Why was this? Because301 in this way they were more believed 300 OEcumenius has in part preserved the true reading, τ. ἐ. διεγερθεὶς, κινηθεὶς, ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις [text omitted] σφοδρότερον αὐτοῖς ἐπιτίθεται. A. B. C. Cat. τ. ἐ., διηγέρθη, κινηθεὶς ἐπὶ τοῖς γεν. “Καὶ ἐθ. αὐτοὺς ἐν τ. δ.” Νῦν σφοδρ. αὐτοῖς ἐπιτίθενται. And again after πράους ἔσεσθαι,—Καὶ σφοδρ. ἐπιτίθενται (Cat. ἐπιτίθεται): ἔθεντο αὐτοὺς, φ., ἐν τ. δ. ῎Αγγελος δὲ κ. τ. λ.—E. D. F. Edd. “Nothing more reckless than wickedness, nothing more audacious. Having learned by experience the courage of these men, from the attempts they had made before, they nevertheless attempt, and again come to the attack. What means it, ‘And having risen up, the high-priest and they that were with him?’ He was roused, it says, being excited at what had taken place. ‘And laid their hands on the Apostles, and put them in the common prison.’ Now they assault them more vigorously: but did not forthwith, etc. And whence is it manifest that they assaulted them more vigorously? From their putting them in the common prison. Again they are involved in danger, and again they experience succor from God. And in what manner, hear from what follows.” 301 ῞Οτι οὕτω μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκείνως ἐπιστεύθησαν· οὕτω καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐρωτῆσαι ἦλθον, οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρως ἐπίστευσαν. If it be meant that the Apostles were more believed because the miracle itself was not seen, than they would have been if the Angel had brought them out in open day, this may be understood in a sense which than they would have been in the other: so, people would not even have had occasion to put the question: they would not in some other way have believed. So it was in the old times, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar: he saw them praising God in the furnace, and then indeed he was put in amazement. (Dan. iii. 24.) Whereas then these priests ought as their first question to have asked, How came ye out? instead of this, as if nothing had happened, they ask, “Did we not straitly charge you not to speak?” (v. 28.) And observe, by report of others they are apprised of all the circumstances: they see the prison remaining closed with safety, and the guards standing before the doors.302 A twofold security this; as was the case at the sepulchre, where was both the seal, and the men to watch. See how they fought against God! Say, was this of man’s doing, that happened to them? Who led them forth, when the doors were shut? How came they out, with the keepers standing before the door? Verily they must be mad or drunken to talk so. Here are men, whom neither prison, nor bonds, nor closed doors, had been able to keep in; and yet they expect to overpower them: such is their childish folly! Their officers come and confess what has taken place, as if on purpose to debar them from St. Chrys. expresses elsewhere, viz. with reference to the nature of faith: “in the latter case there could have been no room for doubt; people would have been forced to acknowledge the claims of the Apostles.” Thus Hom. vi. in 1 Cor. “Put the case that Christ should come this moment with all the Angels, reveal Himself as God, and all be subject unto Him: would not the heathen believe? But will this be counted unto the heathen for faith? No: this were no faith; for a compulsory power from without—the visible appearance—would have effected this. There is no free choice in the matter: οὐκ ἐστι τὸ πρᾶγμα προαιρέσεως.” But then the next sentence ought to be, ᾽Εκείνως γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐρ. ἦλθον· εἰ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρως ἐπ., or to that effect.—Perhaps, however, the meaning is rather: “It was so plain to common sense that a miracle must have been wrought, that had the Angel brought them out in the sight of all men (οὕτω), they could not have been more believed than they had a right to be as the case was (ἐκείνως). Had the miracle been performed openly (οὕτω), people would have had no occasion even to ask, How is this? And they who, as it was, were not brought to ask such a question, would certainly not have believed under any other circumstances. So in the Old Testament, Nebuchadnezzar, when he sees the Holy Men praising God in the furnace, is brought to ask in amazement, Did we not cast three men, etc.: but these priests are so hardened, that instead of asking as they ought to have done, How came ye out? they only ask, as if nothing had happened, Did we not straitly charge you, etc. And observe, they have no excuse for their wilful apathy: for they have had a full report of the circumstances from the officers: the prison shut, the guards at their posts.” If this be the meaning, we must replace οὐκ ἂν or οὐδ ἂν in the sentence ὅτι οὕτω μᾶλλον κ. τ. λ. But the text is too corrupt to be restored by any simple emendation.—Edd. “Because in this way, etc. especially as they would not have been brought to ask the question, nor yet in another case would they themselves have believed;” ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἂν, and οὔτε μὴν ἑτέρως ἂν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐπίστευσαν. 302 Here the mss. insert v. 21–23, inconveniently; for it interrupts the connection. Chrys. here deviates from his usual method, not following the narrative point by point, but reflecting first upon the conduct of the priests. Of course it is to be understood, that the whole text, at least to v. 28, had been first read out. all show of reason. Do you mark how there is miracle upon miracle, differing in kind, some wrought by them, others on them, and these more illustrious than the others? “And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the highpriest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told, saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within. Now when the high-priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.” (v. 21–25.) It303 is well ordered that the information was not brought to them at once, but they are first utterly at a loss what to think, that when they have considered it well and seen that there is a Divine Power in the case, then they may learn the whole state of the case. “Then came one, and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. Then went the captain with the other officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the multitude, lest they should have been stoned.” (v. 25, 26.) O the folly of the men! “They feared,” saith he, “the multitude.” Why, how had the multitude helped the Apostles? When they ought to have feared that God Who was continually delivering them like winged creatures out of their power, instead of that, “they feared the multitude!” “And the high-priest,” shameless, reckless, senseless, “asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” (v. 27, 28.) What then (say the Apostles)? Again with mildness they address them; and yet they might have said, “Who are ye, that ye countermand God?” But what do they say? Again in the way of exhortation and advice, and with much mildness, they make answer. “Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (v. 29.) High magnanimity! He shows them too that they are fighting against God.304 For, he says, Whom ye killed, Him hath God raised up. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” (v. 30, 31.) And again they refer the whole to the Father, that He should not seem to be alien to the Father. “And hath exalted,” saith He, “with his right hand.” He affirms not merely the Resurrection, but the Exaltation also. “For to give repentance to Israel.” Observe here as before the gain (to them): observe the perfection of doctrine conveyed in the form of apology. “And we are witnesses of these things.” (v. 32.) Great boldness of speech! And the ground of their 303 In the mss. this comment is placed before v. 24. 304 Here A. B. C. N. insert v. 29 omitted above by the two first. The following sentence, omitted here by D. E. F. and inserted after v. 31, is there repeated by A. B. C. credibility: “And so is also the Holy Ghost, Whom God hath given to them that obey Him.” Do you observe that they allege not only the Spirit’s testimony? And they said not, “Whom He hath given” to us, but, “to them that obey Him:” therein alike showing their own unassuming temper, and intimating the greatness of the gift, and showing the hearers that it was possible for them also to receive the Spirit. See, how these people were instructed both by deeds and by words, and yet they paid no heed, that their condemnation might be just. For to this end did God suffer the Apostles to be brought to trial, that both their adversaries might be instructed, and all might learn, and that the Apostles might be invigorated to boldness of speech. “And they hearing that, were cut to the heart.” (v. 33.) The305 others (on a former occasion) “when they heard these things were pricked;” here they were cut (as with a saw) (διεπρίοντο) “and desired to slay them.” (ch. ii. 37.)

But it is necessary now to look over again what we have read. “But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life. Brought306 them forth.” (Recapitulation, v. 19, 20.) He did not bring them away to benefit themselves thereby, but, “Stand,” he says, “and speak in the temple to the people.” But if the guards had put them out, as those thought, they would have fled, that is, supposing they had been induced to come out: and if those had put them forth, they would not have stood in the temple, but would have absconded. No one is so void of sense, as not at once to see this. “Did we not straitly charge you?” (v. 28.) Well, if they undertook to obey you, ye do well to call them to account: but if even at the very time they told you they would not obey, what account have you to call them to, what defence is there for them to make? “And behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your 305 E. Edd. “Observe the excess of their wickedness. When they ought to have been struck with alarm at what they heard, here they are cut (to the heart), and take counsel in their temerity (βουλεύονται εἰκῇ) to slay (them).” The innovator did not perceive the reference to ii. 37 in οἱ ἄλλοι “ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες κατενύγησαν.” 306 E. and Edd. “‘Having brought them forth.’ He does not himself bring them away, but lets them go: that in this way also their intrepidity might be known; which also they showed, in that by night they entered into the temple and taught.” In the following sentence perhaps the purport of what St. Chrys. said was, that “if, as the priests supposed, the guards had let them out, the guards themselves would have absconded, and the Apostles would not have stood in the temple, but would have escaped.” Εἴ γε πεισθέντες may have been said of the guards, “if they had been bribed or otherwise induced to let them out;” but all the mss. have εἴ γε π. ἐξῆλθον, in the sense, “supposing, which is not likely, that the Apostles had been induced to come forth at the request of the guards.” Savile gives this clause to the latter part, beginning as E. and Edd. with μᾶλλον δὲ εἰ ἐξέβ. for καὶ εἰ ἐξέβ. “Supposing they had been induced to come out, or rather if those had put them out:” Ben. refers it to what precedes; “they would have fled, if they had come out at their request: nay, if those had put them out,” etc. doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”307 Mark the inconsistency of the accusations, and the exceeding folly. They want to make it appear now, that the dispositions of the Jews308 are sanguinary, as if they were doing these things not for the truth’s sake, but in the wish to be revenged. And for this reason too the Apostles do not answer them with defiance (θρασέως): for they were teachers. And yet where is the man, who, with a whole city to back him, and endowed with so great grace, would not have spoken and uttered something big? But not so did these: for they were not angered; no, they pitied these men, and wept over them, and marked in what way they might free them from their error and wrath. And they no longer say to them, “Judge ye:” (ch. iv. 19) but they simply affirm, saying, “Whom God raised up, Him do we preach: it is by the will of God that these things are done.” They said not, Did not we tell you even then, that “we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard?” (ib. 20.) for they are not contentious for glory; but they repeat again the same story,—the Cross, the Resurrection. And they tell not, wherefore He was crucified—that it was for our sakes: but they hint at this indeed, but not openly as yet, wishing to terrify them awhile. And yet what sort of rhetoric is here? None at all,309 but everywhere it is still the Passion, and the Resurrection and the Ascension, and the end wherefore: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus,” etc. (v. 30, 31.) And yet what improbable assertions are these! Very improbable, no doubt; but for all that, not rulers, not people, had a word to say against them: but those had their mouths stopped, and these received the teaching. “And we,” saith he, “are witnesses of these things.” (v. 32.) Of what things? Of His having promised forgiveness and repentance: for the Resurrection indeed was acknowledged, now. But that He giveth forgiveness, both we are witnesses, and “so is the Holy Ghost,” Who would not have come down, unless sins had been first remitted: so that this is an indisputable 307 The meaning of the council’s statement: “Ye intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (28) probably is: You would cause an insurrection against us and thus be avenged for the crucifixion of Jesus (Meyer): others take it to mean: You would carry the idea that we had murdered an innocent man in crucifying Jesus (Hackett). The strong language of Peter in reply (29) which seems to imply: We cannot help consequences; we must obey God in our preaching and healing, favors the former view. The confusion of the text of Chrys. here (see note in loco) makes his view on this point uncertain.—G.B.S. 308 φονικὰς λοιπὸν βούλονται δεῖξαι τὰς προαιρέσεις τῶν ’Ιουδαίων. As the latter part of the sentence, ὡς οὐ δι᾽ ἀλήθειαν ταῦτα ποιοῦντων ἀλλ᾽ ἀμύνασθαι βουλομένων, seems inapplicable to the Jews, and to be meant for the Apostles, it may be conjectured that the true reading is τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων: “that the Apostles were bent upon having blood.” But all the mss. have τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων, and the sense so far is satisfactory: viz. They want to make it appear now indeed what bloody-minded men the Jews are: now, not when Christ was crucified. 309 The modern text: “So artlessly did they preach the Gospel of life. But when he says, ‘He hath exalted,’ he states for what purpose, namely, ‘to give repentance’ he adds, ‘to Israel, and remission of sins.’ But, it will be said, these things seemed incredible. How say you? And why not rather credible, seeing that neither rulers,” etc. proof. “When they heard that, they were cut” (to the heart), “and took counsel to slay them.” (v. 33.) Hearest thou of the forgiveness of sins, O wretched man, and that God doth not demand punishment, and dost thou wish to slay them? What wickedness was this! And yet, either they ought to have convicted them of lying, or if they could not do that, to have believed: but if they did not choose to believe, yet they ought not to slay them. For what was there deserving of death? Such was their intoxication, they did not even see what had taken place. Observe, how everywhere the Apostles, when they have made mention of the crime, add the mention of forgiveness; showing, that while what had been done was worthy of death, that which was given was proffered to them as to benefactors! In what other way could any one have persuaded them?

“Then stood up the high-priest,” etc. As310 men in high repute, these (the Apostles) were about to take their place near to the Prophets. The Sadducees were they that were most sore on the subject of the Resurrection. But perchance some one will say: Why, what man, endowed with such gifts as the Apostles were, would not have been great? But consider,311 I pray you, how, before that they were endowed with the grace, “they were continuing steadfastly with one accord in prayer” (ch. i. 14), and depending on the aid from above. And dost thou, my beloved, hope for the kingdom of heaven, yet endurest naught? And hast thou received the Spirit, yet sufferest not such things, nor encounterest perils? But they, 310 Here begins a second recapitulation or rather gleaning, partly of matter not touched upon before, partly of further remarks on what has been said.—῾Ως εὐδοκιμοῦντες ἐγγὺς τῶν προφητῶν ἔμελλον ἵστασθαι: This relates to v. 13–16, as the reason why they were “filled with indignation.” The innovator (E. F. D. Edd.) not perceiving this, alters ὡς εὐδοκιμοῦντες to ἢ ὡς εὐδοκιμοῦντας, which he joins to the former sentence, “How else could any one have persuaded them than (by treating them) as persons in high repute?” and adds, “And mark their malignity: they set on them the Sadducees who were most sore on the subject of the Resurrection: but they got nothing by their wickedness. But perchance,” etc. 311 St. Chrysostom frequently contends against the common excuse, “We cannot attain to the holiness of the first Christians, because there are no miracles now.” Thus, he urges, Hom. in Matt. xlvi., that it was not their miracles that made the saints, both of the Old and of the New Testament, great and admirable, but their virtues: without which, no miracles would have availed for themselves or others: that if they wrought miracles, it was after they, by their noble qualities and admirable lives had attracted the Divine grace: for miracles proceed from a holy life, and this is also their goal: only he that lives a holy life receives this grace; and he that receives it, receives it only that he may amend the life of others…Let no man therefore wait for miracles. It afflicts the evil spirit when he is expelled from the body, much more when he sees the soul set free from sin: for in this lies Satan’s great power, and to destroy this, Christ died. In expelling this from thyself, thou hast performed a miracle greater than all miracles. This is not my doctrine; it is the doctrine of the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor. xii. 31, the “more excellent way” is not miracles, but Charity, the root of all good. If we practise this we need no miracles; and if we practise not from miracles we shall get no good. before they had breathing-time from their former dangers, were again led into others. And even this too, that there is no arrogance, no conceit, how great a good it is! To converse with mildness, what a gain it is! For not all that they did was the immediate work of grace, but there are many marks of their own zeal as well. That the gifts of grace shine forth in them, this was from their own diligence. See, for instance, from the very beginning, how careful Peter is; how sober and vigilant: how they that believed cast away their riches, had no private property, continued in prayer, showed that they were of one mind, passed their time in fastings. What grace, I ask (alone), did all this? Therefore it is that He brings the evidence home to them through their own officers. Just as in the case of Christ, it was their officers who said, “Never man spake as this Man speaketh.” (John vii. 46.) These312 (proofs) are more apt to be believed than the Resurrection.—Observe also the moderation shown by (the rulers) themselves, and how they give way. “The high-priest asked them, saying,” etc. (v. 27): here he reasons with them, forsooth, in a moderate tone; for he was frightened: indeed to hinder was what he desired rather than to kill, since that he cannot do: and with the view to rouse them all, and show them the extreme danger they are in, “And intend,” says he (to the Apostles), “to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Dost thou still take Him to be but man? He wants to make it appear that the injunction was necessary for their own safety. But mark what (Peter) says: “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” (v. 31.) Here he forbears to mention the Gentiles, not to give them a handle against him. “And they desired,” it says, “to slay them.” (v. 33.) See again these in perplexity, these in pain: but those in quiet and cheerfulness and delight. It is not merely, They were grieved, but “They were cut” (to the heart). Truly this makes good that proverb, “Evil do, evil fare:” as we may see in this case. Here were these men in bonds, set at the bar of judgment, and the men that sit in judgment upon them were in distress and helpless perplexity. For as he who strikes a blow upon the adamant, gets the shock of the blow himself, so it was with these men. But they saw that not only was their boldness of speech not stopped, but rather their preaching increased the more, and that they discoursed without a thought of fear, and afforded them no handles against them.

Let us imitate these, my beloved: let us be undaunted in all our dangers. There is nothing dreadful to him that fears God; but all that is dreadful is for others. For when a man is delivered from his passions, and regards all present things as a shadow, say, from whom shall he suffer anything dreadful? whom shall he have to fear? whom shall he need plead to? Let us flee to this Rock which cannot be shaken. If any one were to build for us a city, and throw up a wall around it, and remove us to a land uninhabited, where there were none to disturb 312 ταῦτα τῆς ἀναστάσεως πιστότερα. E. omits this, and inserts ἀπήγγειλαν ὑποστρέψαντες ἅπερ εἶδον. “They reported on their return just what they had seen:” so Edd. except Savile, who retains the reading of E. and adds to it as above (from N.) us, and there supply us with abundance of everything, and not suffer us to have aught to trouble us with anybody, he would not set us in such perfect safety, as Christ hath done now. Be it a city made of brass, if you will, surrounded on all sides with a wall, lofty and impregnable, let there be no enemy near it; let it have land plentiful and rich, let there be added abundance of other things, let the citizens too be mild and gentle, and no evil-doer there, neither robber, nor thief, no informer, no court of justice, but merely agreements (συναλλάλματα); and let us dwell in this city: not even thus would it be possible to live in security. Wherefore? Because there could not but be differences with servants, with wives, with children, to be a groundwork of much discomfort. But here was nothing of the kind; for here was nothing at all to pain them or cause any discomfort. Nay, what is more wonderful to say, the very things which are thought to cause discomfort, became matter of all joy and gladness. For tell me, what was there for them to be annoyed at? what to take amiss? Shall we cite a particular case for comparison with them? Well, let there be one of consular dignity, let him be possessed of much wealth, let him dwell in the imperial city, let him have no troublesome business with anybody, but only live in delight, and have nothing else but this to do, seated at the very summit of wealth and honor and power: and let us set against him a Peter, in bonds if you will, in evils without number: and we shall find that he is the man that lives the most delightfully. For when there is such excess of joy, as to be delighted when in bonds, think what must be the greatness of that joy! For like as those who are high in office, whatsoever evils may happen, are not sensible of them, but continue in enjoyment: so did these the more rejoice on account of these very evils. For it is impossible, impossible in words to express how great pleasure falls to their lot, who suffer for Christ’s sake: for they rejoice in their sufferings, rather than in their good things. Whoso loves Christ, knows what I say.—But what as regards safety? And who, I ask, if he were ever so rich, could have escaped so many perils, going about among so many different nations, for the sole purpose313 of bringing about a reformation in their manner of life? For it was just as if by royal mandate that they carried all before them, nay, far more easily, for never mandate could have been so effectual, as their words were. For the royal edict compels by necessity, but these drew men willingly and spontaneously, yea, and with hearts above measure thankful. What royal edict, I ask, would ever have persuaded men to part with all their property and their lives; to despise home, country, kindred, yea, even self-preservation? Yet the voices of fishermen and tent-makers availed for this. So that they were both happy, and more powerful and strong than all others. “Yes,” say you, “those of course were, for they wrought miracles.” (supra, p. 83, note 4.) But I ask what miracles did those who believed work, the three thousand, and the five thousand; and yet these, we read, passed their time in gladness? And well they might: for that which is the groundwork of all discomforts, the possession of riches, 313 ἔθνεσι τοσούτοις ὁμιλῶν ὑπὲρ μεταστάσεως πολιτείας μόνης. was done away with. For that, that, I say, was ever the cause both of wars and fighting, and grief, and discomfort, and all evils: the thing which makes life full of labor and troubles, it is that. And indeed it would be found that many more rich than poor have reason to be sad. If any think this is not true, their notion is derived not from the nature of the things, but from their own fancy. And if the rich do enjoy some sort of pleasure, this is not to be wondered at: for even those who are covered all over with the itch, have a good deal of pleasure. For that the rich are for all the world like these, and their mind affected in the same sort, is plain from this circumstance. Their cares annoy them, and they choose to be engrossed with them for the sake of the momentary pleasure: while those who are free from these affections, are in health and without discomfort. Whether is more pleasant, I ask, whether of the two more safe? To have to take thought only for a single loaf of bread and suit of clothes, or for an immense family, both slaves and freemen, not having care about himself (only)? For as this man has his fears for himself, so have you for those who depend on your own person. Why,314 I pray you, does poverty seem a thing to be shunned? Just in the same way as other good things are, in the judgment of many, things to be deprecated. “Yes,” say you, “but it is not that those good things are subjects for deprecation, but that they are hard of attainment.” Well, so is poverty, not a thing to be deprecated, but hard of attainment: so that if one could bear it, there would be no reason to deprecate it. For how is it that the Apostles did not deprecate it? how is it that many even choose it, and so far from deprecating, even run to it? For that which is really a thing to be deprecated, cannot be an object of choice save to madmen. But if it be the men of philosophic and elevated minds that betake themselves to this, as to a safe and salubrious retreat, no wonder if to the rest it wears a different appearance. For, in truth, the rich man seems to me to be just like a city, unwalled, situated in a plain, inviting assailants from all sides: but poverty, a secure fortress, strong as brass can make it, and the way up to it difficult. “And yet,” say you, “the fact is just the reverse: for these are they, who are often dragged into courts of law, these are they who are overborne and ill-treated.” No: not the poor, as poor, but those who being poor want to be rich. But I am not speaking of them, but of such as make it their study to live in poverty. For say, how comes it that nobody ever drags the brethren of the hills into courts of law? and yet if to be poor is to be a mark for oppression, those ought most of all to be dragged thither, since they are poorer than all others. How comes it that nobody drags the common mendicants into the law-courts? Because they are come to the extreme of poverty. How is it that none does violence to them, none lays vexatious informations against them? Because they abide in a stronghold too safe for that. How many think it a condition 314 Edd. “And why,” you will ask, “is poverty thought a thing to be fled from!” Why, because other good things are, in the judgment of many, things to be fled from, not because they are to be deprecated, but because hard of attainment. hard to struggle against, poverty, I mean, and begging! What then, I ask, is it a good thing to beg? “It is good, if there be comfort,” say you; “if there be one to give: it is a life so free from trouble and reverses, as every one knows.” But I do not mean to commend this; God forbid! what I advise is the not aiming at riches.

For say, whom would you rather call blessed? those who find themselves at home with virtue, (ἐπιτηδείους πρὸς ἀρετήν) or those who stand aloof? Of course, those who are near. Say then, which of the two is the man to learn anything that is profitable, and to shine in the true wisdom? the former, or the latter? The first, all must see. If you doubt it, satisfy yourself in this way. Fetch hither from the market-place any of the poor wretches there; let him be a cripple, lame, maimed: and then produce some other person, comely of aspect, strong in body, full of life and vigor in every part, overflowing with riches: let him be of illustrious birth, and possessed of great power. Then let us bring both these into the school of philosophy: which of them, I ask, is more likely to receive the things taught? The first precept, at the outset, “Be lowly and moderate” (for this is Christ’s command): which will be most able to fulfil it, this one or the other? “Blessed are they that mourn” (Matt. v. 4): which will most receive this saying? “Blessed are the lowly:” which will most listen to this? “Blessed are the pure in heart. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” (ib. 8, 6, 10). Which will with ease receive these sayings? And, if you will, let us apply to all of them these rules, and see how they will fit. Is not the one inflamed and swollen all over, while the other is ever lowly minded and subdued in his whole bearing? It is quite plain. Yes, and there is a saying to that effect among those that are without: “(I was) a slave,315 Epictetus by name, a cripple in body, for poverty a very Irus, and a friend of the Immortals.” For how, I would ask, can it be otherwise, but that the soul of the rich must teem with evils; folly, vainglory, numberless lusts, anger and passion, covetousness, iniquity, and what not? So that even for philosophy, the former is more congenially (ἐπιτηδεία) disposed than the latter. By all means seek to ascertain which is the more pleasant: for this I see is the point everywhere discussed, whether such an one has the more enjoyable way of life. And yet even as regards this, we need not be in doubt; for to be near to health, is also to have much enjoyment. But whether of the two, I would ask, is best disposed (ἐπιτήδειος) to the matter now in hand, that which we will needs carry into accomplishment—our law, I mean—the poor man or the rich? Whether of them will be apt to swear? The man who has children to be provoked with, the man who has his covenants with innumerable parties, or the man who is concerned to apply for just a loaf of bread or a garment? This man has not even need of oaths, should he wish, but always lives free from cares of business; nay, more, it is often seen that he who is disciplined to 315 The Epigram is preserved in the Palatine Anthology, 7. 676. Δοῦλος ᾽Επίκτητος γενόμην, καὶ σώματι πηρὸς, καὶ πενίαν ῏Ιρος, καὶ φίλος ἀθανάτοις. But our mss. except E., for ῏Ιρος have ἱερὸς, “sacred.” swear not at all, will also despise riches; and one shall see in his whole behavior his ways all branching off from this one good habit, and leading to meekness, to contempt of riches, to piety, to subduedness of soul, to compunction of heart. Then let us not be indolent, my beloved, but let us again show great earnestness: they who have succeeded, that they may keep the success achieved, that they be not easily caught by the receding wave, nor the refluent tide carry them back again [they316 too who are yet behindhand, that they may be raised up again, and strive to make up that which is wanting. And meanwhile let those who have succeeded, help those who have not been able to do the same]: and by reaching out their hands, as they would to men struggling in the deep water, receive them into the haven of no-swearing (ἀνωμοσίας). For it is indeed a haven of safety, to swear not at all: whatever storms burst upon us, to be in no danger of sinking there: be it anger, be it insult, be it passion, be it what it may, the soul is stayed securely; yea, though one have vented some chance word or other that ought not, and had been better not, to be spoken, yet he has laid himself under no necessity, no law. (Supra, Hom. ix. §5. ad. Pop. Ant. viii. §3.) See what Herod did for his oath’s sake: he cut off the head of the Fore-runner. “But because of his oaths,” it says, “and because of them which sat at meat with him” (Mark vi. 26), he cut off the head of the Prophet. Think what the tribes had to suffer for their oath in the matter of the tribe of Benjamin (Judges xxi. 5–10): what Saul had to suffer for his oath (1 Sam. xiv. 24, etc.). For Saul indeed perjured himself, but Herod did what was even worse than perjury, he committed murder. Joshua again—you know how it fared with him, for his oath in the matter of the Gibeonites. (Joshua, ch. ix.) For it is indeed a snare of Satan, this swearing. Let us burst317 the cords; let us bring ourselves into a condition in which it will be easy (not to swear); let us break loose from every entanglement, and from this snare of Satan. Let us fear the command of the Lord: let us settle ourselves in the best of habits: that, making progress, and having achieved this and the rest of the commandments, we may obtain those good things 316 Something is wanting in the old text to complete the sense: the matter in the brackets is supplied from E. D. F. Below, the same have: “to swear not at all: a haven, that one be not drowned by the storm bursting. For though wrath, though (sense of) insult, though passion boil over, yea though anything, be what it may, the soul is in security, so that it will not even utter aught that should not be spoken: for one has laid himself,” etc. 317 Διαρρήξωμεν τὰ σχοινία· ἐν εὐκολίU+0026 139· καταστήσωμεν ἑαυτούς· πάσης ἀπορίας ἀπαλλαγῶμεν καὶ τῆς σατανικῆς παγίδος. i.e. “The cords of this snare are, the ties of worldly business in the possession or pursuit of wealth: there is a condition, as was said above, in which it is full easy not to swear; let us bring ourselves into that condition: all that makes us say, ‘We cannot help swearing,’ (πάσης ἀπορίας), let us have done with it, and break loose from the snare of the devil.” The exhortation connects both parts of the “Morale”—the commendation of voluntary poverty, and the invective against swearing. In the modern text (E. F. D. Edd.) this is lost sight of: it reads: διαρρ. τὰ σχ. καὶ ἐν εὐκ. καταστήσομεν (al. -σωμεν) πάσης φυλακῆς· ἀπαλλαγῶμεν τῆς σατ. παγ. “Let us burst the cords, and we shall bring ourselves into a facility of all watchfulness: let us break loose,” etc. which are promised to them that love Him, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Acts V. 34

“Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded the men to be put forth a little space.”

This Gamaliel was Paul’s teacher. And one may well wonder, how, being so right-minded in his judgment, and withal learned in the law, he did not yet believe. But it cannot be that he should have continued in unbelief to the end.318 Indeed it appears plainly from the words he here speaks. He “commanded,” it says, “to put the men forth a little space and said unto them.” Observe how judiciously he frames his speech, and how he immediately at the very outset puts them in fear. And that he may not be suspected of taking their part, he addresses them as if he and they were of the same opinion, and does not use much vehemence, but as speaking to men intoxicated through passion, he thus expresses himself: “Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.” (v. 35.) Do not, he would say, go to work rashly and in a hurry. “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody: to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to naught.” (v. 36.) By examples he teaches them prudence; and, by way of encouragement, mentions last the man who seduced the greatest number. Now before he gives the examples, he says, “Take heed to yourselves;” but when he has cited them, then he declares his opinion, and says, “Refrain from these men.” For, says he, “there rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to naught. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow them.” (al. it) (v. 37–39.) Then319 what is there, he would say, to hinder you to be overthrown? For, says he (take heed), “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” He would dissuade them both by the consideration that the thing is impossible, and because it is not for their good. And he does not say by whom these people were des- 318 In the Clementine Recogn. i. 65, Gamaliel is spoken of as having been early a Christian in secret. Lucian the Presbyter a.d. 415, writes an account of the discovery in consequence of a vision in which Gamaliel himself appeared to him, of the reliques of St. Stephen, together with those of Nicodemus and Gamaliel. See note on St. Augustin Comm. on St. John, p. 1048. Photius, Cod. 171, p. 199 read in a work of Eustratius how Gamaliel was baptized by St. Peter and St. John. (According to the Jewish tradition, Wolf. Bibl. Hebr. ii. 882. he died President of the Sanhedrim, eighteen years after the fall of Jerusalem.) 319 The modern text: “As if he had said, Forbear; and if these men came together of themselves, nothing will hinder them also to be overthrown.” C. reads ἡμᾶς, “What to hinder us?” Catena, as above. troyed, but that there they “were scattered,” and their confederacy fell away to nothing. For if, says he, it be of man, what needs any ado on your part? but if it be of God, for all your ado you will not be able to overcome it. The argument is unanswerable. “And they were persuaded by him.” (v. 40.) How were they persuaded? So as not to slay them, but merely to scourge. For, it says, “And when they had called the Apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” See after what great works they are scourged! And again their teaching became more extended: for they taught at home and in the temple, “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. (v. 41, 42.) And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” (ch. vi. 1.) Not absolutely in those immediate days; for it is the custom of Scripture to speak of things next about to happen, as taking place in immediate succession. But by “Hellenists” I suppose he means those who spoke Greek “against the Hebrews”: for320 they did not use the Greek language. Behold another trial! observe how from within and from without there are warrings, from the very first! “Then,” it says, “the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” (v. 2.) Well said: for the needful must give precedence to the more needful. But see, how straightway they both take thought for these (inferior matters), and yet do not neglect the preaching. “Because their widows were overlooked:” for those (the Hebrews) were treated as the persons of greater consequence (αἰδεσιμώτεροι). “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost” (v. 3–5.) so were the others also full of faith;321 not to have the same things happening as in the case of Judas, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira—“and Philip, and Prochoras, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God 320 οὔτε γὰρ ἑλληνιστὶ διελέγοντο. So A. B. C. N. but Cat. οὗτοι, and E. D. F. add ῾Εβραῖοι ὄντες. “For these used the Greek language, being Hebrews.” There is no need to adopt this reading: the comment seems to belong to the words, against the Hebrews: viz. “they murmured against them, seeing they were overlooked, etc., for neither could these Hebrews converse with them in the Greek language.” 321 ἄρα(Cat. ὅρα) καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πλήρεις πίστεως ἦσαν (E. D. F. add οὓ καὶ ἐξελέξαντο). ἵνα μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ κ. τ. λ. The meaning seems to be: “If Stephen was a man full of faith, so were the others: (they were careful to choose only such,): in order that,” etc. increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” (v. 5–7.)

But322 let us look over again what has been spoken. “Ye men of Israel take heed to yourselves.”(Recapitulation, v. 35.) See here, I pray you, how mildly Gamaliel reasons, and how he says but a few words to them, and does not recount ancient histories, although he might have done so, but more recent instances, which are most powerful to produce belief. With this view he throws out a hint himself, saying, “For before these days” (v. 36): meaning, not many days before. Now had he at once said, “Let these men go,” both himself would have fallen into suspicion, and his speech would not have been so effective: but after the examples, it acquired its own proper force. And he mentions not one instance, but a second also: “for,” saith the Scripture, “in the mouth of two witnesses” (Matt. xviii. 16): and yet he had it in his power to mention even three. “Refrain from these men.” (v. 38.) See how mild his manner is, and his speech not long, but concise, and his mention even of those (impostors) how free from passion: “And all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered.” And323 for all this he does not blaspheme Christ. They heard him, all these unbelievers, heard him, these Jews. “For if this council or this work be of men, it will come to naught.” Well then, since it did not come to nought, it is not of men. “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.” (v. 39.) Once more he checks them by the impossibility and the inexpediency of the thing, saying, “Lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”324 And he does not say, If Christ be God; but the work (itself) declares (this). He does not pronounce upon it, either that, it is “of men,” or that it is “of God;” but he leaves the proof to the future. “They were persuaded by him.” (v. 40.) Then why, it may be asked, do ye scourge them? Such was the incontrovertible 322 Omitted in the old text: supplied by E.—Below, E. omits, “for, saith the Scripture, in the mouth of two witnesses:” and amplifies the rest, adding, “even a third, superabundantly: both showing how well he himself speaks, and leading them away from their sanguinary purpose.” 323 Edd. from E. “Saying this, he speaks nothing blasphemous against Christ, but what he most wishes, he effects. ‘If,’ says he, ‘it be of men, it will come to naught.’ Here he seems to me to put it to them by way of syllogism, and to say: Consequently, since it has not come to naught, it is not of man. ‘Lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.’ This he said to check them,” etc.—Below, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο δηλοῖ, might be rendered, “but he is declaring this work” (viz. “if this work be of men,” etc.): the modern text, τὸ γάρ ἔργον τοῦτο ἐδήλου. 324 Meyer finds in the expression of Gamaliel (38, 39): “if it be of men—ἔαν ἦ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων” and “if it is of God—ἐι δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστίν” an indication that he leaned to the latter opinion. While this distinction is grammatically valid it can scarcely be justified as intentional. Gamaliel, although tolerant toward Christianity, as the Pharisaic party in general were at this time, was not a Christian in secret, but an orthodox Jew. His advice was politic even from a Jewish point of view. He saw, as the more bitter party did not, that this sort of opposition would only serve to rouse all the energy and perseverance of the Christian disciples and thus indirectly tend to the increase and spread of their doctrines among the people.—G.B.S. justness of his speech, they could not look it in the face; nevertheless, they sated their own animosity; and again they expected to terrify them in this way. By the fact also of his saying these things not in the presence of the Apostles, he gained a hearing more than he would otherwise have done; and then the suavity of his discourse and the justness of what was said, helped to persuade them. In fact, this man all but preached the Gospel. “325Ye were persuaded,” one may say, “that ye had not strength to overthrow it. Wherefore did ye not believe?” Such is the witness borne even by enemies. There it is four hundred, there, four thousand: and here the first movers were twelve. Let not the number which added itself affright you. (ch. ii. 41; iv. 4.) He might also have mentioned another instance, that of the Egyptian, but what he has spoken is fully sufficient. And he closes his speech with an alarming topic: “Lest haply,” etc. And he does not pronounce upon it, lest he should seem to be pleading their cause; but he reasons by way of syllogism from the issue of the matter. And he does not venture to pronounce that it is not of men, nor yet that it is of God; for had he said that it was of God, they would have gainsaid him: but had he said that it was of men, they would again have taken prompt measures. Therefore he bids them wait for the end, saying, “Refrain.” But they once more threaten knowing indeed that they avail nothing, but doing after their manner. Such is the nature of wickedness: it attempts even impossibilities.—“ And after this man rose up Judas,” etc. These things Josephus relates in detail. (Ant. xx. 8; ib. v. 2; xviii. 1. B. J. ii. 8. 1.) But what a great thing it was that he ventured to affirm: that it was of God, when in the sequel it received its proof from the events! Great boldness of speech, great freedom from all respect of persons!326 And he does not say, “But if ye do not overthrow it, it is of God;” but, “If it be of God, it will not be overthrown.” “And to him they agreed.” (v. 40.) They reverenced the high character of the man. “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ.” (v. 41.) What miracles so wonderful as this? Nowhere is the like of this recorded of the old saints: for Jeremiah indeed was scourged for the word of God, and they threatened Elijah, and the rest: but in this case, even by this very thing, and not only by their miracles, these showed forth the power of God. He does not say, that they were not 325 E. F. D. and Edd. (except Savile) add, μᾶλλον δὲ μονονουχὶ τοιαῦτα δικαιολογούμενος τρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀποτείνεται. “Or rather he all but with just remonstrance thus expostulates with them: “Ye were persuaded,” etc. Below, ᾽Εκεῖ τετρακόσιοι, ἐκεῖ τετρακισχίλιοι· καὶ ὧδε κ. τ. λ. But the mention of the four thousand, here referred to the second instance (Judas of Galilee), is in fact derived from the case of the Egyptian, ch. xxi. 38, being the third instance which “he might have cited.” Accordingly the modern text substitutes, “There four hundred stood up, and after this a great multitude.” 326 E. and Edd. omit the following sentence, substituting the first two clauses of v. 40 and after “the character of the man,” add, “wherefore also they desist from their purpose of killing the Apostles, and having only scourged they dismiss them.” pained, but that though pained they rejoiced. How does this appear? From their boldness afterwards: they were so instant still, even after their beatings, in preaching the word. “But in the temple,” it says, “and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” (v. 42.) “And in those days”—when these things were done, when there were scourgings, when there were threatenings, when the disciples were multiplying—also, it says, “there arose a murmuring.” (ch. vi. 1.) And this comes of the multitude: for it is impossible to have strict order in a multitude. “There arose a murmuring,” etc. to,—“And327 a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.—There arose murmuring against the Hebrews”—for that description of people seemed to be more honorable—“because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.”328 (v. 1–7.) So then there was a daily ministration for the widows. And observe how he calls it a “ministration” (διακονία), and not directly alms: extolling by this at once the doers, and those to whom it was done. “Were neglected.” This did not arise from malice, but perhaps from the carelessness of the multitude. And therefore he brought it forward openly, for this was no small evil. Observe, how even in the beginning the evils came not only from without, but also from within. For you must not look to this only, that it was set to rights, but observe that it was a great evil that it existed.329 “Then the 327 Standing here by itself, this last clause of v, 7 is quite out of its place. It is best explained as marking the conclusion of the text v. 1–7 here again read out. In the old text it is followed by the comment, ᾽Εκεῖνο γὰρ τὸ γένος ἐδόκει τιμιώτερον εἶναι· as if “this description of people” meant the priests: and then, “And there arose,” it says, “a murmuring,” v. 1. We have restored the comment to its proper place.—The innovator adds as comment on v. 7: Τοῦτο αἰνιττομένου ἐστὶ καὶ δεικνύντος ὅτι ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὁ κατὰ Χριστοῦ θάνατος ἐσκευάσθη, πολλοὶ ἀπὸ τούτων πιστεύουσιν. “This is by way of hint, to show that of those very persons, by whose machinations the sentence of death against Christ was procured, of those same many believe. “There arose,” it says, “a murmuring,” etc. And so Edd. 328 The murmuring arose from the “Hellenists” who are not mentioned by Chrys. (probably because of a defect of the text). These Hellenists are distinguished from the “Hebrews” and were probably Greek-speaking Jews resident in Jerusalem who had become Christians and who are here distinguished by their language from the great mass of the Jewish Christians who spoke the vernacular.—G.B.S. 329 The neglect here referred to was doubtless, as Chrys. says, unintentional (vs. Meyer) and arose from the increasing difficulties of administering the affairs of so large a society as the Christian community at Jerusalem had now become, on the plan of a common treasury. The narrative gives the impression that the complaint was not unfounded. It is not unlikely that the natural jealousy between the Greek and Palestinian Jews may have sharpened the sense of neglect. This is the first record of dissension in the Christian Church. We may note thus early the conditions which tended to develop a Jewish and a Gentile party in the church; the germs of dissenting sects of Ebionites and Gnostics which developed into so many dangerous and harmful forms in the apostolic, and especially in the post-apostolic age.—G.B.S. twelve,” etc. (v. 2.) Do you observe330 how outward concerns succeed to inward? They do not act at their own discretion, but plead for themselves to the congregation. So ought it to be done now. “It is not reason,” says he, “that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” First he puts to them the unreasonableness of the thing; that it is not possible for both things to be done with the same attention: just as when they were about to ordain Matthias, they first show the necessity of the thing, that one was deficient, and there must needs be twelve. And so here they showed the necessity; and they did it not sooner, but waited till the murmuring arose; nor, on the other hand, did they suffer this to spread far. And, lo! they leave the decision to them: those who pleased all, those who of all were honestly reputed, them they present:331 not now twelve, but “seven, full of the Spirit and of wisdom: well reported of” for their conversation. (v. 3.) Now when Matthias was to be presented, it was said, “Therefore must one of these men which have companied with us all the time” (ch. i. 21): but not so here: for the case was not alike. And they do not now put it to the lot; they might indeed themselves have made the election, as moved by the Spirit: but nevertheless, they desire the testimony of the people. The fixing the number, and the ordaining them, and for this kind of business, rested with them: but the choice of the men they make over to the people, that they might not seem to act from favor: just as God also leaves it to Moses to choose as elders those whom he knew. (Num. xi. 16.) “And of wisdom.” For indeed there needs much wisdom in such ministrations. For think not, because he hath not the word committed unto him, that such an one has no need of wisdom: he does need it, and much too. “But we,” saith he, “will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” (v. 4.) Again they plead for themselves, beginning and ending with this. “Will give ourselves continually,” he saith. For so it behooved, not just to do the mere acts, or in any chance way, but to be continually doing them. “And the saying,” we are told, “pleased the whole multitude.” (v. 5, 6.) This too was worthy of their wisdom. All approved of what was said so sensible was it. “And they chose,” it says (again it is the people (αὐτοί) that choose,) “Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” They separated them from the multitude, and it is the people (αὐτοί) that draw them, not the Apostles that lead them. Observe how he avoids all that is superfluous: he does not tell in what way it was done, but that they were ordained (ἐχειροτονήθησαν) with prayer: for this is the meaning of χειροτονία, (i.e. “putting forth the hand,”) or ordination: the hand of the man is laid upon 330 ῾Θρᾷς τὰ ἔξω διαδεχόμενα τὰ ἔσω; E. omits this and so Edd. The antithesis here seems to be, not, as before, of evils from without and from within the Church; but of the concerns of the body and of the soul. 331 E. D. F. Morel. Ben. omit this sentence, and go on with, “Now when Matthias,” etc. Savile: “And a very good decision this is. And they present seven, not now twelve, full,” etc. (the person,) but the whole work is of God, and it is His hand which toucheth the head of the one ordained, if he be duly ordained. “And the word of God,” it says, “increased: and the number of the disciples multiplied.” (v. 7.) It is not for nothing that he says this: it shows how great is the virtue of alms and good order. And as he is about in the sequel to enlarge (αὔξειν) upon the affair of Stephen, he puts first the causes which led to it. “And many,” he says, “of the priests were obedient to the faith.” For332 since they perceived such to be the mind of their ruler and teacher, they put the matter to the test of facts.—It is also a subject for wonder, how it was that the multitude was not divided in its choice of the men, and how it was that the Apostles were not rejected by them. But what sort of rank these bore, and what sort of office they received, this is what we need to learn. Was it that of Deacons? And yet this is not the case in the Churches. But333 is it to the Presbyters that the management belongs? And yet at present there was no Bishop, but the Apostles only. Whence I think it clearly and manifestily follows, that neither Deacons nor Presbyters is their designation: 332 ᾽Επειδὴ γὰρ εἶδον τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ διδάσκαλον τοιαῦτα ἀποφηνάμενον, ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων λοῖπον τὴν πεῖραν ἐλάμβανον. Meaning, perhaps, that these priests, acting upon the counsel of Gamaliel, put the question to the test of facts and experience, and learned that it was of God.—In the next sentence, a covert censure seems to be implied: q.d. “Would it be so now? Would there not be parties and factions in the choosing of the men? Would not the Bishop’s overture be rejected, were he to propose a plan for ridding himself of the like distracting demands upon his time?” 333 ἀλλὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἐστὶν ἡ οἰκονομία, interrogatively (so in Conc. Quinisext. Can. xvi., see below), but in the Edd. this is put affirmatively; Ben. Sed presbyterorum erat oeconomia. Atqui nullus adhuc erat episcopus. Erasm. Sed presbyterorum est hæc dispensatio, tametsi nullus adhuc esset episcopus.” But to say that the οἰκονομία, i.e. stewardship and management of Church funds (in Chrysostom’s time), was vested in the presbyters, would be contrary to facts. Therefore we take it interrogatively: the answer not expressed, being, “No: it belongs to the Bishops.” Perhaps, however, the passage may be restored thus; ᾽Αλλὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων; ᾽Αλλὰ τῶν ἐπισκόπων (or Οὐδὲ τῶν πρεσβ.) ἐστὶν ἡ οἰκ. Καίτοι κ. τ. λ. “Well, was it that of presbyters? Nay, this stewardship belongs to Bishops. (Or, No, neither does it belong to presbyters.) And yet,” etc.—The following sentence, “῞Οθεν οὔτε διακόνων οὔτε πρεσβυτέρων οἶμαι (Cat. om.) τὸ ὄνομα εἶναι δῆλον καὶ φανερόν, as the text stands, might seem to mean, “Whence I think that neither of deacons nor of presbyters is the name clearly and manifestly expressed:” i.e. “there is no express and clear mention in this narrative either of deacons or of presbyters: and I account for this circumstance by the fact, that there were no Bishops.” Ben. Unde puto nec diaconorum nec presbyterorum tunc fuisse nomen admissum nec manifestum. But transposing οἶμαι and εἶναι, or indeed even as the words stand, we get the sense expressed in the translation, which is more suitable. So Erasmus: Unde neque diaconorum neque presbyterorum nomen esse opinor quod clarum ac manifestum. St. Chrys. says, “Their appellation and office is neither deacons nor presbyters: they were ordained upon a special emergency.”—It seems to have been commonly held in earlier times, that Acts vi. 1–6 is the history of the first institution of the Diaconate. Thus the Council of Nicocæsarea ordains (a.d. 314) that in each city, however large, the number of but it was for this particular purpose that they were ordained.334 And this business was not simply handed over to them without further ceremony, but the Apostles prayed over them, that power might be given to them. But observe, I pray you, if there were need of seven men for this, great in proportion must have been the sums of money that flowed in, great in proportion also the number of widows. So then the prayers were not made in an off-hand way, but with much deliberate attention: and this office,335 as well as preaching, was thus deacons according to the Canon ought to be seven, and for proof appeals to this history, πεισθήσῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς βίβλου τῶν πράξεων. In the third century, Cornelius Ep. ad Fab. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 43 states, that the clergy of Rome consisted of one Bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, etc. (Accordingly St. Jerome, Ep. 146 al. 101 ad Evang. remarks: Diaconos paucitas honorabiles facit. Comp. Sozomen. vii. 19.) But the rule which assigned to each Bishop seven deacons, neither more nor less, was not always followed in large cities, as appears even from the Canon above cited: how greatly that number was exceeded in later times, may be seen in the Novellæ of Justinian, when it is enacted (iii. c. 1.) that the number of deacons in the metropolitan Church at Constantinople should be a hundred. The Council or Councils commonly called the fifth and sixth General (Conc. Quinisextum, or Trullanum,) held under the same Emperor, a.d. 692, sanctioned this departure from the earlier rule, in the following Canon (xvi). “Whereas the Book of Acts relates that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles, and the Council of Neocæsarea in its Canons determines that “The number of deacons in each city,” etc. (as above): we, having applied the sense of the Fathers to the Apostolic text, find that the said history relates not to the deacons who minister in the mysteries, but to the service of tables, etc.: the history in the Acts being as follows, “And in those days,” etc. (Acts vi. 1–6.) The doctor of the Church, John Chrysostom, expounding the same, thus speaks: “It is a subject for wonder.neither deacons nor presbyters is their designation,” (as above.) Hereupon therefore do we also publish, that the aforesaid seven deacons be not taken to mean those which minister in the mysteries, as in the doctrine above rehearsed: but that these are they which were charged with the service of the common need of the people then gathered together; albeit herein these be unto us a pattern of humane and diligent attendance on them that be in necessity. 334 There is no sufficient ground to doubt that this narrative describes the formation of the diaconate which we find existing later in the apostolic age (Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 8–12). Although the word διάκονος does not here occur, we have the corresponding verb διακονεῖν and abstract noun διακονία (1, 2). The chief grounds of this opinion are: (1) the substantial identity of the duties here described and those of the later diaconate; (2) the almost universal testimony of patristic tradition to their identity: (3) the continuance for centuries of the number seven in the diaconate of churches (like that at Rome) where more than seven would naturally be required, out of deference to the apostolic mode. See Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, pp. 187–9.—G.B.S. 335 καὶ τοῦτο, ὥσπερ τὸ κήρυγμα, οὕτως ἠνύετο·—τοῦτο, the “serving of tables” itself: οὕτως, by this arrangement. Τὰ γὰρ πλείω ταύταις ἤνυον· the more time the Apostles had for prayer, the better for the Church: so much depended on their prayers. Therefore the plan was every way beneficial: οὕτω τὰ πνευματικὰ ἐπελέγοντο, (Erasm. adnumerabantur, Ben. præferebantur, but the meaning is, “they chose to themselves,”) οὕτω καὶ ἀποδημίας ἐστέλλοντο, οὕτως ἐνεχειρίσθησαν οὗτοι τὸν λόγον: “by this arrangement, the Apostles were free to give their undivided attention to spiritual matters; to leave Jerusalem, if need were, on journeys to distant brought to good effect; for what they did, they effected mostly by the means of these (their prayers.) Thus they were enabled to give their attention to things spiritual; thus were these also free to undertake long journeys; thus were these put in trust with the word. But the writer does not say this, nor extol them, but that it was “not reason” that they should leave the work given to them. Thus they had been taught by Moses’s example not to undertake the management of everything by themselves. (Num. xi. 14.) “Only,” it is said, “that we should remember the poor.” (Gal. ii. 10.) And336 how did they bring these forward? They fasted. “Look you out seven men,” etc. (v. 3.) It is not simply, spiritual men, but, “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” for it needed very great superiority of mind (φιλοσοφίας) to bear the complainings of widows. For what profits it, that the dispenser of alms steal not, if nevertheless he waste all, or be harsh and easily provoked? “And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” (v. 5.) And in this regard Philip also was admirable: for it is of him that the writer says: “And we entered into the house of Philip the Evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.”—(ch. xxi. 8.) Dost thou mark how matters are ordered quite otherwise than after the matter of men? “And the number of disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem.” (v. 7.) In Jerusalem the multitude increased. Wonderful, where Christ was slain, there the preaching increased! And not only was it not the case that some were offended then in the manner of Ananias, but the awe became even greater: while these are scourged, those threatening, those tempting the Spirit, those murmuring. But I would have thee remark under what circumstances the multitude increased: after these trials, then it was that the multitude increased, and not before. Mark also how great the mercy of God. Of those chief-priests, of the very men who had indignation and sore displeasure and so places: by this arrangement, in short, the Word was their proper charge—not secular matters, such as Bishops are now burdened with, in addition to their proper duties,” Comp. note 1, p. 90. He adds: The writer, indeed, does not say all this, nor extol the devotion with which the Apostles gave themselves up to their work, and how beneficial the arrangement proved: but it is said, “It is not reason,” etc. Moses had set the example in this regard: and in token of their concern for the poor, observe the charge which they afterwards gave to Paul and Barnabas, to “remember the poor.” 336 Πῶς δὲ προῆγον τούτους; ᾽Ενήστευον. Edd. from E., “But how they also brought these forward, learn thou. They fasted, they continued in prayer. This ought also to be done now.”—As there is no mention of fasting in Acts vi. 1–6 perhaps this refers to the history xiii. 2, 3 of the mission of Paul and Barnabas, to which he has just alluded.—Below, καὶ ταύτῃ δὲ θαυμαστὸς ἦν ἁ Φ. The clause to which this refers is misplaced in the old text, viz. before the sentence, “In Jerusalem,” etc. where E. and Edd. restore the proper clause of v. 7 καὶ ἐπληθύνετο, κ. τ. λ. The connection is: “The Apostles desired seven men full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom:” and such was Stephen, “a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost:” such doubtless were the others likewise; (supra, p. 88) certainly Philip was eminent in this regard, for [besides the history of his preaching at Samaria, ch. viii.] he is afterwards conspicuous in the history as Philip the Evangelist. cried out and said, “He saved others, Himself He cannot save;” of these same, “Many,” it says, “were obedient unto the faith.” (Matt. xxvii. 42.)

Him therefore let us also imitate. He received them, and did not cast them out. So let us requite those our enemies, who have wrought us even numberless ills. Whatever good thing we may have, let us impart to them: let us not pass them by, in our acts of beneficence. For if we ought, by suffering ill, to sate their rage, much more, by doing them good: for this is a less thing than the other. For it is not all alike, to do good to an enemy, and to be willing to suffer greater wrongs than he wishes (to inflict):337 from the one we shall come on to the other. This is the dignity of Christ’s disciples. Those crucified Him, when He had come for the very purpose of doing them good; His disciples they scourged; and after all this, He admits them to the same honor with His disciples, making them equally partakers of His gifts. I beseech you, let us be imitators of Christ: in this regard it is possible to imitate Him: this makes a man like unto God: this is more than human. Let us hold fast to Mercy: she is the schoolmistress and teacher of that higher Wisdom. He that has learnt to show mercy to the distressed, will learn also not to resent injuries; he that has learnt this, will be able to do good even to his enemies. Let us learn to feel for the ills our neighbors suffer, and we shall learn to endure the ills they inflict. Let us ask the person himself who ill-treats us, whether he does not condemn himself? would he not be glad to show a nobler spirit (φιλοσοφεἵν)? must he not own that his behavior is nothing but passion, that it is little-minded, pitiful? would he not like to be of those who are wronged and are silent, and not of those who do wrong, and are beside themselves with passion? can he go away not admiring the patient sufferer? Do not imagine that this makes men despicable. Nothing makes men so despicable, as insolent and injurious behavior: nothing makes men so respectable, as endurance under insolence and injury. For the one is a ruffian, the other a philosopher; the one is less than man, the other is equal to angels. For though he be inferior to the wrong-doer, yet, for all that, he has the power, if he had the mind, to be revenged. And besides, the one is pitied by all, the other hated. What then? The former will be much the better of the two: for everybody will treat the one as a madman, the other as a man of sense. He338 cannot speak of him in 337 καὶ μείζονα θελῆσαι παθεῖν ἢ βούλεσθαι: so all our mss. Erasm. “Et majora voluisse pati, vel velle.” Ben. Et majora velle pati.” But the meaning is, “To be ready to suffer greater wrongs than an enemy chooses to inflict:” alluding to Matt. v. 39–41. Comp. Hom. xviii. in Matt. p. 238. D. τὸ καὶ παρασχεῖν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ παθεῖν κακῶς·…τὸ καὶ πλἐον παρασχεῖν ἢ ἐκεῖνος βούλεται ὁ ποιήσας. If for βούλεσθαι we read βούλεται, the sense is clearer: ἢ βούλεσθαι, “than that he should wish it,” is somewhat abrupt. 338 Οὐ δύναται εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν κακῶς· καὶ δέδοικας μήπως ουκ ἦν, φησὶν, τοιοῦτος. Here and in the following sentences we seem to have a string of apothegms from heathen moralists: τὰ ἔξωθεν εἰρημένα, as he says below. But in this sentence the text appears to be corrupt, and the mss. lend no real assistance for the reading adopted by Edd. from E. F. D. is only meant for restoration: viz. “Therefore, when any would compel thee to speak evil of some person (κακηγορῆσαί τινα, Sav. marg. ἀπεχθῶς πρός τινα ἔχειν) say to him, ‘I cannot speak evil of him: evil sort: yea, thou fearest, says one, lest perchance he be not such (as thou wouldest represent). Best that thou speak not evil in thy thought even; next, that thou speak it not to another. Pray not then to God against this man: if thou hear him evil-spoken of, take his part: say, It was passion that spoke such words, not the man; say, It was anger, not my friend: his madness, not his heart. Thus let us account of each offence. Wait not for the fire to be kindled, but check it before it comes to that: do not exasperate the savage beast, rather do not suffer it to become exasperated: for thou wilt no longer be able to check it, if once the flame be kindled. For what has the man called thee? “Thou fool and simpleton.” And which then is liable to the name? the called, or the caller? For the one, be he ever so wise, gets the character of being a fool: but the other, even if he be a simpleton, gets credit for being wise, and of philosophic temper. Say, which is the simpleton? he who alleges against another what is untrue, or he who even under such treatment is unmoved? For if it be the mark of true philosophy to be unmoved however moved; to fall into a passion when none moves to anger— what folly is it! I say not yet, how sore a manner of punishment is in store for those who utter such reproaches and revilings against their neighbor. But how? has he called thee “a low fellow and low-born, a sorry creature and of sorry extraction?” Again he has turned the taunt against himself. For the other will appear worthy and respectable, but he a sorry creature indeed: for to cast up such things, that is to say, meanness of birth, as a disgrace, is little-minded indeed: while the other will be thought a great and admirable character, because he thinks nothing of such a taunt, and is no more affected by it than if he were told339 that he had about him any other ordinary and quite indifferent circumstance. But does he call thee “adulterer,” and such like? At this thou mayest even laugh: for, when the conscience is not smitten, there can be no occasion for wrath. For when one has considered what bad and disgraceful disclosures he makes, still for all that, there is no need to grieve. He has but laid bare now, what everybody must be apprised of by and bye: meanwhile, as regards himself he has shown all men that he is not to be trusted, for that he knows not how to screen his neighbor’s faults: he has disgraced himself more than he has the other; has stopped up against himself every harbor: has made terrible to himself the bar at which he for I fear lest perchance he were not (ἦν, Sav. εἴη) such.’”—A. as usual in cases of difficulty, omits the passage as unintelligible. Whether φησὶν denotes a citation or an interlocution, and whether ἦν is the first or the third person, must be left doubtful; but the words might be rendered, “Lest perchance I, says he, (i.e. the person attacked), be not such.” Below, μὴ ἐντύχῃς κατὰ τούτου τῷ Θεῷ is strangely rendered by Erasm. Ne in hoc cum Deo pugnes: “Lest herein thou fight against God.” 339 ὅτι ἔχοι τι τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἀδιαφὸρων. E. D. F. Edd. διαφέρον “something about him, better than other men.” Below, for ἐννοήσαντα γὰρ “for when one has considered,” Edd. have ἐννοήσαντας δὲ καὶ, “but when you consider also:” i.e. “but if the case be not so,” etc. In fact something is wanting: for the case here supposed is that the charge is true: the person has been guilty of some immorality, which the other publicly exposes. must hereafter be tried. For not the person (whose secrets are betrayed) will be the object of everybody’s aversion, but he, who where he ought not to have raised the veil, has stripped off the clothes. But speak thou nothing of the secrets thou knowest: hold thou thy peace if thou wouldest bear off the good fame. For not only wilt thou overthrow what has been spoken, and hide it: but thou wilt also bring about another capital result: thou wilt stop sentence being given against thyself. Does somebody speak evil of thee? Say thou: “Had he known all, he would not have spoken only thus much.”—So you admire what has been said, and are delighted with it? Aye, but you must follow it. For when we tell you all340 these maxims of the heathen moralists, it is not because Scripture does not contain hundreds of such sayings, but because these are of more force to put you to the blush. As in fact Scripture itself is wont to use this appeal to our sense of shame; for, instance, when it says, “Do ye even as the heathen.” (Jer. xxxv. 3.) And the prophet Jeremiah brought forward into public view the children of Rechab, how they would not consent to violate the command of their father.—Miriam and her company spake evil of Moses, and he immediately begged them off from their punishment; nay, would not so much as let it be known that his cause was avenged. (Num. ch. xii.) But not so we: on the contrary, this is what we most desire; to have all men know that they have not passed unpunished. How long shall we breathe of the earth?—One party cannot make a fight. Pluck the madmen from both sides, you will exasperate them the more: but pluck from right or from left, and you have quenched the passion. The striker, if he has to do with one who will not put up with blows, is the more set on: but if with one who yields, he is the sooner unnerved, and his blow is spent upon himself. For no practised pugilist so unnerves the strength of his antagonist, as does a man who being injuriously treated makes no return. For the other only goes off ashamed, and condemned, first by his own conscience, and secondly by all the lookers on. And there is a proverb too, which says, that “to honor another, is to honor one’s self”: therefore also to abuse another is to abuse one’s self. None, I repeat, will be able to harm us, unless we harm ourselves; nor will any make me poor, unless I make myself such. For come, let us look at it in this way. Suppose that I have a beggarly soul, and let all lavish all their substance upon me, what of that? So long as the soul is not changed, it is all in vain. Suppose I have a noble soul, and let all men take from me my substance: what of that? So long as you do not make the soul beggarly, no harm is done. Suppose my life be impure, and let all men say just the contrary of me: what of that? For though they say it, yet they do not judge thus of me in their heart. Again, suppose my life be pure, and let all say of me just the reverse: and what of that? For in their own conscience they will condemn themselves: since they are not persuaded of what 340 τὰ λεγόμενα συνάγομεν, B. C. N. omiting ἔξωθεν, which Sav. supplies. A. E. D. F. Ben. τὰ ἔξωθεν εἰρημένα λέγομεν.—Below, for καθὼς τὰ ἔθνη (φησὶν) ποίησατε, which is not found in Scripture, E. Edd. have, Οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; Matt. v. 47. they say. Just as we ought not to admit the praise, so neither the criminations. And why say I these things? None will ever be able to plot against us, nor lay us under any evil charge, if we choose (that they shall not). For how now, I ask you? Let him drag me into a court of justice, let him lay vexatious informations, let him, if you will, have the very soul out of me: and what of that? for a little while, undeservedly to suffer these things, what does it signify? “Well,341 but this,” say you, “is of itself an evil.” Well, but of itself this is a good, to suffer undeservedly. What? would you have the suffering to be deserved? Let me mention again a piece of philosophy, from one of the sages. A certain person, says the story, had been put to death. And one of the sage’s disciples said to him, “Woe is me, that he should have suffered unjustly!” The other turned upon him, “Why, how now?” said he, “would you have had him justly suffer?” (Socrates ap. Diog. Laert. and Xen. Mem. Socr.) John also, was not he unjustly put to death? Which then do you rather pity: them that justly suffer death, or [him?342 Do you not count them miserable, while] him you even admire? Then what is a man injured, when from death itself he has got great gain, not merely no hurt? If indeed the man had been immortal, and this made him mortal, no doubt it would be a hurt: but if he be mortal, and in the course of nature must expect death a little later, and his enemy has but expedited his death, and glory with it, what is the harm? Let us but have our soul in good order, and there will be no harm from without. But thou art not in a condition of glory? And what of that? That which is true of wealth, the same holds for glory: if I be magnanimous (μεγαλοπρεπής), I shall need none; if vainglorious, the more I get, the more I shall want. In this way shall I most become illustrious, and obtain greater glory; namely, if I despise glory. Knowing these things, let us be thankful to Him Who hath freely given us such a life, and let us ensue it unto His glory; for to Him belongs the glory, forever. Amen.

Acts VI. 8

“And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.”

See how even among the seven one was preëminent, and won the first prize. For though the ordination was common to him and them, yet he drew upon himself greater grace. And observe, how he wrought no (signs and wonders) before this time, but only when he became publicly known; to show that grace alone is not sufficient, but there must be ordination also; so that there was a further access of the Spirit. For if they were full of the Spirit, it was of that which is from the Laver of Baptism. “Then there arose certain of them of the synagogue.” (v. 9.) Again he uses the phrase of “rising up” (ἀνάστασιν, Hom. xiii. p. 81), to denote their exasperation and wrath. Here we have a great multitude. And observe the difference in the form of accusation: for since Gamaliel had stopped them from finding fault on the former plea, they bring in another charge. “And there rose up, it says, certain of them of the synagogue of those who are called (τὥν λεγομένων. Edd. τἥς λεγομένης) Libertines, and of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” (v. 9–12.) That they may establish the charge, the phrase is, “he speaks against God, and against Moses.” And with this object too they disputed, that they might force him to say somewhat. But he now discoursed more openly, and perhaps spoke of the cessation of the Divine Law: or, spoke it not, but hinted as much: since had he spoken plainly, there had been no need of suborned men, nor yet of false witnesses.343 The synagogues were diverse: to wit, “Of the Libertines”: “of the Cyrenians, i.e. those in the parts beyond Alexandria “of the Alexandrians,” etc.. There also they seem to have had synagogues according 343 The accusations against Stephen were probably true in part and false in part. He had doubtless spoken against Jewish legalism and narrowness and had perhaps shown the bearing of O.T. prophecy and of Jesus’ doctrine of fulfilment upon the fate of the Jewish system. The charge that he had spoken “against Moses” had, then, a certain verbal truth which made its moral falseness all the more subtle. The perversion of his words was due in part to their utter incapacity to apprehend Christianity as the fulfilment of their own religion which necessarily involved the passing away of the latter, and partly from their bitter jealousy and hatred of the Christian “sect” and the determination to find some excuse to bring against it all the legal and social forces of the whole Jewish people. In his preaching Stephen had doubtless sought to set forth the distinctive character of Christianity as a religion historically founded in Judaism, but not to be limited and bound by its forms. He but developed germs of truth found in the teaching of Jesus concerning the Sabbath, ceremonial purifications, etc. He was the forerunner of Paul, who brought upon himself the same accusations (Acts xviii. 13; xxi. 21).—G.B.S. to their different nations; for many stayed behind there, that they might not be obliged to be continually travelling. The Libertines perhaps were freedmen of the Romans. As there were many foreigners dwelling there, so they had their synagogues, where the Law was to be read. “Disputing with Stephen.” Observe him, not taking upon him to teach, but forced to do so. The miracles once more brought him into ill-will; but when he overcame in argu- ment, it was false-witness! For they did not wish to kill intolerable to them. “They could not resist, etc.: then they suborned men.” Everywhere out of hand, but by means of a sentence, that they might hurt their reputation also: and leaving those (the Apostles), they attack these (the disciples), thinking in this way to terrify those also. They say not, “he speaketh,” but, “he ceaseth not to speak. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law.” (v. 12, 13.) “Ceaseth not,” say they, as if he made this his business. “For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” (v. 14.) “Jesus,” they say, “the Nazarene,” as a term of reproach, “shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs.” This is also what they said about Christ. “Thou that destroyest this Temple.” (Matt. xxvii. 40.) For great was their veneration for the Temple (as indeed they had chosen to leave their own country (μετοικεἴν) in order to be near it) and for the name of Moses. The charge is twofold. If344 He “shall change the customs,” He will also introduce others instead: observe how the charge is a bitter one, and fraught with perils. “And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” (v. 15.) So possible is it even for one in a lower degree to shine. For what, I ask, had this man less than the Apostles? He lacked not miracles, and great was the boldness he exhibited.345—“They saw His face,” it is said, “as it had been the face of an angel.” (Ex. xxxiv. 30.) For this was his grace, this was the glory of Moses. God made him thus gracious (ἐπίχαριν) of visage, now that he was about to say somewhat, thus at once by his very look to awe them. For there are, yes, there are faces full-fraught with spiritual grace, lovely to them that love, awful to haters and enemies. It mentions also the reason, why they suffered his oration.—“Then,” it proceeds, “said the high-priest, Are these things so?” (ch. vii. 1.) Observe, the question is put with mildness, that he may effect some great mischief. For this reason Stephen too begins his speech in a tone of gentleness, and 344 E. “And observe how the charge is twofold. ‘Shall destroy,’ say they, ‘the place,’ and, ‘shall change the customs.’ And not only twofold, but bitter,” etc. So Edd. but Savil. adds, “and shall introduce others instead.” 345 A. B. C. N. Οὐχὶ σημεὶων ἐδεήθη, καὶ (A. B. οὐ) πολλὴν ἐπεδείξατο την παρρησίαν. Cat. has πολλῶν for σημείων, and reads it affirmatively. Edd. οὐχὶ σημεῖα ειργάσατο; οὐ (D.F. καὶ) πολλὴν κ. τ. λ. Perhaps the passage may be restored thus: “Did he not work miracles—though he needed not many—and show great boldness?” says, “Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.” (v. 2.) Immediately at the outset he overthrows their conceit, and makes it appear by what he says, that the temple is nothing, that the customs are nothing either, without their suspecting his drift: also that they shall not overcome the preaching; and that from powerless (ἀμηχάνων) things God evermore contrives Him powerful (εὐμήχανα) instruments. Mark then how these threads make the texture of the whole speech: and moreover that having evermore enjoyed exceeding goodness, they still requited their Benefactor with the opposite conduct, and that they are now attempting impossibilities. “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he came into Charran.” Both the temple was not, and sacrifice was not, and yet a vision of God was vouchsafed to Abraham, and yet had he Persians346 for his ancestors, and was in a strange land. And he does well at the beginning of his speech to call Him, “the God of glory:” seeing that He hath made them that are without honor to be glorious. “Because” (says he) “it was He that made them glorious, He will make us also.” Observe how he leads them away from things of the body, from the place, in the first instance, as the place was in question. “The God of glory,” says he: implying again, that He needs not the glory which comes from us, which comes by the Temple: for Himself is the Fountain thereof. Think not, he would say, in this way to glorify Him. “And from thy kindred.” How347 then saith the Scripture, that Abraham’s father was willing to go out? Hence we learn, that it was in consequence of Abraham’s vision, that his father was moved to join in the migration. (Gen. xi. 31.) “And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I shall show thee.” (v. 3.) It shows how far these men are from being children of Abraham, how obedient he was. “And348 from thy kindred.” Uncomfortable (φορτικὰ) reflections, both, that he endured the labors, while ye reap the fruits, and that all your ancestors were in evil case. “Then came he out of the land of the Chaldæans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And He gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (v. 4, 5.) See how he raises their thoughts away from (their possession of) the land.349 For if He said (that, He will give: clearly all came from him, and nothing from 346 Chrys. commonly denotes the oriental nations, generally, by the name “Persians.” Ben. 347 Edd. from E. “And how, it may be asked, doth the Scripture say this concerning Abraham’s father? Because it does not trouble itself about matters that are not very essential. What was useful for us to learn, this only it has taught us, that in consequence of his son’s vision, he went out with him: the rest it leaves untold, by reason that he died soon after settling in Charran. ‘Get thee out of thy kindred.’ Here he shows that these men,” etc. 348 E. Edd. “but these disobedient: or rather, we learn from what he does, as he was bidden, that he endured,” etc. 349 A. C. N. Εἰ γὰρ εἶπεν, δώσει, δῆλον ὅτι, καὶ οὐδὲν παῤ αὐτῶν Cat. Οὐ γὰρ κ. τ. λ. Β. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, δώσει, ἀλλ᾽, Οὐκ ἔδωκε, δῆλον ὅτι τὰ παῤ ἐκείνου, καὶ οὐδὲν παῤ αὐτῶν. So E. D. F. Edd. except that for δῆλον ὅτι themselves. For he came, having left both kindred and country. Wherefore then did He not give it to him? Truly it was a figure of another land. “And He promised to give it to him.” Do you perceive, that he does not merely resume the thread of his discourse? “He gave him not,” says he; “and He promised; and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” Again, what God can do: that out of impossibilities, He doeth all. For here is a man in Persia, so far away, and this man God saith He will make lord of Palestine. But let us look back to what was said before.

Whence, I pray you, did that grace bloom upon the countenance of Stephen? (Recapitulation.) The writer gives him this report above, that he was “full of faith.” (ch. vi. 8). For it is possible to have a grace that does not consist in works of healing: “For to one is given the grace of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 8, 9) in such and such wise (τοιὣσδε). But here, it seems to me, it says that he was also gracious to look at: “They saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” “Full of faith and of power”: (v. 15) which is also the character given of Barnabas “he was a good man, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” (ch. xi. 24.) Whence we learn that the sincere and innocent are, above all others, the350 men to be saved, and that these same are also more gracious. “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words.” (v. 11.) In the case of the Apostles they were annoyed that they preached the Resurrection, and that much people flowed unto them: but in this case, that they were getting their diseases healed. (ch. iv. 2.) The things for which they ought to give thanks, they made matter of blame: O the madness! The men who overcame them by works, they expected to overcome by words! It is just what they did in the case of Christ, and always they forced them to words. For they were ashamed to seize them without more ado, having nothing to charge them with. And observe, not the persons themselves who bring them to judgment bear witness against them; for they would have been refuted: but they simply hire others, that it may not seem to be an act of mere violence. It is all of a piece with their proceeding in the case of Christ. And observe the power of the preaching, that, though they are not only scourged but stoned, it still prevails: not351 only, private individuals as they are, dragged to τὰ these have δηλῶν ὅτι πάντα. The meaning seems to be: “They boasted of their possession of the land, as the token of God’s favor to themselves. See how Stephen will not allow them to rest in this conceit. Abraham was ‘the friend of God,’ yet to him ‘He gave none inheritance,’ etc. True ‘He promised to give it’: but if God said (that) He will give it (spoke of giving it at some future time); this very circumstance shows that the Jews had it from Abraham, in consequence of God’s favor to him; not as deserved by themselves.” 350 τοὺς σωζομένους. Edd. from E. τοὺς θαυμαζομένους, “they that are admired.”—Below, all our mss. and the Catena have ᾽Επὶ μὲν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔλεγον, “In the case of the Apostles, they said.” We read, conjecturally, ἤλγουν. 351 C. N. have οὐχὶ ἰδιωτῶν ὄντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλαυνομένων πάντοθεν: B. F. D. E. Edd. οὐδὲ ἐς δικαστήριον ἀγομένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλ. π. In the translation we assume the full reading to be, οὐχὶ, ἰδιωτῶν ὄντων, ἐς δ. ἀγομένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐ. π. In the next sentence E. alone (followed by Edd.) has the unnecessary alteration, the bar, but assailed from all quarters: and, their enemies themselves being witnesses, not only were these worsted, but “they were not able” even “to resist” (v. 10), though they were exceeding shameless: so mightily did it overthrow them, for all that they could do with their preposterous figments (as the saying that He had a devil—He that cast out devils!). For the battle was not man’s, but God’s against men. And there were many combined together; not only they in Jerusalem, but others as well. (v. 9.) For “we have heard him,” say they, “speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” (v. 11.) O ye shameless ones! Ye work blasphemous deeds, and think nothing of it. This is why Moses is added—because the things of God were no great concern to them: and it is ever and always Moses that they make mention of: “This Moses, which brought us out.” (ch. vii. 40.) “And they stirred up the people.” (v. 12.) Fickleness352 of the multitude! And yet how could a man who was a blasphemer have so succeeded? How could a blasphemer work such miracles among the people? But the undisciplined multitude made them strong who had the worst of it (in argument).— This was what most annoyed them. “We have heard him,” they say, “speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God” (v. 13): and again, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law,” and with an addition, “the customs” “which Moses delivered to us” (v. 14); Moses, not God. Upon the supposition of a design to overturn their manner of life (πολιτείας), they accused him of impiety also. But to show that it was not in the nature of such a man to speak such things, and harshly “Then all,” it says, “which were in the council, looking steadfastly upon him, saw his face, as it had been the face of an angel” (v. 15): so mild was he even in countenance. For, in cases where persons were not falsely accused, Scripture mentions nothing of this kind: but as in this case it was all false accusation, with reason does God rectify it by the very look of the man. For the Apostles indeed were not falsely accused, but were forbidden: but this man is falsely accused: and therefore before all else his countenance pleads for him. This abashed ᾽Εντεῦθεν καὶ ψευδομαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν, οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἐκράτουν, ἀλλ᾽ κ. τ. λ. Α. οὐχὶ ἰδ. ὄντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ῥητόρων, οὐ μόνον [οὐχ?] ἡττῶντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ [κατὰ?] κράτος ἐνίκων, καίτοι κ. τ. λ. i. e. [“their adversaries”] being not private individuals, but public speakers too, they not only were [not] worsted, but mightily conquered: [so that ‘they were not able to resist’] though,” etc.—Below, for πλάττοντας: A. E. πράττοντας C. we read πράττοντας καὶ πλάττοντας: after which, Edd. have (from E. alone): “As also in the case of Christ: who did everything to compass His death: insomuch that it became manifest to all men that the battle,” etc. And, instead of the next sentence; “And mark what say the false-witnesses, who were got up by those who murderously dragged Him before the council: ‘We have heard,’” etc. 352 τὸ εὐρίπιστον τοῦ ὄχλου. Edd. add ἀνερεθίζοντες, “irritating the fickle-minded multitude.” Below, for ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἄτακτος κ. τ. λ., Α. has ᾽Αλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ ὄχλος ταῦτα ἀλλ᾽ οἱ γραμματεῖς. ῾Ημεῖς ἀκ. κ. τ. λ. “But not the multitude (said) this, but the scribes: We have heard,” etc. Edd. from E., “But such is envy: it makes them demented whom it possesses, so that they do not so much as consider the meaning of the words they utter.” even the priest. “And he said,” etc. (ch. vii. 1.) He shows here, that the promise was made before the Place, before Circumcision, before Sacrifice, before the Temple, and that it was not of their merit that these received either Circumcision or Law, but that the land was the reward of obedience alone. Moreover, that neither on the giving of circumcision does the promise receive its fulfillment. Also, that these were figures, and (so was) both the leaving his country at God’s command—not353 against the law (for home and country is where God shall lead): “Then came he out,” it says, “of the land of the Chaldeans” (v. 4):—and that if one look closely into the matter, the Jews are of Persian origin: and that, without miracles, one must do as God bids, whatever hardships be the consequence; since the Patriarch left both the grave of his father and all that he had, in obedience to God’s command. But if Abraham’s father was not allowed to take part with him in the privilege of migrating to Palestine, because he was unworthy: much more shall the children (be excluded at last), for all that they may have gone a good distance on the way. “And He promised,” it says, “to give it to him, and to his seed after him.” (v. 5.) Herein is shown the greatness both of God’s goodness and of Abraham’s faith. For the expression, “when as yet he had no child,” does show his obedience and faith. “Promised to give it to him and to his seed.” And yet the events showed the contrary: namely, after he came, he had not “so much as to set his foot on,” had not a child; which very things were contrary to his faith.

These things having seen, let us likewise, whatever God shall promise, receive the same, however contrary may be the events. And yet in our case, they are not contrary, but very suitable. For where the promises are, there, when the contraries turn out, they are really contrary; but in our case it is just the reverse: for He has told us that we should have tribulation here, but our rest there. Why do we confound the times? Why do we turn things upside down? Say, art thou afflicted, and livest in poverty, and in dejection? Be not troubled: for it were worth being troubled at, wert thou destined to be afflicted in that world: as for this present affliction, it is the cause of rest. “This sickness,” saith He, “is not unto death.” (John xi. 4.) That affliction is punishment: this, schooling and correction. It is a contest, this life present: if so, to fight is our business now: it is war and battle. In war one does not seek to have rest, in war one does not seek to have dainty living, one is not anxious about riches, one’s care is not about a wife then: one thing only he looks at, how he may overcome his foes. Be this our care likewise: if we overcome, and return with the victory, God will give us all things. Be this alone our study, how we may overcome the devil: though after all it is not our own study that does it, but God’s grace does the whole business. Be it our one study, how we may attract His grace, how we may draw to ourselves that assistance. “If God be for 353 οὐ παρὰ τὸν νὁμον. For this, E. alone has καὶ συγγένειαν, and instead of the text, “Then came he out,” etc. καὶ τὸ κληρονομίαν ἐνταῦθα μὴ λαβεῖν: so Morel. Ben. Savile retains the reading of E., but adds οὐ παρὰ τὸν νόμον after συγγένειαν. us, who can be against us?” (Rom. viii. 31.) Let us make one thing our study; that He be not our enemy, that He turn not away from us.

Not the being afflicted is an evil; the evil is, to sin. This is the sore affliction, however we may pass our days in luxury:—not to speak of the life to come, it is so even in this life present. Think how our conscience is stung with remorse, and whether this is not worse than any kind of torture! I should like to put the question searchingly to those who live in evil ways (ἐν κακοἵς), whether they never come to reflect upon their own sins, whether they do not tremble, and are in fear and anguish, whether they do not think those blessed who live in abstinence, them of the mountains, them of the strict rule? (τοὺς ἐν πολλῇ φιλοσοφίU+0026 139·.) Dost thou wish to find rest in the life to come? Suffer affliction in this life for Christ’s sake: there is nothing equal to this rest. The Apostles rejoiced when scourged. Paul gives this exhortation, saying, “Rejoice in the Lord.” (Philip. iv. 4.) And how can there be rejoicing, where there are bonds, where there are tortures; where there are courts of justice? There, most of all, is rejoicing. But354 say, how can there be rejoicing, where these are not? For he who is conscious of no evil, will have a sort of exceeding delight, insomuch that in what degree you speak of tribulation, in the same you tell of his delight. The soldier who has received numberless wounds and is come home again, will he not return with exceeding delight, with his wounds355 as his title for speaking up boldly, and as evidence of his glory and renown? And thou, if thou be able to exclaim as Paul does, “I bear the marks of Jesus” (Gal. vi. 17), wilt be able to become great and glorious and renowned. “But there is no persecution.” Make thy stand against glory: and should any one speak anything against thee, fear not to be evil-spoken of for Christ’s sake: make thy stand against the tyranny of pride, against the fighting of anger, against the torment of concupiscence. These also are “marks,”356 these also are torments. For, I ask, what is the worst in tortures? Is it not, that the soul is pained, and is on fire? For in the other case, the body too has its share: but in this, the whole belongs to the soul. On the soul alone comes all the smart, when one is angry, when one is envious, whatever else of this kind one does, or rather suffers. For, in fact, it is not action, but passion, not a doing, but a suffering—to be angered, to feel envy: therefore indeed they are called passions (or sufferings) (πάθη, perturbationes) of the soul, yea wounds, and bruises. For it is indeed a suffering, and worse than suffering. Bethink you, ye that are angry, that ye do such things in “passion,” in a state of suffering. Therefore he who is not angry suffers not. Do you mark that not he who is abused is the sufferer, but he that abuses, as I said above? 354 E. F. D. Edd. “And how there may be rejoicing where these are, learn (thus). He who in nothing is conscious of evil,” etc. 355 παρρησίας ὑπόθεσιν ἔχων τὰ τραύματα. Ben “argumentum audaciæ.” Erasm. “testimonium libertatis.” 356 στίγμάτα, i.e. “the marks of Jesus may be gained in these encounters also, and the spirit of a confessor may be exhibited under these tortures likewise.” For that he is a sufferer, is plain in the first place from the very fact, that such a thing is called by this name of passion: and it is also plain from the (effects on the) body: for these are the affections (πάθη) for “sufferings,” as we call them engendered by anger, viz. dimness of vision, insanity, and numberless others. “But he insulted my boy,” say you; “but [he called him] clown.”357 Deem it not weakness thy not doing the same thing thyself. For, I ask you, was it well done? You will not say that: then leave that undone which being done were not well done. I know what passions are engendered in such cases. “But,” say you, “how if he despise me, how if he say it again?” Show him that he is in the wrong: rebuke him, entreat him: by meekness anger is put down: go and expostulate with him. For though in cases of wrong done to ourselves it is right not to do even this, yet it is quite necessary to do it in behalf of others. Do not look on it as an insult to yourself that your boy has been insulted: annoyed you may be for his sake, yet not as if you were insulted: for it does not follow because your boy has been ill-treated, that you are disgraced, but he is disgraced that did the ill. Quench (thine anger) that sharp sword: let it lie in its scabbard. If we have it unsheathed, we shall be apt to use it even when the time is not proper, being drawn on by it: but if it be hidden, though a necessity should arise, yet, while we seek it in order358 to draw it, the anger will be quenched. Christ would not have us be angry on his account: (hear what He saith to Peter: “Put up again thy sword into the sheath:”) (Matt. xxvi. 52) and art thou angry on account of a boy? Teach thy boy also to be philosophical: tell him thy own sufferings: imitate (herein) thy Teacher. (Matt. xxvi. 52.) When they too (His disciples) were about to be treated with dishonor, He said not, “I will avenge you:” but, “to Me also,” saith He, “they have done the same: bear it nobly, for ye are not better than I.” These words too do thou speak to thy son and thy boy: “Thou art not better than thy master.” But these words of philosophy are counted as the talk of a widow woman. Alas! that it is not in the power of words to bring it home to people in the way that it is possible to be taught it by actual experience! And that you may learn this; stand between two combatants, take part with the wronged, not with 357 ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀγροῖκον. Edd. from E., ἀλλὰ τὸν οἰκέτην: which is idle, for it appears below that the παῖς here is a servant. We supply ἐκάλεσε or εἶπεν: and indeed ἂν πάλιν εἴπῃ below shows that the insult spoken of was some contumelious speech.—Also before Μὴ νομίσῃς, something needs to be supplied, e.g. Μὴ σὺ μιμήσῃ τοῦτον, “Do not thou imitate him.” And perhaps indeed τὸν ἀγρ. may belong to this: “He insulted my boy.” But do not thou imitate the rude, uncivil man: deem it not, etc. 358 ὡς ζητοῦμεν σκεπάσαι. A.B.C. The other mss. omit the clause, and Edd. except Savile who reads from N. οὐ ζητοῦμεν αὐτὴν σπάσαι, “we do not seek to draw it.” We adopt σπάσαι.—Below, E. F. D. Edd. τοῦ Δεσπότου, “thy Master’s sufferings,” for σαυτοῦ, which the context shows to be the true reading. the wrong-doers [that you may learn]359 whether you shall not see the victory on your side, whether you shall not get splendid crowns.—See, how God is insulted, and how He answers; how gently, “Where,” saith He, “is Abel thy brother?” and what saith the other: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. vi. 9.) What could be more contumacious than this? Would any one have heard it (patiently) even from a son? and if from a brother, would he not have thought such conduct an insult? What then? See how again God gently answers, “The voice of thy brother’s blood,” saith He “crieth unto Me.” “But God,” it will be said, “is superior to wrath.” Yes, but for this reason the Son of God came down, that He might make thee a God as far as human power can go. “But I cannot,” says one, “seeing I am man.” Well then, let us give you men for instances. And do not suppose I speak of Paul or of Peter: no, but of some of inferior sort, yea, very much lower down. Eli’s menial insulted Hannah, saying, “Put away thy wine from thee.” (1 Sam. i. 14.) What could be more insulting than this? What then said she? “I am a woman of a hard lot.”360 Indeed, there is nothing equal to affliction: she is the mother of true philosophy. But this same woman, though she has her rival, insulted her not: but what does she? She takes refuge with God, and in her prayer does not even make mention of her, nor say, “Avenge me, for such an one reproaches me:” so magnanimous was that woman (let us men be ashamed):—and yet ye know, that there is nothing like jealousy. The publican, when insulted by the Pharisee, insulted not in return, though, had he wished it, he might have done so: but he bore it like a philosopher, saying, “Be merciful to me a sinner.” (Luke xviii. 13.) Mephibosheth,361 having been accused and calumniated by his servant, neither said, nor did, any evil to him, not even in the presence of the king himself. (2 Sam. xix. 26.) Shall I tell you even of a harlot, what philosophic magnanimity she showed? Hear Christ saying, as she was wiping His feet with her hair, “The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom before you.” (Matt. xxi. 31.) Do you see her standing, and taking courage, and washing away her own sins? Observe, how she was not angry even with the Pharisee, when reproached by him: “for had He known,” says he, “that this woman is a sinner, He would not have suffered her (Luke vii. 39): and how she said not to him, “What then? Say, art thou pure from sins?” but felt more, wept more, and let fall hotter tears. But if women and publicans and harlots play the philosopher, and that before grace (i.e. of Baptism), what pardon can they deserve, who, after so great grace, fight, and worry, and kick one another, worse than beasts? Nothing is more base than passion, nothing more 359 ἂν μὴ παρὰ σαυτῷ τὰ νικητήρια ἴδῃς ἂν μὴ λαμπροὺς λάβῃς στεφάνους. This depends on ἵνα μάθῃς at the beginning of the sentence. Erasmus wrongly, “Si non videas:” Ben. “Si non videbis.” 360 γυνὴ ἐν σκληρᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἰμὶ, Chrys. γυνὴ ἡ σκληρὰ ἡμερὰ (or ἡμέρᾳ) LXX. 361 Memphibaal, Chrys. here and Synops. Sacr. Script. t. vi. 349. and Theodoret Quæst. 31, in lib. 2. Reg. Μεμφιβοσθέ, LXX. Elsewhere he is called Meribbaal, 1 Chron. viii. 34. So Jerubbaal, Judg. vi. 32. Jerubbesheth, 2 Sam. xi. 21. Memphibaal is compounded of the two forms. Ben. disgraceful, nothing more frightful, nothing more odious, nothing more hurtful. These things I say, not only in order that towards men we may be gentle, but also if a wife be a talker, that thou mayest bear it: let thy wife be to thee a school for training and exercise (παλαίστρα καὶ γυμνάσιον). For how can it but be absurd, to submit to exercises which yield no profit, where we afflict the body, but not to practise exercises at home, which, even before the contest, present to us a crown? Does thy wife abuse thee? Do not thou become a woman: to be abusive is womanly: it is a disease of the soul, an inferiority. Think not that it is unworthy of thee, when thy wife abuses thee. Unworthy it is, when thou art abusive, but she bears patiently (φιλοσοφῇ): then dost thou act unseemly, then art thou disgraced: but if, having been abused, thou bear it, great is the proof of thy strength. I do not say this, to induce wives to be abusive: God forbid: but only in case it should so happen at the instance of Satan. It is the part of men that are strong, to bear the weak. And if thy servant contradict thee, bear it philosophically: not what he deserves to have said to him, do thou say or do, but that which it behooves thee both to do and to say. Never insult a girl by uttering some foul word against her: never call thy servant, scoundrel (μιαρὸν): not he is disgraced, but thou. It is not possible to be master of one’s self, being in a passion. Like a sea rolling mountains high, it is all hurly-burly: or even as a pure fountain, when mire is cast into it, becomes muddied, and all is in turmoil. You may beat him, you may rend his coat to rags, but it is you that sustain the greater damage: for to him the blow is on the body and the garment, but to you on the soul. It is your own soul that you have cut open; it is there that you have inflicted a wound: you have flung your own charioteer from his horses, you have got him dragging along the ground upon his back. And it is all one, as if one driver being in a passion with another, should choose to be thus dragged along. You may rebuke, you may chide, you may do whatever if be, only let it be without wrath and passion. For if he who rebukes is physician to him who offends, how can he heal another, when he has first hurt himself, when he does not heal himself? Say, if a physician should go to heal another person, does he first wound his own hand, first blind his own eyes, and so set about healing that other? God forbid. So also, however thou rebuke, however thou chide, let thine eyes see clearly. Do not make thy mind muddy, else how shall the cure be wrought? It is not possible to be in the same tranquillity, being in a passion, and being free from passion. Why dost thou first overturn thy master from his seat, and then discourse with him as he lies sprawling on the ground? Seest thou not the judges, how, when about to hold the assize, they seat themselves upon the bench, in their becoming attire? Thus do thou likewise dress thy soul with the judicial robe (which is gentleness). “But he will not be afraid of me,” say you. He will be the more afraid. In the other case, though you speak justly, your servant will impute it to passion: but if you do it with gentleness, he will condemn himself: and, what is of the first importance, God will accept thee, and thus thou wilt be able to attain unto the eternal blessings, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

“And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring them into bondage, and entreat them evil four hundred years. And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage will I judge, said God: and after that shall they come forth, and serve Me in this place.”

See, what a number of years the Promise has been given, and the manner of the Promise, and nowhere sacrifice, nowhere circumcision! He here shows, how God Himself suffered them to be afflicted, not362 that He had anything to lay to their charge. “And they shall bring them into bondage,” etc. But nevertheless, they did not these things with impunity. “And the nation to whom they shall be in bondage I will judge, said God.” For,363 to show that they are not to go by this, in estimating who are pious (by reason of their saying, “He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him,”) (Matt. xxvii. 43).—He, the Same that promised, He that gave the land, first permits the evils. So also now, though He has promised a Kingdom, yet He suffers us to be exercised in temptations. If here the freedom was not to be till after four hundred years, what wonder, with regard to the Kingdom? Yet he performed it, and lapse of time availed not to falsify His word. Moreover, it was no ordinary bondage they underwent. 364 And the matter does not terminate solely in the punishment of those (their oppressors); but they themselves also, He saith, shall enjoy a mighty salvation. Here he reminds them too of the benefit which they enjoyed. “And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so he begat Isaac.” Here he lets himself down to lower matters. “And circumcised him on the eighth day: and Isaac (begat) Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs.” (v. 8).—Here365 362 καίτοι οὐδεν ἔχων αὐτοῖς ἐγκαλεῖν. A. B. C. N. Cat.—E. F. D. Edd. omit this clause, and read: “to be afflicted: and that they did not,” etc. So Edd. 363 ῞Ινα γὰρ μὴ τούτῳ (Cat. τούτων, A. C. N. τοῦτο B. om.) νομίσωσιν εὐσεβεῖς (Ν. εὐσεβεῖν) εἶναι, διὰ τὸ λέγειν κ. τ. λ. The wording of the passage is not strictly grammatical, but the sense seems to be as expressed above.—E. D. F. omit this sentence, and substitute, “Seest thou?” So Edd. 364 The relation of v. 6 and 7 to v. 5 is, as Chrys. intimates, to show that the apparent incongruity between the promise of God to give the land to Abraham and his seed, and the fact that Abraham never personally possessed the land, was not accidental nor did it involve the failure of the divine promise. Accompanying the promise were divine assurances (Gen. xv. 13, 14) that a period of bondage and oppression was to precede the occupation of the land which was to be the inheritance of the nation.—G.B.S. 365 E. Edd. omit this sentence: and below for “Here again,” etc. the same substitute: “This happened also in the case of Christ: for indeed Joseph is a type of Him: wherefore also he narrates the history at large, hinting (at this meaning).” he seems to hint now at the type. “And the patriarchs moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt.” (v. 9.) Here again, the type of Christ.366 Though they had no fault to find with him, and though he came on purpose to bring them their food, they thus ill-treated him. Still here again the promise, though it is a long while first, receives its fulfillment. “And God was with him”—this also is for them—“and delivered him out of all his afflictions.” (v. 10). He shows that unknowingly they helped to fulfil the prophecy, and that they were themselves the cause, and that the evils recoiled on their own selves. “And gave him favor and wisdom in the sight of Pharaoh king of Egypt, Gave him favor,” in the eyes of a barbarian, to him, the slave, the captive: his brethren sold him, this (barbarian) honored him. “Now there came a dearth over all the land of Egypt and Canaan, and great affliction: and our fathers found no sustenance. But when Jacob heard that there was corn in Egypt, he sent out our fathers first. And at the second time Joseph was made known to his brethren.” (v. 11–13). They came down to buy, and had to depend upon him for everything. What then did he? “He made himself known to his brethren:” not to this point only did he carry his friendliness; he also made them known to Pharaoh, and brought them down into the land. “And Joseph’s kindred was made known unto Pharaoh. Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem. But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, till another king arose, which knew not Joseph.” (v. 13–18). Then again, fresh disappointment (ἀνελπιστία): first, famine, but they came through that: secondly, the falling into the hands of their enemy: thirdly, the being destroyed by the king. Then (to show) God’s fulness of ways and means (εὐμήχανον), “In which time,” it says, “Moses was born, and was exceeding fair.” (v. 20.) If the former circumstance was wonderful, that Joseph was sold by his brethren, here again is another circumstance more wonderful still, that the king “nourished” the very person who was to overthrow his dominion, being himself the person that was to perish. Do you observe all along a figurative enacting, so to say, of the resurrection of the dead? But it is not the same thing for God himself to do a thing, and for a thing to come to pass in connection with man’s purpose (προαίρεσις). For these things indeed were in connection with man’s purpose 367but the Resurrection by itself, independ- 366 If it be too strong language to say, with Chrys., that Joseph is set forth here as a “type of Christ,” it is clear that the narrative of his ill-treatment by his brethren, subsequent exaltation and his return of good for evil to those who had sold him into bondage, is meant to suggest that their treatment of Jesus had been similar.—G.B.S. 367 ἡ δε ἀναστασις καθ᾽ εαυτήν. This clause is found in the Catena alone. Something seems to be required as the antithesis to the preceding clause, ταῦτα μὲν γὰρ μετὰ προαιρ. ἀνθρ. ἦν—for which E. Edd. have ταῦτα γοῦν οὐκ ἀπὸ προαιρ. ἀνθρ. ἦν. “These things however did not come of man’s purpose.”—At the end of the ently.—“And he was mighty,” it says, “in word and in deed” (v. 22): he that was to have died. Then again he shows how ungrateful they were to their benefactor. For, just as in the former instance, they were saved by the injured Joseph, so here again they were saved by another injured person, I mean, Moses. “And when he was full forty years old,” etc. For368 what though they killed him not actually? In intention they did kill, as did the others in the former case. There, they sold out of their own into a strange land: here, they drive from one strange land into another strange land: in the former case, one in the act of bringing them food; in this, one in the act of giving them good counsel; one to whom, under God, the man was indebted for his life! Mark how it shows (the truth of) that saying of Gamaliel’s, “If it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.” (ch. v. 39.) See the plotted-against eventually becoming the authors of salvation to those plotting against them:369 the people, plotting against itself, and itself plotted against by others; and for all this, saved! A famine, and it did not consume them: nor was this all: but they were saved by means of the very person, whom they had expected to be destroyed (by their means). A royal edict, and it did not consume them: nay then most did their number increase, when he was dead “who knew” them. Their own Saviour they wished to kill, but for all that, they had not power to do it. Do you observe, that by the means whereby the devil tried to bring to naught the promise of God, by those very means it was advanced?

“And God spake on this wise,” etc. (Recapitulation, v. 6, 7.) This370 is suitable to be said here also: that God is rich in ways and means to bring us up from hence. For this above all showed the riches of God’s resources, that in its very reverses (ἀποστροφῇ) the nation in- next sentence, Edd. (with E. alone) omit the clause, ὁ ὀφείλων ἀποθανεῖν: and for Εἶτα πάλιν, have, “This he says, by way of showing both him (Moses) as savior, and these ungrateful to their benefactor.” 368 Τί γὰρ εἰ μὴ ἀνεῖλον αὐτὸν τῷ πράγματι; τῷ λόγῳ ἀνεῖλον ὥσπερ κᾀκεῖνοι. N. and Catena read ἀνεῖλεν, both times, as if the Compiler understood the passage in the sense of a preceding comment extracted from S. Clem. Alex. Strom. “φασὶ δὲ οἱ μυσταὶ λόγῳ μόνῳ ἀνελεῖν τὸν Αἰγύπτιον: the initiated say that Moses struck the Egyptian dead by a word, as in the Acts Peter is related to have done in the case of Ananias,” etc. But Chrys. nowhere thus interprets the fact, and the context, ὥσπερ κᾀκεῖνοι, is against this view.—Below, δἰ ὃν ἔζη μετὰ Θεὸν: i.e. the Hebrew whom Moses saved, v. 24, who is here supposed to be one of the parties in the strife mentioned in v. 26. This however not being clear, A., as usual omits: and the innovator assuming the passage to be corrupt, substitutes, δἰ ὧν ἔσονται μετὰ Θεοῦ, giving them counsel by means of which they shall be with God.” So Edd.: only Sav. notes in the margin the genuine reading of the other mss. and Cat. 369 E. “But do thou, observing this, stand amazed at the riches of God’s wisdom and resources: for, had those not been plotted against, these had not been saved.” So Edd. 370 Τοῦτο καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἁρμόττει εἰπεῖν. Edd. from E. only, τοῦτο καὶ αὐτους ἥρμοττε τότε εἰπεῖν: “This was also suitable for them to say at that time.” It was not perceived that the recapitulation begins here. See note 5, p. 102. creased, while enslaved, while evil-entreated, and sought to be exterminated. And this is the greatness of the Promise. For had it increased in its own land, it had not been so wonderful. And besides, it was not for a short time, either, that they were in the strange land: but for four hundred years. Hence we learn371 a (great lesson) of philosophic endurance (φιλοσοφίαν):—they did not treat them as masters use slaves, but as enemies and tyrants— and he foretold that they should be set in great liberty: for this is the meaning of that expression, “They shall serve (Me): and they shall come up hither again” (ἐνταὕθα ἐπανελεύσονται); and with impunity.372—And observe, how, while he seems to concede something to circumcision, he in fact allows it nothing (v. 8); since the Promise was before it, and it followed after.—“And the patriarchs,” he says, “moved with envy.” (v. 9.) Where it does no harm, he humors (χαρίζεται) them:373 for they prided themselves much on these also.—374And he shows, that the saints were not exempt from tribulation, but that in their very tribulations they obtained help. And that these persons did themselves help to bring about the results, who wished to cut short these same (afflictions): just as these made Joseph the more glorious: just as the king did Moses, by ordering the children to be killed: since had he not ordered, this would not have been: just as also that (Hebrew) drives Moses into exile, that there he may have the Vision, having become worthy. Thus also him who was sold for a slave, makes He to reign as king there, where he was thought to be a slave. Thus also does Christ in His death give proof of His power: thus also does He there reign as king where they sold Him. “And gave him favor and wisdom,” etc. (v. 10.) This375 was not only by way of honor, but that he should have confidence in his own power. “And he made him governor over Egypt and all his house.” “Now there came a dearth,” etc. On account of famine—such preparations is he making—“with threescore and fifteen souls,” he says, “Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he and our fathers, and were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money from the sons of 371 Edd. from E. D. F. “how they exhibited a great (example of) philosophy.” 372 Edd. (from E. alone) καὶ οὐκ ἀτιμωρητὶ, “not unavenged (upon their enemies).” But the meaning is, “Their enemies shall not be able to be avenged of them.” 373 E. D. F. insert for explanation, πατριάρχας δέ φησι τοὺς προγόνους: “he calls their ancestors, patriarchs.” This is the “humoring” spoken of above: in C.’s time, “patriarch” had become a title of honor. 374 Edd. from E. “But they not only did not loose (the afflictions), but even cooperated with those afflicting them, when they ought rather to have cut through them (the afflictions).” 375 Morel. Ben. with E. D. F. omit this clause: Savile transposes it. “But as this (Joseph) reigns there as king where they sold him, so does Christ in His death,” etc.—In the next sentence, τοῦτο seems to refer to the description in Gen. xli. 42, 43, of the distinctions conferred upon Joseph, which perhaps Chrys. cited.—After this sentence, Edd. have (from E. only) the formula of recapitulation, ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν κ. τ. λ., which is quite misplaced.—Below, A. and the mod. t. insert ῞Ορα, before διὰ λιμὸν οἷα κατασκευάζει. Emmor the father of Sychem.”376 (v. 11–16). It shows, that they were not masters even to the extent of a burying-place. “But when the time of the promise drew nigh, which God had sworn to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, till another king arose, which knew not Joseph” (v. 17, 18). Observe, that it is not during the four hundred years that He multiplies them, but (only) when the end was about to draw nigh. And yet already four hundred years were passed, nay more, in Egypt. But this is the wonder of it. “The same dealt subtly with our kindred, and evil-entreated our fathers, that they should cast out their young children, to the end they might not live.” (v. 19.) “Dealt subtly:” he hints at their not liking to exterminate them openly: “that they should cast out their young children,” it says. “In which time Moses was born and was exceeding fair.” (v. 20.) This is the wonder, that he who is to be their champion, is born, neither after nor before, these things, but in the very midst of the storm (θυμῷ). “And was nourished up in his father’s house three months.” But when man’s help was despaired of, and they cast him forth, then did God’s benefit shine forth conspicuous. “And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son.” (v. 21.) Not a word of Temple, not a word of Sacrifice, while all these Providences are taking place. And he was nourished in a barbarian house. “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.” (v. 22.) “Was trained,” both377 in discipline and in letters. “And when he was full forty years old.” (v. 23.) Forty years he was there, and was not found out from his being circumcised. Observe, how, being in safety, they overlook their own interests, both he and Joseph, in order that they may save others: “And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel. And seeing one of them suffer wrong, he defended him, and avenged him that was oppressed, and smote the Egyptian: for he supposed his brethren would have understood how that God by his hand would deliver them: but they understood not.” (v. 23–25.)—See how up to this point he is not yet offensive to them; how they listened to him while he said all this. And “his face,” we read, “was as the face of an angel” (ch. vi. 15).—“For he supposed,” etc. And yet it was by deeds that his championship was shown; what intelligence was there need of here? but still for all this “they understood not. And the next day he showed himself unto them as they strove, and would have set them at one again, saying, Sirs, ye are brethren; why do ye wrong one to another?” 376 The reading of τοῦ Συχέμ (T. R.), doubtless meaning the “father of Sychem” (Gen. xxxiii. 19), is replaced by Tisch., W. and H. (after 􀀀. B. C.) with ἐν Συχέμ, making Συχέμ the name of the place just mentioned—not of the person referred to in the O.T. The Vulgate renders filii Sichem thus coming into collision with the O.T. l. c.—G.B.S. 377 καὶ παιδείU+0026 139· καὶ γράμμασιν, as the comment on ἐπαιδεύθη v. 22, which must be supplied. Cat. has, καὶ παιδεία καὶ γράμματα. E. omits the clause, and substitutes, as the beginning of the next sentence, ᾽Εμοὶ θαυμάζειν ἐπέρχεται πῶς. “To me it occurs to wonder how he could be forty years,” etc. So Edd. (v. 26–28.) Do you mark with what mildness he addresses them? He who had shown his wrath in the case of the other, shows his gentleness378 in his own case. “But he that did his neighbor wrong thrust him away, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday?” Mark; the very words which they said to Christ: “Who made Thee ruler and judge over us?” So habitual a thing was it for Jews to wrong (their benefactors) when in the act of receiving benefits! And again, mark the atrocious baseness: (μιαρίαν al. μοχθηρίαν, Sav. marg.) “As thou didst the Egyptian yesterday! Then fled Moses at this saying, and was a stranger in the land of Midian, where he begat two sons.” (v. 29.) But neither did flight extinguish the plan of Providence, as neither did death (i.e. the death of Christ).

“And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.” (v. 30.) Do you mark that it is not hindered by lapse of time? For when he was an exile, when a stranger, when he had now passed much time in a foreign land, so as to have two sons, when he no longer expected to return, then does the Angel appear to him. The Son of God he calls an Angel, as also he calls Him man. (Appears) in the desert, not in a temple. See how many miracles are taking place, and no word of Temple, no word of Sacrifice. And here also not simply in the desert, but in the bush. “When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him.” (v. 31.) Lo! he was deemed worthy of the Voice also. “I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” (v. 32, 33.) Lo!379 how He shows that He is none other than “the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”—He, “the Angel of the Great Counsel.” (Is. ix. 6. LXX. “Wonderful, Counsellor,” E.V.) Here he shows what great loving-kindness God herein exhibits. “Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. Then said the Lord to him, Put off thy shoes from thy feet; for the place where thou standest is holy ground.” Not a word of Temple, and the place is holy through the appearance and operation of Christ. Far more wonderful this than the place which is in the Holy of Holies: for there God is nowhere said to have appeared in this manner, nor Moses to have thus trembled. And then the greatness of His tender care. “I have seen, I have seen the affliction of My people which is 378 ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, B. C. F. D. N. but A. E. Edd. ἐπὶ τούτου “in the case of this man.” So perhaps OEcumen. ἐπιεικῶς νῦν τῷ ἀδικοῦντι προσφέρεται.—Below, E. Edd. “With the same spirit they appear to say the same with reference to Christ, ‘We have no king but Cæsar.’ Thus was it ever habitual to the Jews to act, even when receiving benefits. Do you mark their madness? Him who was to save them, they accuse, by saying, ‘As thou,’” etc. 379 So A. B. N. Cat. (in C. the sentence ῎Ιδου—᾽Ιακὼβ is omitted by an oversight caused by the homoeoteleuton ᾽Ιακώβ.) Edd. “Not only does he here show that the Angel which appeared unto him was the Angel of the Great Counsel, but he shows also what loving-kindness God exhibits by this manifestation.” in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.” (v. 34.) See, how he shows, that both by kindnesses, and by chastisements, and by miracles, God was drawing them to Him: but they were still the same. That God is everywhere present, they learned.

Hearing these things, let us in our afflictions flee to Him. “And their groaning,” saith He, “I have heard:” not380 simply, “because of their calamities.” But if any should ask, Why then did He suffer them to be evil entreated there? Why, in the first place, to every just man his sufferings are the causes of his rewards. And in the next place, as to why He afflicted them: it was to show His power, that He can (do all), and not only so, but that He may also train them. Observe in fact; when they were in the desert, then they “waxed fat, they grew thick, they spread out in breadth, they kicked” (Deut. xxxii. 15): and ever and always ease was an evil. Therefore also from the beginning He said to Adam: “In the sweat of thy face thou shall eat thy bread.” (Gen. iii. 19.) Also381 (it was) in order that having come out of much suffering into rest, they might give thanks to God. For affliction is a great good. For hear the Prophet saying, “It is good for me, that Thou hast humbled me.” (Ps. cxix. 71.) But if to great and wonderful men affliction be a great (good), much more to us. And, if you will, let us examine into the nature of affliction as it is in itself. Let there be some person rejoicing exceedingly, and gay, and giving a loose to jollity: what more unseemly, what more senseless than this? Let there be one sorrowing and dejected: what more truly philosophic than this? For, “It is better,” we read, “to go into the house of mourning, than into the house of laughter.” (Eccles. vii. 2.) But, likely enough, you382 do not like the saying, and want to evade it. Let us however see, what sort of man Adam was in Paradise, and what he was afterwards: what sort of man Cain was before, and what he was afterwards. The soul does not stand fast in its proper place, but, like as by a running tide, (ῥεύματος, Edd. πνεύματος, “wind”) is raised and buoyed up by pleasure, having no steadfastness; facile in making professions, prompt at promising; the thoughts all in restless commotion: laughter ill-timed, causeless hilarity, idle clatter of unmeaning talk. And why speak of others? Let us take in hand some one of the saints, and let us see what he was while in pleasure, what again, when in distress. Shall we look at David himself? When he was in pleasure and rejoicing, from his many trophies, from his victory, from his crowns, from his luxurious living, from his con- 380 i.e. “I have heard their groaning:” not simply (“I have come down) because of their calamities.” The expression, “I have heard” denotes His ready sympathy.—But the modern text: “He does not simply say, ‘I have heard;’ but because of their calamities.” 381 Edd. from E. “Therefore in order that having come out of much affliction into rest, they may not be insolent, he permits them to be afflicted.” 382 διακρουεσθε τὰ λεγόμενα. Edd διαμωκᾶσθε, “make a mock at.”—Below all the mss. agree in οἷος ἦν ὁ Κάιν πρὸ τούτου. Either the text is corrupt, or something is needed for explanation. fidence, see what sort of things he said and did: “But I said in my prosperity,” says he, “I shall never be moved.” (Ps. xxx. 6.) But when he has come to be in affliction, hear what he says: “And if He say to me, I have no mind for thee; lo! here am I, let Him do that which is pleasing in His sight.” (2 Sam. xv. 26.) What can be more truly philosophic than these words? “Whatsoever may be pleasing to God,” saith he, “so let it be.” And again he said to Saul: “If the Lord stirreth thee up against me, may thy sacrifice be acceptable.” (1 Sam. xxvi. 19.) And then too, being in affliction, he spared even his enemies: but afterwards, not friends even, nor those who had done him no injury. Again, Jacob when he was in affliction, said: “If the Lord will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on.” (Gen. xxviii. 20.) As also the son of Noah did nothing of the kind erewhile; but when he was no longer afraid for his safety, you hear how wanton he became. (ib. ix. 22.) Hezekiah too, when he was in affliction, see what things he did in order to his deliverance; he put on sackcloth, and such like; but when he was in pleasure, he fell through the haughtiness of his heart. (2 Kings ch. xix. 20.) For, saith the Scripture, “When thou hast eaten, and drunk, and art filled, take heed to thyself.” (Deut. vi. 11, 12.) For perilous, as on a precipice’s brink, is the post of affluence. “Take heed,” saith he, “to thyself.” When the Israelites were afflicted, they became all the more increased in number: but when He left them to themselves, then they all went to ruin. And why speak of examples from the ancients? In our own times, let us see, if you please, is it not the case, that when the most are in good case, they become puffed up, hostile to everybody, passionate, while the power is with them: but if it be taken away, they are gentle, lowly (and as) human beings, are brought to a consciousness of their own natural condition. Therefore the Scripture saith, “Pride hath holden them unto the end: their iniquity shall go forth as from fatness.” (Ps. lxxiii. 6. LXX.)

Now these things I have spoken, that we should not make enjoyment every way our object. How then does Paul say, “Rejoice alway?” He does not say simply, “Rejoice,” but he adds, “in the Lord.” (Phil. iv. 4.) This is the greatest joy, such as the Apostles rejoiced withal; the joy of which prisons, and scourges, and persecutions, and evil report, and all painful things, are the source, and the root, and the occasion; whence also it comes to a happy issue. But that of the world, on the contrary, begins with sweets and ends in bitters. Neither do I forbid to rejoice in the Lord, nay, I earnestly exhort to this. The Apostles were scourged, and they rejoiced: were bound, and they gave thanks: were stoned, and they preached. This is the joy I also would have: from nothing bodily has it its origin, but from spiritual things. It is not possible for him who joys after the fashion of the world, to rejoice also after a godly sort: for every one who joys after the world’s fashion, has his joy in riches, in luxury, in honor, in power, in arrogance: but he who rejoices after the mind of God, has his joy in dishonor for God’s sake, in poverty, in want, in fasting, in humbleness of mind. Seest thou, how opposite are the grounds (of joy)? To go without joy here, is to be without grief also: and to be without grief here, is to go without pleasure too. And in truth these are the things which produce real joy, since the others have the name only of joy, but they altogether consist of pain. What misery the arrogant man endures! How is he cut short (διακόπτεται) in the midst of his arrogance, bespeaking for himself numberless insults, much hatred, great enmity, exceeding spite, and many an evil eye! Whether it be that he is insulted by greater men, he grieves: or that he cannot make his stand against everybody, he is mortified. Whereas the humble man lives in much enjoyment: expecting honor from none, if he receive honor, he is pleased, but if not, he is not grieved. He takes it contentedly that he is honored; but383 above all, none dishonors him. Now not to seek honor, and yet to be honored—great must be the enjoyment of this. But in the other, it is just the reverse: he seeks honor, and is not honored. And the pleasure that the honor gives is not the same to him who seeks it, as it is to him who seeks it not. The one, however much he receives, thinks he has received nothing: the other, though you give him ever so little, takes it as though he had received all. Then again, he who lives in affluence and luxury has numberless affairs of business, and let his revenues flow in to him ever so easily, and, as it were, from full fountains, yet he fears the evils arising from luxurious living, and the uncertainty of the future: but the other is always in a state of security and enjoyment, having accustomed himself to scantiness of diet. For he does not so bemoan himself at not partaking of a sumptuous board, as he luxuriates in not fearing the uncertainty of the future. But the evils arising from luxurious living, how many and great they are, none can be ignorant: it is necessary, however, to mention them now. Twofold the war, in the body, and in the soul: twofold the storm: twofold the diseases; not only in this respect, but because they are both incurable, and bring with them great calamities. Not so, frugality: but here is twofold health, twofold the benefits. “Sleep of health,” we read, “is in moderate eating.” (Ecclus. xxxi. 20.) For everywhere, that which keeps measure is pleasant, that which is beyond measure, ceases to please. For say now: on a little spark put a great pile of fagots, and you will no longer see the fire shining, but much disagreeable smoke. On a very strong and large man lay a burden which exceeds his strength, and you will see him with his burden lying prostrate on the ground. Embark too large a freight in your vessel, and you have ensured a grievous shipwreck. Just so it is here. For just as in overladen ships, great is the tumult of the sailors, the pilot, the man at the prow, and the passengers, while they cast into the sea the things above deck, and things below; so here too, with their vomitings upwards, and their purgings downwards, they mar their constitutions, and destroy themselves. And what is the most shameful of all, the mouth is made to 383 μάλιστα δὲ οὐδεὶς αὐτὸν ἀτιμάζει. Savile justly retains this sentence from the old text. Montf. rejects it, as superfluous, and disturbing the sense. Downe ap. Sav. proposes ὅτι οὐκ ἠτιμάσθη: “non ambit honorem, sed bene secum actum putat si nulla affectus sit ignominia.” But in the old text there is no ἀλλὰ before ἀγαπᾷ: and the meaning is not, “he thinks himself well off,” etc., nor as Ben., “he rejoices that,” etc., but, “he is content not to be honored; knowing this at any rate, that nobody can dishonor him.” do the office of the nether parts, and that becomes the more shameful member. But if to the mouth the disgrace be such, think what must it be in the soul! For indeed there it is all mist, all storm, all darkness, great the uproar of the thoughts, at being so thronged and crushed, the soul itself crying out at the abuse done to it: all384 (the parts and faculties) complaining of one another, beseeching, entreating, that the filth may be discharged somewhere. And after it is flung out, still the turmoil is not at an end; but then comes fever and diseases. “And how comes it,” say you, “that one may see these luxurious livers, in goodly plight, riding on horseback? What idle talk is this,” say you, “to tell us of diseases? It is I that am diseased, I that am racked, I that am disgusting, while I have nothing to eat.” Ah me! for one may well lament at such words. But the sufferers with the gout, the men that are carried on litters, the men that are swathed with bandages, from what class of people, I ask you, shall we see these? And indeed, were it not that they would deem it an insult, and think my words opprobrious, I would before now have addressed them even by name. “But there are some of them, who are in good health as well.” Because they give themselves not merely to luxurious living, but also to labors. Else show me a man, who does nothing whatever but fatten himself, free from pain as he lies there, without an anxious thought. For though a host of physicians without number came together, they would not be able to rescue him from his diseases. It is not in the nature of things. For I will hold you a medical discourse. Of the matters sent down into the belly, not all becomes nourishment; since even in the food itself, not all is nutritive, but part of it in the process of digestion passes into stool, part is turned into nourishment. If then in the process of digestion the operation is perfect, this is the result, and each finds its proper place; the wholesome and useful part betakes itself to its appropriate place, while that which is superfluous and useless, withdraws itself, and passes off. But if it be in too great quantity, then even the nutritive part of it becomes hurtful. And, to speak by way of example, in order that my meaning may be clearer to you: in wheat part is fine flour, part meal, part bran: now if the mill be able to grind (what is put in), it separates all these: but if you put in too much, all becomes mixed up together. Wine again, if it go through its proper process of formation, and under due influence of the seasons, then, whereas at first all is mixed together, anon part settles into lees, part rises into scum, part remains for enjoyment to those that use it, and this is the good part, and will not readily undergo any change. But what they call “nourishment,” is neither wine, nor lees, while all are mixed up 384 E. Edd. “Thence also the gormandizers (γαστριζόμενοι) themselves complain of one another, are in ill humor, haste to be rid of the filth within. Still, even after it is cast out,” etc. And below:—“fever and diseases. ‘Yes,’ say you, ‘they are sick and are disgusting; it is waste of words to tell us all this, and make a catalogue of diseases: for it is I that am diseased. etc,…while these luxurious livers one may see in good plight, sleek, merry, riding on horseback.’” together.—The same may be seen in the river,385 when its waters make a whirling flood. As at such time we see the fishes floating at top, dead, their eyes first blinded by the muddy slime: so is it with us. For when gormandizing, like a flood of rain, has drenched the inward parts, it puts all in a whirl, and makes that the faculties (λογισμοὶ), healthy till then and living in a pure element, drift lifeless on the surface. Since then by all these examples we have shown how great the mischief is, let us cease to count these men happy for that, for which we ought to think them wretched, and to bemoan ourselves for that, for which we ought to count ourselves happy, and let us welcome sufficiency with a contented mind. Or do you not hear even what physicians tell you, that “want is the mother of health?” But what I say is, that want is mother, not of bodily health, but also of that of the soul. These things Paul also, that physician indeed, cries aloud; when he says, “Having food and raiment, let us therewith be content.” (1 Tim. vi. 8.) Let us therefore do as he bids us, that so, being in sound health, we may perform the work that we ought to do, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts VII. 35

“This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge over us? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Angel which appeared to him in the bush.”

This is very suitable to the matter in hand. “This Moses,” he says. “This,” the man who had been in danger of losing his life; the man who had been set at naught by them; “this” the man whom they had declined: “this” same, God having raised up, sent unto them. “Whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler?” just as they themselves (the hearers) said, “We have no king, but Cæsar.” (John xix. 15.) He here shows also, that what was then done, was done by Christ. “The same did God send by the hand of the Angel,” who said unto him, “I am the God of Abraham.” “This” same Moses, he says,—and observe how he points to his renown—“this” same Moses, he says, “brought them out, after that he had showed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years. This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me” (v. 36, 37): set at naught like me. Him, likewise, Herod wished to kill, and in Egypt He found preservation just as it was with the former, even when He was a babe, He was aimed at for destruction. “This is he, that was in the Church in the wilderness with the Angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us.” (v. 38.) Again no mention of temple, none of sacrifice. “With the Angel,” it says, “he received the lively oracles to give unto the fathers.” It shows, that he not only wrought miracles, but also gave a law, as Christ did. Just as Christ first works miracles, and then legislates: so did Moses. But they did not hear him, keeping their disobedience, even after the miracles: “To whom,” he says, “our fathers would not obey:” (v. 39) after the wonders done in those forty years. And not only so, but just the contrary: “but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt. Saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us; for as for this Moses, which brought us out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him. And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifice unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands. Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the Prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” (v. 40, 43.) The expression, “gave them up,” means, He suffered. “Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion he had seen.” (v. 44.) Even when there was a Tabernacle, yet there were no sacrifices. “Did ye offer unto Me slain beasts and sacrifices?” (Amos v. 25.) There was “the tabernacle of witness,” and yet it profited them nothing, but they were consumed. But neither before, nor afterwards, did the miracles profit them aught. “Which also, our fathers that came after brought in.” Seest thou, how the holy place is there wherever God may be? For to this end also he says, “in the wilderness,” to compare place with place. Then the benefit (conferred upon them): And our fathers that came after brought it in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drave out before the face of our fathers, unto the days of David; who found favor before God, and desired to find a tabernacle for the God of Jacob. (v. 45, 46.) David “desired to find favor:” and he builded not, he, the wonderful, the great; but the castaway, Solomon. “But Solomon,” it says, “built Him an house. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in (places) made with hands.” (v. 47–50.) This was shown indeed already by what had been before said: but it is shown also by the voice of a prophet; “What house will ye build for Me? saith the Lord God. As saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build for me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?” (Is. lxvi. 1, 2.)

Marvel not, he says, if they on whom Christ confers His benefits refuse His kingdom, seeing in the case of Moses it was just the same. (Recapitulation). “He brought them out;” and rescued them not in a general way, but also while they were in the wilderness. “Wonders and signs,” etc. (v. 35–50.) Do you mark that they themselves (Stephen’s hearers) are concerned in those old miracles also? “This is that Moses:” (v. 37) he, that conversed with God; he, that had been saved out of situations so strange and wonderful; he, that wrought so great works, and had so great power. [“Which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet,” etc.] He shows, that the prophecy must by all means be fulfilled, and that Moses is not opposed to Him.386 “This is he that was in the Church in the wilderness, and, that said unto the children of Israel.” (v. 38.) Do you mark that thence comes the root, and that “salvation is from the Jews?” (John iv. 22.) “With the Angel,” it says, “which spake unto him.” (Rom. xi. 16.) Lo, again he affirms that it was He (Christ) that gave the Law, seeing Moses was with “Him” in the Church in the wilderness.387 And here he puts them in mind of a great marvel, 386 Here the innovator, not perceiving that the renewed exposition began above, inserts the formula ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν ἄνωθεν τὰ εἰρημένα, and then has: “This, it says, is Moses, which said, A Prophet, etc. To this, I suppose, Christ refers, when He says, ‘Salvation is of the Jews,’ hinting at Himself. This is he that was in the wilderness, with the Angel that spake unto him. Lo, again he shows, that it was He,” etc. So Edd. 387 The meaning of v. 38 is that Moses became (γενόμενος) a mediator between God (represented by the Angel) and the people. Cf. Gal. iii. 19 where the law is said to have been “ordained through angels, by the hand of a mediator” (Moses). No mention is made of angels as revealers of the law in Exodus xix. the first mention of angels in connection with the giving of the law being in a highly poetic passage in Moses’ benediction, Deut. xxxiii. 2. (Even here the Heb. text is uncertain. Cf. the lxx. in loco). The function of angels in the giving of the of the things done in the Mount: “Who received living oracles to give unto us.” On all occasions Moses is wonderful, and (so) when need was to legislate. What means the expression, “Living oracles” (λόγια)? Those, whereof the end was shown by words (διὰ λόγων): in other words, he means the prophecies.388 Then follows the charge, in the first instance, against the patriarchs [after], the “signs and wonders,” after the receiving of the “lively oracles: To whom,” he says, “our fathers would not obey.” (v. 39.) But concerning those, Ezekiel says that they are not “living;” as when he says, “And I gave you statutes that are not good.” (Ezek. xx. 25.) It is with reference to those that he says, “Living. But thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back to Egypt”—the place where they groaned, where they cried, whence they called upon God. “And said unto Aaron, Make us gods which shall go before us.” (v. 40.) O the folly! “Make,” say they; “that they may go before us.” Whither? “Into Egypt.”389 See how hard they were to tear away from the customs of Egypt! What sayest thou? What, not wait for him that brought thee out, but flee the benefit, and deny the Benefactor? And mark how insulting they are: “For as for this Moses,” they say:—“which brought us out of the land of Egypt” nowhere the name of God: instead of that, they ascribed all to Moses. Where390 they ought to give thanks (to God), they bring Moses forward: where it was, to do as the Law bade them, they no longer make account of Moses. “We know not what is become of him.” And yet he told them that he was going up to receive the Law: and they had not patience to wait forty days. “Make us gods”—they391 did not say, “a God.”—And law has a prominent place in later Jewish theology as opposed to the action of mere human ministers. The New Testament notices on the subject reflect this later phase of thought (Cf. Acts vii. 53; Heb. ii. 2). See Lightfoot on Gal. ii. 19.—G.B.S. 388 By λόγια ζῶντα are meant living oracles in the sense of operative, effectual, as Jesus affirmed his words to be “spirit and life” (John vi. 63). They contain vital truth. The law was indeed “weak” (Rom. viii. 3) but it was so “through the flesh,” i.e. human sinfulness. It was not inherently weak but was so relatively to the great power of sin in man which needed to be overcome.—G.B.S. 389 It is not probable that this passage (v. 39, 40) means that the people proposed to return to Egypt (as Chrys.). In the O.T. the constant representation is that the golden calf (or bull) was worshipped as the image of the divinity who had led them out of Egypt (Ex. xxxii. 4; 1 Kings xii. 28). It seems clearly implied in Ezek. xx. 7, 8, 24, that the Israelites while in Egypt had been much addicted to the idolatry of the country. The meaning here is that, being discouraged and disappointed on account of Moses’ continued absence in the mount, they were ready to transfer their allegiance from Jehovah to some of the divinities to whose worship they had previously been accustomed. The worship of cattle was especially common, as of Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis.— G.B.S. 390 ῎Ενθα μὲν εὐχαριστεῖν ἔδει, A, B, C. D. F., but N. and Cat. ἀχαριστεῖν.—Ε. Καὶ ἔνφα μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀχαριστεῖν ἦν. Edd. εὐχ. 391 This clause, omitted by A. B. C , is preserved by N. and the Catena. The calf was one, yet they called it Gods: on which St. Chrys. remarks elsewhere, that they added polytheism to idolatry.—The next sentence may yet one may well wonder at this, that they do not even know.—“And they made a calf in those days, and offered sacrifices unto the idol, and rejoiced in the works of their own hands” (v. 41): for which they ought to have hid their faces. What wonder that ye know not Christ, seeing ye knew not Moses, and God Who was manifested by such wonders? But they not only knew Him not: they also insulted in another way, by their idol making. “Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven” (v. 42.) Hence these same “customs” date their origin, hence the sacrifices: they were themselves the first that made sacrifices to their idols! For that is why it is marked,392 “They made a calf in Horeb, and offered sacrifices to the idol:” seeing that, before this the name of sacrifice is nowhere mentioned, but only perhaps be completed thus: “that they did not even know that there is One God.”—Edd. from E.F.D. “So frantic are they, that they know not what they say.” 392 διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἐπισημαίνεται. The meaning is: Stephen was accused of speaking against “the customs,”—sacrifices, temple, feasts, etc. Therefore he significantly points to that critical conjuncture from which these “customs” date their introduction: namely, the Provocation at Horeb. Prior to that, he tells of “living oracles,” life-giving precepts: after it, and as its consequence, sacrifices, etc., those statutes which were not good, and ordinances by which a man shall not live, as God says by Ezekiel. Not a word of sacrifice till then: and the first mention is, of the sacrifices offered to the calf. In like manner, “they rejoiced,” “the people ate and drank, and rose up to play:” and in consequence of this, the feasts were prescribed: καὶ εὐφραίνοντο, φησίν· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἑορταί.—᾽Επισημαίνεται might be rendered, “he marks,” “puts a mark upon it” (so the innovator, who substitutes, τοῦτο καὶ Δαυὶδ ἐπισημαινόμενος λέγει): we take it passively, “there is a mark set over it—it is emphatically denoted.” In the active, the verb taken intransitively means “to betoken or announce itself,” “make its first appearance.”— In the Treatise adv. Judæos, iv. §6. tom. i. 624. C. St. Chrysostom gives this account of the legal sacrifices: “To what purpose unto Me is the multitude of your sacrifices? etc. (Isaiah i. 11, ff.) Do ye hear how it is most plainly declared, that God did not from the first require these at your hands? Had He required them, He would have obliged those famous saints who were before the Law to observe this practice. ‘Then wherefore has He permitted it now?’ In condescension to your infirmity. As a physician in his treatment of a delirious patient, etc.: thus did God likewise. For seeing them so frantic in their lust for sacrifices, that they were ready, unless they got them, to desert to idols: nay not only ready, but that they had already deserted, thereupon He permitted sacrifices. And that this is the reason, is clear from the order of events. After the feast which they made to the demons, then it was that He permitted sacrifices: all but saying: ‘Ye are mad, and will needs sacrifice: well then, at any rate sacrifice to Me.’”—(What follows may serve to illustrate the brief remark a little further on, Καὶ ἡ αἰχμαλωσία κατηγορία τῆς κακίας.) “But even this, He did not permit to continue to the end, but by a most wise method, withdrew them from it…For He did not permit it to be done in any place of the whole world, but in Jerusalem only. Anon, when for a short time they had sacrificed, he destroyed the city. Had He openly said, Desist, they, such was their insane passion for sacrificing, would not readily have complied. But now perforce, the place being taken away, He secretly withdrew them from their frenzy.” So here: “Even the captivity impeaches the wickedness (which was the cause of the permission of sacrifice.”) lively ordinances, and “lively oracles. And rejoiced”—that is the reason for the feasts. (Exod. xxxii. 5, 6.) “As it is written in the Book of the Prophets”—and observe, he does not cite the text without a purpose, but shows by it that there is no need of sacrifices; saying: “Did ye offer slain beasts and sacrifice to Me?”—He lays an emphasis on this word (to Me?). “Ye cannot say that it was from sacrificing to Me, that ye proceeded to sacrifice to them:—“by the space of forty years:” and this too, “in the wilderness,” where He had most signally shown Himself their Protector. “Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan: images which ye made to worship them.”393 The cause of sacrifices! “And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” (v. 43.) Even the captivity, an impeachment of their wickedness! “But a Tabernacle,” say you, “there was (the Tabernacle) ‘of Witness.’” (v. 44.) (Yes,) this is why it was: that they should have God for Witness: this was all. “According to the fashion,” it says, “that was shown thee on the mount:” so394 that on the mount was the Original. And this Tabernacle, moreover, “in the wilderness,” was carried about, and not locally fixed. And he calls it, “Tabernacle of witness:” i.e. (for witness) of the miracles, of the statutes.395 This is the reason why both it and those (the fathers) had no Temple. “As He had appointed, that spake unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen.” Again, it was none other than He (Christ) that gave the fashion itself. “Until the days of David” (v. 45): and there was no temple! And yet the Gentiles also had 393 Our passage here follows the lxx. which speaks of Moloch and Remphan. The terms in the original (vid. R.V.: Amos v. 25–27) are “Siccuth” and “Chiun.” It is a disputed point whether these are in the prophecy names of divinities or whether they mean respectively “tabernacle” and “shrine” (or image). The difficulty lies in the ambiguity of the Hebrew text. The name Moloch being akin to the Hebrew word for king ( מלך ), confusion might easily arise. The N.T. text varies from the lxx. only in adding the word προσκυνεῖν (43) to lay emphasis upon the charge of idolatry, and in replacing Damascus by Babylon (43), an interpretation from the standpoint of subsequent history. The statement of our text that the Israelites fell into the worship of these divinities in the wilderness rests upon extra-Pentateuchal tradition, derived, perhaps, from such prohibitions of Moloch-worship and similar idolatries as are found in Lev. xviii. 21, and Deut. xviii. 10. The charge in the prophecy of Amos is a general one referring to the frequent lapses of the people into image-worship down to his own time.—G.B.S. 394 ὥστε ἐν τῷ ὄρει ἡ ὑπογραφὴ γέγονε. In the following sentences, there are numerous variations in Edd. from the old text, but they do not materially affect the sense, and certainly do not improve it. 395 The expression here used—ἡ σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου is the constant but inexact lxx. translation of אהל מועד “tent of meeting”—i.e. the tent where God met the people. From a misunderstanding of the etymology of מֹועד (it being taken from עוד to witness, instead of from יעד to assemble) it was translated by μαρτυρίον—a rendering which has occasioned frequent misunderstanding. Μαρτυρίον is rightly used in the lxx. to render עדות (from עוּד ) in Exod. xxv. 22; Num. ix. 15.—G.B.S. been driven out: for that is why he mentions this: “Whom God drave out,” he says, “before the face of our fathers. Whom He drave out,” he says: and even then, no Temple! And so many wonders, and no mention of a Temple! So that, although first there is a Tabernacle, yet nowhere a Temple. “Until the days of David,” he says: even David, and no Temple! “And he sought to find favor before God” (v. 46): and built not:—so far was the Temple from being a great matter! “But Solomon built Him an house.” (v. 47.) They thought Solomon was great: but that he was not better than his father, nay not even equal to him, is manifest. “Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool.” (v. 48, 49.) Nay, not even these are worthy of God, forasmuch as they are made, seeing they are creatures, the works of His hand. See how he leads them on by little and little (showing) that not even these are to be mentioned. And again the prophecy says openly, “What house will ye build Me?” etc. (v. 50.)

What is the reason that at this point he speaks in the tone of invective (καταφορικὥς)? Great was his boldness of speech, when at the point to die: for in fact I think he knew that this was the case. “Ye stiffnecked,” he says, “and uncircumcised in heart and ears.” This also is from the prophets: nothing is of himself. “Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” (v. 51.) When it was not His will that sacrifices should be, ye sacrifice: when it is His will, then again ye do not sacrifice: when He would not give you commandments, ye drew them to you: when ye got them, ye neglected them. Again, when the Temple stood, ye worshipped idols: when it is His will to be worshipped without a Temple, ye do the opposite. Observe, he says not, “Ye resist God,” but, “the Spirit:” so far was he from knowing any difference between Them. And, what is greater: “As your fathers did,” he says, “so do ye.” Thus also did Christ (reproach them), forasmuch as they were always boasting much of their fathers. “Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One:” he still says, “the Just One,” wishing to check them: “of Whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers”— two charges he lays against them396—“who have received the Law by the disposition of Angels, and have not kept it.” (v. 52.) How, “By the disposition of Angels?” Some say (The Law), disposed by Angels; or, put into his hand by the Angel Who appeared to him in the bush; for was He man? No wonder that He397 who wrought those works, should also 396 E. F. D. Edd. add, “that they knew (Him) not, and that they murdered (Him):” but the meaning is, that they betrayed, and that they murdered: or, as below, Their fathers slew the Prophets, and they, Him Whom they preached. 397 τὸν ἐκεῖνα ποιήσαντα, A. B. C. N. Cat. i.e. that Christ, Who, as the Angel, did those works, etc. The modern text τοὺς ἐκ. ποιήσαντας: that those who did those wickednesses, etc.: and so OEc. seems to have taken it: “If ye killed them who preached Him to come, no wonder that ye kill Me,” etc.—Below, for Οἱ τοίνυν ἀντιποιοῦνται τοῦ νόμου, καὶ ἔλεγον, A. B. N. (N. corrected οὗτοι νῦν) have Οὐ τοίνυν κ. τ. λ. and A. λέγοντες: “Therefore they claim not the Law (on their side), saying,” etc. have wrought these.398 “Ye slew them who preached of Him,” much more Himself. He shows them disobedient both to God, and to Angels, and the Prophets, and the Spirit, and to all: as also Scripture saith elsewhere: “Lord, they have slain Thy Prophets, and thrown down Thine altars.” (1 Kings xix. 10.) They, then, stand up for the Law, and say, “He blasphemeth against Moses:” he shows, therefore, that it is they who blaspheme, and that (their blasphemy is not only against Moses, but) against God; shows that “they” from the very beginning have been doing this: that “they” have themselves destroyed their “customs,” that there is no need of these: that while accusing him, and saying that he opposed Moses, they themselves were opposing the Spirit: and not merely opposing, but with murder added to it: and that they had their enmity all along from the very beginning. Seest thou, that he shows them to be acting in opposition both to Moses and to all others, and not keeping the Law? And yet Moses had said, “A Prophet shall the Lord raise up unto you: and the rest also told of this (Christ) that He would come: and the prophet again said, “What house will ye build Me?” and again, “Did ye offer to Me slain beasts and sacrifices” those “forty years?” (Deut. xviii. 18.)

Such is the boldness of speech of a man bearing the Cross. Let us then also imitate this: though it be not a time of war, yet it is always the time for boldness of speech. For, “I spake,” says one, “in Thy testimonies before kings, and was not ashamed.” (Ps. cxix. 46.) If we chance to be among heathens, let us thus stop their mouths. without wrath, without harshness. (Comp. Hom. in 1 Cor. iv. §6; xxxiii. §4, 5; Col. xi. §2.) For if we do it with wrath, it no longer seems to be the boldness (of one who is confident of his cause,) but passion: but if with gentleness, this is boldness indeed. For399 in one and the same thing success and failure cannot possibly go together. The boldness is a success: the anger is a failure. Therefore, if we are to have boldness, we must be clean from wrath that none may impute our words to that. No matter how just your words may be, when you speak with anger, you ruin all: no matter how boldly you speak, how fairly reprove, or what not. See this man, how free from passion as he discourses to them! For he did not abuse them: he did but remind them of the words of the Prophets. For, to show you that it was not anger, at the very moment he was suffering evil at their hands, he prayed, saying, “Lay not to their charge this sin.” So far was he from speaking these words in anger; no, he spake in grief and sorrow for their sakes. As indeed this is why it speaks of his appearance, that “they saw his face as it had been the face of an angel,” on purpose that they might believe. Let us then be clean from wrath. The Holy 398 ᾽Αγγέλων (53) cannot refer (as Chrys.) to the Jehovah-angel of the bush. It refers to angels as the mediators in the giving of the law, an idea which appears in the lxx., the N.T. elsewhere (Gal. iii. 19; Heb. ii. 2) and is prominent in later Jewish theology (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XV. v. 3) Vid. note *, p. 107.—G.B.S. 399 Οὐ γὰρ δύναται ὁμοῦ καὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸν (κατ᾽ αὐτὸν A. C. and N. originally) καὶ κατόρθωμα εἶναι καὶ ἐλάττωμα. ῾Η παρρησία, κατόρθωμα· ὁ θυμὸς, ἐλάττωμα. Spirit dwelleth not where wrath is: cursed is the wrathful. It cannot be that aught wholesome should approach, where wrath goes forth. For as in a storm at sea, great is the tumult, loud the clamor, and then would be no time for lessons of wisdom (φιλοσοφεἵν): so neither in wrath. If the soul is to be in a condition either to say, or to be disciplined to, aught of philosophy, it must first be in the haven. Seest thou not how, when we wish to converse on matters of serious import, we look out for places free from noise, where all is stillness, all calm, that we may not be put out and discomposed? But if noise from without discomposes, much more disturbance from within. Whether one pray, to no purpose does he pray “with wrath and disputings:” (1 Tim. ii. 8) whether he speak, he will only make himself ridiculous: whether he hold his peace, so again it will be even then: whether he eat, he is hurt even then: whether he drink, or whether he drink not; whether he sit, or stand, or walk; whether he sleep: for even in their dreams such fancies haunt them. For what is there in such men that is not disagreeable? Eyes unsightly, mouth distorted, limbs agitated and swollen, tongue foul and sparing no man, mind distraught, gestures uncomely: much to disgust. Mark the eyes of demoniacs, and those of drunkards and madmen; in what do they differ from each other? Is not the whole madness? For what though it be but for the moment? The madman too is possessed for the moment: but what is worse than this? And they are not ashamed at that excuse; “I knew not (saith one) what I said.” And how came it that thou didst not know this, thou the rational man, thou that hast the gift of reason, on purpose that thou mayest not act the part of the creatures without reason, just like a wild horse, hurried away by rage and passion? In truth, the very excuse is criminal. For thou oughtest to have known what thou saidst. “It was the passion,” say you, “that spoke the words, not I.” How should it be that? For passion has no power, except it get it from you. You might as well say, “It was my hand that inflicted the wounds, not I.” What occasion, think you, most needs wrath? would you not say, war and battle? But even then, if anything is done with wrath, the whole is spoiled and undone. For of all men, those who fight had best not be enraged: of all men, those had best not be enraged, who want to hurt (τοὺς ὑβρίζοντας). And how is it possible to fight then? you will ask. With reason, with self-command (ἐπιεικείU+0026 139·): since fighting is, to stand in opposition. Seest thou not that even these (common) wars are regulated by definite law, and order, and times? For wrath is nothing but an irrational impulse: and an irrational creature cannot possibly perform aught rational. For instance, the man here spoke such words, and did it without passion. And Elias said,” How long will ye halt on both your knees?” (1 Kings xviii. 21) and spake it not in passion. And Phinees slew, and did it without passion. For passion suffers not a man to see, but, just as in a night-battle, it leads him, with eyes blindfolded and ears stopped up, where it will. Then let us rid ourselves of this demon, at its first beginning let us quell it, let us put the sign of the Cross on our breast, as it were a curb. Wrath is a shameless dog: but let it learn to hear the law. If there be in a sheep-fold a dog so savage as not to obey the command of the shepherd, nor to know his voice, all is lost and ruined. He is kept along with the sheep: but if he makes a meal on the sheep, he is useless, and is put to death. If he has learnt to obey thee, feed thy dog: he is useful when it is against the wolves, against robbers, and against the captain of the robbers that he barks, not against the sheep, not against friends. If he does not obey he ruins all: if he learns not to mind thee, he destroys all. The mildness in thee let not wrath consume, but let it guard it, and feed it up. And it will guard it, that it may feed in much security, if it destroy wicked and evil thoughts, if it chase away the devil from every side. So is gentleness preserved, when evil works are nowhere admitted: so we become worthy of respect, when we learn not to be shameless. For nothing renders a man so shameless, as an evil conscience. Why are harlots without shame? Why are virgins shamefaced? Is it not from their sin that the former, from their chastity that the latter, are such? For nothing makes a person so shameless, as sin. “And yet on the contrary,” say you, “it puts to shame.” Yes; him who condemns himself: but him that is past blushing, it renders even more reckless: for desperation makes daring. For “the wicked,” saith the Scripture, “when he is come into the depths of evils, despiseth.” (Prov. xviii. 3.) But he that is shameless, will also be reckless, and he that is reckless, will be daring.

See in what way gentleness is destroyed, when evil thoughts gnaw at it. This is why there is such a dog, barking mightily: we have also sling and stone (ye know what I mean): we have also spear and enclosure and cattle-fold: let us guard our thoughts unhurt. If the dog be gentle (σαίνῃ) with the sheep, but savage against those without, and keep vigilant watch, this is the excellence of a dog: and, be he ever so famished, not to devour the sheep; be he ever so full, not to spare the wolves. Such too is anger meant to be: however provoked, not to forsake gentleness; however at quiet, to be on the alert against evil thoughts: to acknowledge the friend, and not for any beating forsake him, and for all his caressing, to fly at the intruder. The devil uses caressing full oft: let400 the dog know at sight that he is an intruder. So also let us caress (σαίνωμεν) Virtue, though she put us to pain, and show our aversion to Vice, though she give us pleasure. Let us not be worse than the dogs, which, even when whipped and throttled, do not desert their master: but if401 the stranger also feed them, even 400 Edd. from E. Σαίνει ὁ διάβολος πολλάκις ὡς ὁ κύων, ἀλλὰ γνώτω πᾶς ὅτι. “The devil fawns full oft as the dog, but let every man know that,” etc. A. B. C. N. ὡς ὁ κύων εἰδέτω (ἰδέτω Χ.) ὅτι. We restore the true reading by omitting ὡς. “The dog” is anger: the devil σαίνει, not as the dog, but upon the dog, as the ἀλλότριος in the preceding sentence. “Let our faithful watch-dog see at once that he is an intruder.” In the following sentence the image is so far incongruous, as σαίνωμεν here has a different reference: viz. “as the dog fawns upon the friend though beaten, so let us,” etc. 401 ἂν δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ τρέφῃ ὁ ἀλλότριος καὶ οὕτω βλάπτουσιν (Α. βλάψουσιν). The antithesis seems to require the sense to be, “While, if the stranger even feed them, for all that, they do him a mischief.” But the words τρέφῃ and βλάπτουσιν are scarcely suitable in the sense, τροφὴν διδῷ and λυμαίνονται. Edd. have from E. alone, πῶς οὐ μᾶλλον βλάψουσιν; in the sense, “If however the stranger (not merely caresses but) also (regularly) feeds them, how shall they not do more hurt (than good)?” i.e. “If the devil be suffered to pamper our anger, that so they do hurt. There are times when anger is useful; but this is when it barks against strangers. What means it, “Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause?” (Matt. v. 22.) It means, Stand not up in thine own quarrel, neither avenge thyself: if thou see another suffering deadly wrong, stretch out thy hand to help him. This is no longer passion, when thou art clear of all feeling for thyself alone. David had gotten Saul into his power, and was not moved by passion, did not thrust the spear into him, the enemy he had in his power; but took his revenge upon the Devil. (1 Sam. xxvi. 7.) Moses, when he saw a stranger doing an injury, even slew him (Exod. ii. 22): but when one of his own people, he did not so: them that were brethren he would have reconciled; the others not so. That “most meek” (Num. xii. 3) Moses, as Scripture witnesseth of him, see how he was roused! But not so, we: on the contrary, where we ought to show meekness, no wild beast so fierce as we: but where we ought to be roused, none so dull and sluggish. (Hom. vi. de laud. Pauli, ad fin.) On no occasion do we use our faculties to the purpose they were meant for: and therefore it is that our life is spent to no purpose. For even in the case of implements; if one use them, one instead of other, all is spoilt: if one take his sword, and then, where he should use it and cut with it, uses only his hand, he does no good: again, where he should use his hand, by taking the sword in hand he spoils all. In like manner also the physician, if where he ought to cut, he cuts not, and where he ought not, he does cut, mars all. Wherefore, I beseech you, let us use the thing (τᾥ πράγματι) at its proper time. The proper time for anger is never, where we move in our own quarrel: but if it is our duty to correct others, then is the time to use it, that we may by force deliver others. (Hom. in Matt. xvi. §7.) So shall we both be like unto God, always keeping a spirit free from wrath, and shall attain unto the good things that are to come, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom, to the Father and the Holy Ghost together, be glory, dominion, and honor, now and evermore, world without end. Amen.

Acts VII. 54

“When they heard these things, they were cut to “the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.”

See,402 once more, the wrong-doers in trouble. Just as the Jews are perplexed, saying, “What are we to do with these men?” so these also are “cut to the heart.” (ch. iv. 16.) And yet it was he that had good right to be incensed, who, having done no wrong, was treated like a criminal, and was spitefully calumniated. But the calumniators had the worst of it in the end. So true is that saying, which I am ever repeating, “Ill to do, is ill to fare.” And yet he (in his charges against them) resorted to no calumny, but proved (what he said). So sure are we, when we are shamefully borne down in a matter wherein we have a clear conscience, to be none the worse for it.—“If403 they desired,” say you, “to kill him, how was it that they did not take occasion, out of what he said, that they might kill him?” They would fain have a fair-seeming plea to put upon their outrage. “Well then, was not the insulting them a fair plea?” It was not his doing, if they were insulted: it was the Prophet’s accusation of them. And besides, they did not wish it to look as if they killed him because of what he had said against them—just as they acted in the case of Christ; no, but for impiety: now404 this word 402 In our mss. the Homily opens abruptly with the question, Πῶς οὐκ ἔλαβον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀφορμὴν εἰς τὸ [μὴ Cat.] ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν; which is left unanswered, till some way further on. See note 2.—Montf. notes, “Unus, εἰστὸ μὴ ἀνελεῖν.” But this reading does not appear in any of our mss. though the Catena has it. Edd. from E, have; “How it was that they did not take occasion from what he had said to kill him, but are still mad, and seek an accusation, one may well wonder. So ever in trouble are the wrong-doers. Just then as the chief priests, in their perplexity, said,” etc. F. D. adopting part of this addition, “but are still mad, and seek an accusation. See once more,” etc. 403 οὐδὲν πάσχομεν. Καὶ ἐβούλοντο, φησὶν (om. D. F.) ἀνελεῖν αὐτόν. (as if these words were part of the sacred text. Then) Πρόφασιν (᾽Αλλὰ πρόφ. D. F.) ἤθελον εὔλογον κ. τ. λ. A. B. C. D. F. The modern text substitutes, ᾽Εβούλοντο μὲν οὖν ἀνελεῖν· ἀλλ᾽ οὐ ποιοῦσι τοῦτο, αἰτίαν θέλοντες εὔλογον κ. τ. λ.—OEcumenius, however, begins his comment thus: Εἰ ἐβούλοντο ἀνελεῖν, πῶς οὐκ ἀνεῖλον εὐθέως τότε;῞Οτι πρόφασιν εὔλογον κ. τ. λ. Hence we restore the true reading, and the proper order. Namely, for Καὶ we read Εἰ, and transpose to this place, as part of the interlocution, the question πῶς οὐκ ἔλαβον—; So, the φησίν is explained, the question is followed by its answer, and there is no abruptness. 404 τοῦτο δὲ εὐσεβείας ἦν τὸ ῥU+0026 210·μα. i.e. all that Stephen had spoken in accusation of their wickedness, especially v. 51–53, was the language of piety, of a devout man zealous for the honor of God: they could not say, “This is impious;” and they were waiting to catch at something which might enable them to cry out, “He blasphemeth:” and, disappointed of this, they were cut to the heart.—Below Ben. retains (from E. alone) μὴ πάλιν καινόν τι περὶ αὐτὸν ἄλλο γένηται, though Savile had restored the genuine reading μὴ πάλιν αἰδεσιμώτερος of his was the expression of piety. Wherefore, as they attempted, besides killing him, to hurt his reputation also, “they were cut to the heart.” For they were afraid lest he should on the contrary become an object of even greater reverence. Therefore, just what they did in Christ’s case, the same they do here also. For as He said, “Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of God” (Matt. xxvi. 64), and they, calling it blasphemy, “ran upon Him;” just so was it here. There, they “rent their garments;” here, they “stopped their ears. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him.” (v. 55–58.) And yet, if he lied, they ought to have thought him beside himself, and to have let him go.—But he wished to bring them over, “and said, Behold,” etc., for, since he had spoken of Christ’s death, and had said nothing of His resurrection, he would fain add this doctrine also. “Standing at the right hand of God.” And in this manner He appeared to him:405 that, were it but so, the Jews might receive Him: for since the (idea of His) sitting (at the right hand of God) was offensive to them, for the present he brings forward only what relates to His Resurrection. This is the reason also why his face was glorified. For God, being merciful, desired to make their machinations the means of recalling them unto γένηται. They had desired to injure his reputation for sanctity, and now feared that his speech would have the opposite result. 405 Edd. from E. οὕτω δὲ αὐτῷ λέγει φανῆναι, ὥς που διέξεισιν, ἵνα κἂν οὕτω δέξωνται τὸν λόγον. “And Stephen describes Christ as appearing to Him in this manner, as one somewhere relates at large, in order that,” etc.: meaning, that he might have said “sitting at the right hand,” but forbears to do this, because it was offensive to the Jews, and accordingly τέως περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως κινεῖ λόγον, καί φησιν αὐτὸν ἵστασθαι. The clause ὥς που διέξεισιν seems to have been intended by the innovator, not as part of the text, but as a gloss, “as is somewhere shown at large.” But what Chrys. says is, that Christ was pleased to appear in this attitude to Stephen for the sake of the Jews, in order, etc.—Hom. vi. in Ascens. (Cat. in 1,) he says, “Why standing, and not sitting? To show that He is in act to succor His martyr. For thus it is said also of the Father, ‘Stand up, O God, and, Now will I stand up, saith the Lord, I will set him in safety.’”—Below, Διὰ τοῦτο κ. τ. λ. Comp. de Mundi Creat. Hom. ii. t. vi. 447. C. “Why did He cause the face of Stephen to shine? Because he was to be stoned as a blasphemer for saying ‘Behold,’ etc., therefore God, forestalling this, crowned his face with angelic beauty, to show those thankless ones, that if he were a blasphemer, he would not have been thus glorified.” But E. (Edd.) ἀπὸ τούτου στοχάζομαι δεδόξ. “I conjecture that it was from this vision (Erasm. from this time: Ben. hence) that his face was glorified.” In the next sentence, Edd. from E. δἰ ὧν ἐπεβουλεύοντο ἐκεῖνοι, δἰ αὐτῶν ἐβούλετο αὐτούς ἐκκαλέσασθαι, εἰ καὶ μηδὲν πλέον ἐγένετο. Καὶ ἐκβαλόντες κ. τ. λ. “by means of the very machinations wherewith those were assailed He desired to call (the doers) themselves to Himself, even if nothing more had been done.” Himself. And see, how many signs are wrought! “And cast him out of the city, and stoned him.” Here again, “without the city,” and even in death, Confession and Preaching. (Heb. xiii. 21.) “And the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling406 upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (v. 59.) This is meant to show them that he is not perishing, and to teach them. “And he knelt down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.” (v. 60.) To clear himself, and show that neither were his former words prompted by passion, he says, “Lord” “lay not this sin to their charge”: wishing also even in this way to win them over. For to show that he forgave their wrath and rage in murdering him, and that his own soul was free from all passion, was the way to make his saying to be favorably received.

“And Saul was consenting unto his death.” Hereupon arises a persecution, and it becomes a great one. “And at that time there was a great persecution against the Church which was at Jerusalem. And they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the Apostles.” (ch. viii. 1.) Mark how once more God permits temptations to arise; mark, and well observe, how the events are ordered by Divine Providence. They were admired because of the signs: being scourged, they were none the worse for it: (some) were ordained in the matter of the widows407: the word increased: once more, God permits a great hindrance to arise. And a persecution of no ordinary kind [“and they were all scattered,” etc.]; for they feared their enemies, now become more daring: and at the same time it is shown that they were but men, these that were afraid, that fled. For, that thou mayest not say after these things that408 by grace alone they effected (what they did), they were also persecuted, and themselves became more timorous, while their adversaries were more daring. “And were all scattered abroad,” it says, “except the Apostles.” But this was divinely ordered, so that they should no longer all sit there in Jerusalem. “And devout men,” it says, “carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.” (v. 2.) If they were “devout,” why did they “make great lamentation over him?” They were not yet perfect. The man was gracious and amiable: this also shows that they were men—not their fear alone, but their grief and lamentation. Who would not have wept to see that mild, that lamb-like person stoned, and lying dead?409 Fit eulogy to be spoken over his grave has the Evangelist recorded, in this 406 A. E. N. Cat. omit the τὸν Θεόν. 407 κατέστησαν ἐπὶ τῶν χηρῶν, A. C. N. Sav. χειρῶν, Cat. χωρῶν, B. D. E. F. Morel. Ben. versati sunt in regionibus, Erasm. constituti sunt per regiones, Ben. 408 ὅτι τῇ χάριτι μόνον κατώρθουν. Or, “that by grace they only succeeded,” i.e. always, without failure. 409 Chrys. seems to assume that ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς refers to Christian men, a view that has been taken by some modern expositors (as Ewald and DeWette). It is better to understand by the term, pious Jews who were favorably disposed to Christianity (So Meyer, Olshausen, Lechler, Lange, Gloag, Hackett). The usage of εύλαβής in the N.T. favors this view as it is applied to devout persons who were not Christians (vid. ii. 5; Luke ii. 25) in every case, except in xxii. 12when it refers to Ananias, a Christian, but is used in describing him in a legal point of one speech, “Lay not this sin to their charge.”—“And made,” he says, “great lamentation over him.”—But let us look over again what has been said.

He410 mentions the cause of his (angelic) appearance (Recapitulation, vii. 54; viii. 2.); “But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God.” And when he said, “I see the heavens opened, they stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord.” (v. 56, 57.) And yet in what respect are these things deserving of accusation? “Upon him,” the man who has wrought such miracles, the man who has prevailed over all in speech, the man who can hold such discourse! As if they had got the very thing they wanted, they straightway give full scope to their rage. “And the witnesses,” he says, “laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man, whose name was Saul.” (v. 58.) Observe how particularly he relates what concerns Paul, to show thee that the Power which wrought in him was of God. But after all these things, not only did he not believe, but also aimed at Him with a thousand hands: for this is why it says, “And Saul was consenting unto his death.”—And this blessed man does not simply pray, but does it with earnestness: “having kneeled down.” Mark his divine death! So long411 only the Lord permitted the soul to remain in him. “And having said this, he fell asleep.” (v. 60.)—“And they were all scattered abroad throughout the region of Judea and Samaria. (ch. viii. 1.) And now without scruple they had intercourse with Samaria, whereas it had been said to them, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles” “and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.” (Matt. x. 5.) “Except the Apostles,” it says: they, in this way also, view: εὐλαβὴς κατὰ τὸν νόμον. Moreover, if Christians had been meant, they would not probably have been designated by so vague a term, but, as uniformly, would have been called disciples or brethren. The burial of Stephen by devout Jews recalls the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathæa and Nicodemus (John xix. 38, 39).—G.B.S. 410 Τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς ὄψεως φησίν. B. C. Sav. marg. meaning, That his face was as the face of an angel was caused by the glory of Christ which he now beholds. The modern text omits this, having said the same thing above in the words ἀπὸ τούτου, see note 4, p. 112. 411 Ben. after Morel. from E. without notice of the true reading (A. B. C. N. Cat.), received by Savile, has: ῞Οθεν θεῖος αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ θάνατος γέγονε. Μεχρὶ γὰρ τούτου συγκεχώρητο ταῖς ψυχαῖς ἐν τῷ ἅδῃ εἶναι. (The latter part is adopted also by D. F.) “Whence also his death became divine. For until this time it had been granted to the souls to be in Hades.” This comment is derived from St. Cyril. Al. from whom the Catena cites: “Since we are justified by faith in Him.…He hath wrought a new thing for us, τὸ μηκέτι μὲν εἰς ᾅδου τρέχειν τὰς τῶν σωμάτων ἀπαλλαττομένας ψυχὰς καθὰ καὶ πρωὴν, πέμπεσθαι δὲ μᾶλλον εἰς χεῖρας Θεοῦ ζῶντος: that our souls, on their deliverance from our bodies, no longer as aforetime haste into Hades, but are conveyed into the hands of the Living God. And knowing this, Saint Stephen said, “Lord Jesus receive my spirit.” OEcumen, repeats this, almost in the same words. wishing to win the Jews,—but not to leave the city,—and to be the means of inspiring others with boldness.

“As for Saul, he made havoc of the Church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.” (v. 3.) Great was his frenzy: that he was alone, that he even entered into houses: for indeed he was ready to give his life for the Law. “Haling,” it says, “men and women:” mark both the confidence, and the violence, and the frenzy. All that fell into his hands, he put to all manner of ill-treatment: for in consequence of the recent murder, he was become more daring. “Therefore they that were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the word. Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. And there was great joy in that city. But there was a certain man, called Simon, which before time in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria.” (v. 4–9.) Observe412 another trial, this affair of Simon. “Giving out,” it says, “that he was himself some great one. To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.” (v. 10–15.) And (yet) great signs had been done: how then had they not received the Spirit? They had received the Spirit, namely, of remission of sins: but the Spirit of miracles they had not received. “For as yet He was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (v. 16, 17.) For, to show that this was the case, and that it was the Spirit of miracles they had not received, observe how, having seen the result, Simon came and asked for this. “And when Simon saw that through laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.” (v. 18, 19.)

Acts VIII. 26, 27

“And the Angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, arise and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. And he arose and went.”

It seems to me, this436 (Philip) was one of the seven; for from Jerusalem he would not have gone southwards, but to the north; but from Samaria it was “towards the south. The same is desert:” so that there is no fear of an attack from the Jews. And he did not ask, Wherefore? but “arose and went. And, behold,” it says, “a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet.” (v. 27, 28.) High encomiums for the man, that he, residing in Ethiopia and beset with so much business, and when there was no festival going on, and living in that superstitious city, came “to Jerusalem for to worship.” Great also is his studiousness, that even “sitting in his chariot he read.437 And,” it says, “the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him reading the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me?” (v. 29–31.) Observe again his piety; that though he did not understand, he read, and then after reading, examines. “And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the Scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened He not His mouth: in His humiliation His judgment was taken away: and who 436 So all the mss. and the Catena: except E. which having already made Chrys. affirm that Philip was one of the seven, supra, p. 115, and note 1, gives a different turn to this passage. “It seems to me, that he received this command while in Samaria: because from Jerusalem one does not go southward, but to the north: but from Samaria it is to the south.” An unnecessary comment; for it would hardly occur to any reader of the Acts to suppose that Philip had returned to Jerusalem. 437 “Behold, an eunuch (comp. p. 122, note 4), a barbarian—both circumstances calculated to make him indisposed to study—add to this, his dignified station and opulence: the very circumstance of his being on a journey, and riding in a chariot: for to a person travelling in this way, it is not easy to attend to reading, but on the contrary very troublesome: yet his strong desire and earnestness set aside all these hindrances,” etc. Hom. in Gen. xxxv. §1. Throughout the exposition of the history of the eunuch there given (t. iv. p. 350–352) he is called a barbarian: so in the tenth of the “Eleven Homilies,” §5, t. xii. 393, 394, he is called a “barbarian,” and “alien,” ἀλλόφυλος, but also “a Jew:” ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ βάρβαρος τότε ἐκεῖνος ταῦτα εἶπε (viz. excuses for delaying baptism) καὶ ταῦτα ᾽Ιουδαῖος ὢν κ. τ. λ. i.e. as Matthäi explains in l., “a Jewish proselyte.”—Both expositions should be compared with this in the text. shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (v. 32–35.) Observe how it is Providentially ordered. First he reads and does not understand; then he reads the very text in which was the Passion and the Resurrection and the Gift. “And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (v. 36.) Mark the eager desire, mark438 the exact knowledge. “And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.” (v. 38, 39.) But why did the Spirit of the Lord bear him away? (Hereby) the occurrence was shown to be more wonderful. Even then, the eunuch did not know him. Consequently this was done, that Philip might afterwards be a subject of wonder to him.439 “For,” it says, “he went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Cæsarea.” (v. 40.) This (Philip, therefore) was one of the seven; for there in fact he is afterwards found at Cæsarea. It was well and expedient therefore that the Spirit caught Philip away; else the eunuch would have desired to go with him,440 and Philip would have grieved him by declining to comply with his request, the time being not yet come. (a) But441 at the same time here was an encouraging assurance for them that they shall also prevail over the heathen: for442 indeed the high character (τὸ ἀξιόπιστον) of the (first) be- 438 ἀκρίβειαν. Below, ὁρᾷς ὅτι τὰ δόγματα ἀπηρτισμένα εἶχε. The 37th verse (Philip’s answer and the Eunuch’s confession) seems to have been absent from St. Chrysostom’ copy (unless indeed it is implied in the passage just cited). It is found in Laud’s Gr. and Lat. copy of the Acts, part is cited by St. Irenæus, p. 196. and part by St. Cypr. p. 318, but unknown to the other ancient authorities. 439 ὥστε οὖν ὕστερον αὐτὸν θαυμασθῆναι, τοῦτο ἐγένετο: i.e. as below, the eunuch saw that it was the work of God: it was done in order that he might not think ὅτι ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν ἁπλῶς.—Edd. from E. “Why, it may be asked, did the Spirit of the Lord carry Philip away? Because he was to pass through other cities, and to preach the Gospel. Consequently this was done, etc. that he might not think what had happened to him was of man, but of God.” 440 συναπελθεῖν (OEc. συμπαρελθεῖν) αὐτᾷ. As there is no αὐτὸν, the meaning seems to be as above expressed, not, “would have desired Philip to go with him.” 441 What follows is confused in the mss. and Edd., by transposition of the portions of text here marked a, b; and c, d: the order in the mss. being b, a, d. c, e. 442 Καὶ γὰρ τὸ τῶν πιστευόντων ἀξιόπιστον ἱκανὸν αὐτοὺς ἆραι· εἰ δὲ ἐπέμεινεν (B. ἐπέμενον) ἐκεῖ, ποῖον τὸ ἔγκλημα; Meaning, perhaps, that the character and station of such converts as the eunuch would weigh much with their countrymen (τοὺς ἀλλοφύλους). Though if the eunuch had stayed behind in Judea, who could have lievers was enough to move them. If however the eunuch had stayed there, what fault could have been found? [But he knew him not]: for this is why it says, “he went on his way rejoicing:” so that had he known him, he would not have been (so) delighted.

“And the Angel of the Lord,” etc. (Recapitulation, v. 26.) (b) See Angels assisting the preaching, and not themselves preaching, but calling these (to the work). But the wonderful nature of the occurrence is shown also by this: that what of old was rare, and hardly done, here takes place with ease,443 and see with what frequency! (c) “An eunuch,” it says, “a man of great authority, under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.”444 (v. 27.) For there women bore rule of old, and this was the law among them. Philip did not yet know for whose sake he had come into the desert: (d) but445 what was there to hinder his learning all (these particulars) accurately, while in the chariot? “Was reading the prophet Esaias.” (v. 28.) For the road was desert, and there was no display in the matter. Observe also at what time: in the most violent heat (of the day). (e) “And the Spirit said unto him.” (v. 29.) Not now the Angel446 but the Spirit urges him. Why is this? “Then,” the vision took place, in grosser form, through the Angel, for this is for them that are more of the body, but the Spirit is for the blamed him?—The modern text:“—sufficient to persuade the learners to be roused up themselves also to the same zeal.” 443 εὐχερῶς, ὅρα μεθ᾽ ὅσης ἀφθονίας. Cat. The mss. omit εὐχερῶς. He means, angelic manifestations. 444 It is probable that this eunuch was an Ethiopian by birth and a Jewish proselyte. It was customary for such foreign proselytes, as well as for Jewish non-residents, to go up to Jerusalem to worship. Others suppose him to have been a Jew, resident in Ethiopia; but he is designated as “an Ethiopian.” The fact that those in his condition were not admitted to full standing in the congregation of Israel (Deut. xxiii. 1) is not a sufficient reason for the opinion of Meyer that this man must have been an uncircumcised heathen—a “proselyte of the gate,” since he could occupy the same relation as native Jews in his condition. Ethiopia lay to the S. of Egypt and Candace was queen of Meroë, the northern portion of the country. Eunuchs not only served as keepers of the harem but sometimes, as here, as royal treasurers.—G.B.S. 445 τὶ δὲ ἐκώλυσεν πάντα αὐτὸν ἀκριβῶς μαθεῖν καὶ ἐν τῷ ὀχήματι ὄντα; καὶ γὰρ ἔρημος ἦν καὶ οὐκ ἦν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐπίδειξις. We conjecture the first clause to be meant as the answer to an objection: How should Philip know all these particulars? It may indeed relate to the eunuch’s accurate knowledge (ἀκρίβεια) above mentioned, note 1. The latter part, however, seems to belong to v. 28 to which the Catena refers the mention of the χαλεπώτατον καῦμα.—Edd. (from E. alone), “Pray what hindered, say you, that he should learn all, even when in the chariot, and especially in the desert? Because the matter was not one of display. But let us look over again what has been read. And behold,” etc. 446 ἁρπάζει: but this, derived from v. 39 is not the right word here.—This, with the clause immediately preceding in the mss., is thus altered by the innovator (E. Edd.): “So little did P. know (οὕτως οὐκ ᾔδει Φ.) for whose sake he was come into the desert: because also (ὅτι καὶ, F. D. ὅθεν) not now an Angel, but the Spirit bears him away. But the eunuch sees none of these things, being as yet not fully initiated (ἀτελὴς, imperfectus Ben.); or more spiritual. And how did He speak to him? Of course, suggested it to him. Why does not the Angel appear to the other, and bring him to Philip? Because it is likely he would not have been persuaded, but rather terrified. Observe the wisdom of Philip: he did not accuse him, not say, “I know these things exactly:” did not pay court to him, and say, “Blessed art thou that readest.” But mark his speech, how far it is from harshness alike and from adulation; the speech rather of a kind and friendly man. “Understandest thou what thou readest?” (v. 30.) For it was needful that he should himself ask, himself have a longing desire. He plainly intimates, that he knows that the other knew nothing: and says, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” at the same time he shows him that great was the treasure that lay therein. It tells well also, that the eunuch looked not to the outward appearance (σχἥμα) (of the man), said not, “Who art thou?” did not chide, not give himself airs, not say that he did know. On the contrary, he confesses his ignorance: wherefore also he learns. He shows his hurt to the physician: sees at a glance, that he both knows the matter, and is willing to teach. Look447 how free he is from haughtiness; the outward appearance announced nothing splendid. So desirous was he of learning, and gave heed to his words; and that saying, “He that seeketh, findeth,” (Matt. vii. 8.) was fulfilled in him. “And,” it says, “he besought Philip, that he would come up and sit with him.” (v. 31.) Do you mark the eagerness, the longing desire? But should any say he ought to have waited for Philip (to speak), (the answer is), he does not know what is the matter: he could not in the least tell what the other was going to say to him, but supposed merely that he was about to receive some (lesson of) prophecy. And moreover, this was more respectful, that he did not draw him into his chariot, but besought him. “And Philip,” we have read, “ran to him, and heard him reading;” even the fact of his running, showed448 that he wished to say (something). “And the place,” it says, “of because also these things are not for the more bodily, but for the more spiritual: nor indeed does he learn the things which Philip is fully taught (ἐκδιδάσκεται).” 447 ῎Ιδετε(ἴδε B.) τὸ (τὸν N.) ἄτυφον· οὐδὲν λαμπρὸν ἐπεφέρετο σχῆμα. Read τὸ σχῆμα.—E. D. F. Edd., Εἶδε and οὐδὲ γὰρ. Vidit illum esse a fastu alienum: neque enim splendidum gestabat vestitum. Ben. and similarly Erasm. as if the meaning were, “the eunuch saw there was no pride in Philip, for he had no splendid clothing.” But it is the eunuch in whom this (τὸ ἄτυφον) is praised, (see below, §4 init.) that he did not disdain Philip for the meanness of his appearance: comp. Hom. in Gen. xxxv. §2. “For when the Apostle (supra, p. 115, note 1) had said, “Knowest thou,” and came up to him in mean attire (μετὰ εὐτελοῦς σχήματος), the eunuch did not take it amiss, was not indignant, did not think himself insulted.…but he, the man in great authority, the barbarian, the man riding in a chariot, besought him, the person of mean appearance, who might for his dress have easily been despised, to come up and sit with him,” etc. 448 ἐδείκνυ βουλόμενον εἰπεῖν. This seems meant to explain why the eunuch at once besought Philip to come up into the chariot: his running showed that he wished to say something.—E. Edd. “was a sign of his wishing to speak, and the reading (a sign) of his studiousness. For he was reading at a time when the sun makes the heat more violent.” 1 The rendering of ἡ δὲ περιοχὴ τῆς γραφῆς given in the text (A.V.) is also that of the the Scripture which he read was this: As a sheep He was led to the slaughter.”449 (v. 32.) And this circumstance, also, is a token of his elevated mind, (φιλοσοφίας) that he had in hand this prophet, who is more sublime than all others. Philip does not relate matters to him just as it might happen, but quietly: nay, does not say anything until he is questioned. Both in the former instance he prayed him, and so he does now, saying, “I pray thee of whom speaketh the prophet this?” That450 he should at all know either that the Prophets speak in different ways about different persons, or that they speak of themselves in another person— the question betokens a very thoughtful mind.451 Let us be put to shame, both poor and rich, by this eunuch. Then, it says, “they came to a certain water, and he said, Lo, here is water.” (v. 36.) Again, of his own accord he requests, saying, “What doth hinder me to be baptized?” And see again his modesty: he does not say, Baptize me, neither does he hold his peace; but he utters somewhat midway betwixt strong desire and reverent fear, saying, “What doth hinder me?” Do you observe that he has the doctrines (of faith) perfect? For indeed the Prophet had the whole, Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, Judgment to come. And if he shows exceeding earnestness of desire, do not marvel. Be ashamed, all ye as many as are unbaptized. “And,” it says, “he commanded the chariot to stand still.” (v. R.V. Another interpretation is preferred by many scholars: “the content of the Scripture” (γραφὴ being used in the limited sense of the particular passage in question). This view harmonizes with the derivation of περιοχή (περὶ-ἔχειν) meaning an enclosure, or that which is enclosed. Γραφή is also used in the limited sense in v. 35 (So, Meyer, Hackett, and Thayer’s Lex.) 449 The rendering of ἡ δὲ περιοχὴ τῆς γραφῆς given in the text (A.V.) is also that of the R.V. Another interpretation is preferred by many scholars: “the content of the Scripture” (γραφὴ being used in the limited sense of the particular passage in question). This view harmonizes with the derivation of περιοχή (περὶ-ἔχειν) meaning an enclosure, or that which is enclosed. Γραφή is also used in the limited sense in v. 35 (So, Meyer, Hackett, and Thayer’s Lex.) 450 ῍Η (N. om. Cat. τὸ) ὅλως εἰδέναι ὅτι ἄλλως καὶ (om. C.) περὶ ἄλλων λέγουσιν οἱ προφῆται, ἢ ὅτι κ. τ. λ. A. B. C. Cat. We read, τὸ ὅλως εἰδέναι ἢ.…But the modern text: “It seems to me that he knew not that the prophets speak of other persons: or if not this, he was ignorant that they discourse concerning themselves in another person;” omitting the last clause, σφόδρα ἐπεσκεμμένου (Cat. περιεσκεμμένη) ἡ ἐρώτησις.—In the next sentence B. has retained the true reading, ἐκτομίαν, for which the rest have ταμίαν. N. ταμιεῖαν. 451 The eunuch must have heard much said about Jesus at Jerusalem for he had been crucified but five or six years before. In this time of persecution and excitement, discussions would be rife concerning the Christian interpretation of prophecy. The eunuch seems to have heard two theories concerning the prophecies (e.g. Is. liii.) relating to the “Servant of Jehovah,” one that the prophet was speaking of the Messiah (whom the Christians asserted Jesus to be) and the other that the prophet spoke concerning himself in these prophecies, an opinion not wholly abandoned in modern times. The eunuch’s sudden conversion presupposes prolonged consideration of the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah and a keen interest in religious truth.—G.B.S. 38.) He spoke, and gave the order at the same moment, before hearing (Philip’s answer). “And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip;” (v. 39) in order that the occurrence might be shown to be of God; that he might not consider it to be merely man. “And he went,” it says, “on his way rejoicing.” (P. 121, note 2.) This hints, that he would have been grieved had he known: for the greatness of his joy, having had the Spirit also vouchsafed to him, he did not even see things present—“But Philip was found at Azotus.” (v. 40.) Great was the gain to Philip also:—that which he heard concerning the Prophets, concerning Habakkuk, concerning Ezekiel, and the rest, he saw done in his own person. (Bel. U+0026 Dr. v. 36; Ez. iii. 12.) Thence it appears that he went a long distance, seeing he “was found at Azotus.” (The Spirit) set him there, where he was thenceforth to preach: “And passing through, he preached in all the cities, until he came to Cæsarea.”

“And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.” (ch. ix. 1, 2.) He fitly mentions Paul’s zeal, and shows that in the very midst of his zeal he is drawn. “Yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter,” and not yet sated with the murder of Stephen, he was not yet glutted with the persecution of the Church, and the dispersion. Lo, this was fulfilled which was spoken by Christ, that “they which kill you shall think they offer worship to God.” (John xvi. 2.) He then in this wise did it, not as the Jews: God forbid! For that he did it through zeal, is manifest from his going abroad even to strange cities: whereas they would not have cared even for those in Jerusalem; they were for one thing only, to enjoy honor. But why went he to Damascus? It was a great city, a royal city: he was afraid lest that should be preoccupied. And observe his strong desire and ardor (and), how strictly according to the Law he went to work: he goes not to the governor, but “to the priest. That if he found any of this way:” for so the believers were called, probably because of their taking the direct way that leads to heaven. And why did he not receive authority to have them punished there, but brings them to Jerusalem! He did these things here with more authority. And mark on what a peril he casts himself. He452 was not afraid lest 452 Edd. “on what danger casting himself, still even so he is afraid lest he should suffer some harm. This is the reason why he takes others with him, probably to rid himself of his fear: or also, because they were many against whom he was going, he takes many, in order that the more boldly, whomsoever he should find, both men and women,” etc. Just the opposite to C.’s meaning: viz. “It is not to be supposed, because he took many with him, that he had any fears for himself: he was above all such regards. The fact is, he wished to show them all (both the Jews at Jerusalem, and the companions of his journey), how they ought to act:” διὰ τῆς ὁδοῦ πᾶσιν αὐτοις δεῖξαι ἐβούλετο. C. however has πᾶσιν αὐτοῦ, N. πᾶσιν αὐτοὺς, meaning: “by means of his journey, he wished to show them (the Christians bound) to all.” Perhaps the true reading is αὐτοῦ τὴν προθυμίαν, or the like. E. D. F. Edd. “Especially as by means of the journey he wished to show them all (πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς), that all depended on him (αὐτοῦ τὸ πᾶν ὄν).” he should take any harm, but (yet) he took others also with him, “that if,” it says, “he found any of this way, whether they were men or women”—Oh, the ruthlessness!—“he might bring them bound.” By this journey of his, he wished to show them all (how he would act): so far were they from being earnest in this matter. Observe him also casting (people) into prison before this. The others therefore did not prevail: but this man did prevail, by reason of his ardent mind. “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” (v. 3, 4.) Why not in Jerusalem? why not in Damascus? That there might be no opening for different persons to relate the occurrence in different ways, but that he alone should be the authentic narrator (ἀξιόπιστος), he that453 went for this purpose. In fact, he says this [both in his oration on the stairs], and when pleading before Agrippa. “Fell to the earth”: (ch. xxii, 6: xxvi. 12) for excess of light is wont to shock, because the eyes have their measure: it is said also that excess of sound makes people deaf and stunned (as in a fit) (ἀποπλἥγας). But454 him it only blinded, and extinguished his passion by fear, so that he should hear what was spoken. “Saul, Saul,” saith He, “why persecutest thou me?” And He tells him nothing: does not say, Believe, nor anything whatever of the kind: but expostulates with him, all but saying, What wrong, great or small, hast thou suffered from Me, that thou doest these things? “And he said, Who art Thou Lord?” (v. 5) thus in the first place confessing himself His servant. “And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest:” think not thy warring is with men.455 And they which were 453 ὁ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπιών: i.e. who would have a right to be believed, because it was known that he left Jerusalem for the purpose of persecuting. Had it taken place in Jerusalem or in Damascus, some would have given one account of the matter, some another—as, in the case of our Lord, when the voice came to Him from heaven at Jerusalem, “some said it thundered, some that an Angel spake to Him,” (so Chrys. explains below, p. 125)—but, happening in the way it did, the person most interested in it, and who by this very thing was caused to take so momentous a step, was the authentic narrator; i.e. the story was to come from him, as the only competent authority: ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἀξιόπιστος ἦν διηγούμενος (so Cat.; C., ἦν διηγήσασθαι: the other mss. ᾖδιηγούμενος) ὁ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπιών· Infra, p. 125, οὗτος δὲ ἀξιόπιστος ἦν ἀπαγγέλλων μᾶλλον τὰ ἑαυτοῦ.—In the next sentence, Τοῦτο γοῦν λέγει, καὶ πρὸς ᾽Αγρίππαν ἀπολογούμενος, something seems wanting before καὶ, as supplied in the translation: but also both before and after these words: e.g. For the men which were with him, heard not the voice, and were amazed and overpowered. In fact, he says this in his oration on the stairs, “They heard not the voice of Him that spake to me,” and when pleading before Agrippa, he says, “And when we were all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice.” etc. 454 ᾽Αλλὰ τοῦτον μόνον ἐπήρωσε: may be rendered, They all saw the light, but it blinded only Paul:—or, Him however it only blinded, did not cast him into insensibility, but left him otherwise in possession of his faculties. 455 The remainder of the verse and the first part of v. 6 to πρὸς αὐτὸν, were absent from Chrysostom’s copy (and Cat. OEc. Theoph.) as from Codd. A. B. C. (of New Test.) and Laud’s Gr. and Lat. of Acts: but the last have with him heard the voice of Paul, but saw no person to whom he answered—for (the Lord) suffered them to be hearers of what was less important. Had they heard the other Voice, they would not have believed; but perceiving Paul answering (some person), they marvelled. “But arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (v. 6.) Observe, how He does not immediately add all, but first softens his mind. In the same way He called the disciples also a second time.456 “It shall be told thee,” etc.: He gives him good hopes, and (intimates) that he shall recover his sight also. “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus” (v. 7, 8):—the spoils of the devil (τὰ σκεύη αὐτοὕ), “his goods” (Matt. xiii. 29), as from some city, yea, some metropolis which has been taken. And the wonder of it is, the enemies and foes themselves brought him in, in the sight of all! “And for three days he neither did eat nor drink, being blinded.” (v. 9.) What could equal this? To compensate the discouragement in the matter of Stephen, here is encouragement, in the bringing in of Paul: though that sadness had its consolation in the fact of Stephen’s making such an end, yet it also received this further consolation: moreover, the bringing in of the villages of the Samaritans afforded very great comfort.—But why did this take place not at the very first, but after these things? That it might be shown that Christ was indeed risen. This furious assailant of Christ, the man who would not believe in His death and resurrection, the persecutor of His disciples, how should this man have become a believer, had not the power of His resurrection been great indeed? Be it so, that the other Apostles favored (His pretensions457): what say you to this man? Why then not immediately after His resurrection? That the clause, σκληρόν σοι π. κ. λ. after διώκεις, v. 4. St. Hil. omits the clause durum est, etc. but has, tremens et pavens, etc.—“The voice of Paul:” Didymus in Cat. gives this as Chrysostom’s solution of the seeming contradiction between this statement and that of St. Paul in xxii. 9. “In the first narrative, they heard Paul’s voice, saying, Who art thou, Lord? But saw no man save Paul: in the second, they saw the light, but did not hear the voice of the Lord.” 456 οὕτω καὶ τοὺς μαθητὰς ἐκάλεσεν ἐκ δευτέρου (Cat. and Sav. marg. join ἐκ δ. to the next sentence). The meaning is: As here, there is an interval between the conversion of Saul, and Christ’s announcement of the purpose for which he was called (which in Acts xxvi. 15, 16 are put together as if all was said at the same time), so in the case of the disciples, Andrew, John, and Simon, there was a first call, related in John i.; then after a while, Christ called them a second time, (see Hom. in Matt. xiv. §2) namely, to be fishers of men, Matt. iv. In both cases there was an interval, during which he and they were prepared for the further revelation of His will concerning them. The mod. t. (E. Edd.) omits this clause, and substitutes, καὶ δἰ ὡν παρακελεύεται αὐτὸν ποιεῖν παραχρῆμα κ. τ. λ. “And by what He bids him do, straightway gives him.” etc. 457 ῎Εστω ἐκεῖνοι αὐτῷ ἐχαρίζοντο. Hom. in illud, Saulus adhuc spirans, etc. §5, t. iii. p. 105. “But shameless objectors may say (of Peter), that because he was Christ’s disciple, because he had been partaker at His table, had been with Him three years, had been under His teaching, had been deluded and cajoled by Him (ἐκολακεύθη his hostility might be more clearly shown as open war. The man who is so frantic as even to shed blood and cast men into prisons, all at once believes! It was not enough that he had never been in Christ’s company: the believers must be warred upon by him with vehement hostility: he left to none the possibility of going beyond him in fury: none of them all could be so violent. But when he was blinded,458 then he saw the proofs of His sovereignty and loving kindness: then he answers, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” that none may say that he played the hypocrite, he that was even eager for blood, and went to the priests, and flung himself upon such dangers, in persecuting and bringing to punishment even them that were in foreign parts—under these circumstances he now acknowledges His sovereignty. And why was he shone upon by that light not within the city, but before it? The many would not have believed, since even there (at Jerusalem when the people heard the voice which came from above, they said that “it thundered” (John xii. 29, supra, note 2, p. 123); but this man was authority enough in reporting what was his own affair. And bound he was brought in, though not with bonds upon him: and they drew him, who had expected to draw the others. “And he eat not, neither drank:” he condemned himself for the past, he confessed, prayed, besought God. But should any say, This was the effect of compulsion: (we answer) The same thing happened to Elymas: then how came it that he was not changed? (ch. xiii. de Laud. Pauli Hom. iv. §1, t. ii. p. 491.) What (evidence) could be more compulsory than the earthquake at the Resurrection, the report of the soldiers, the other miracles, the seeing Himself risen? But these things do not compel (belief) they are calculated to teach (it) (οὐκ ἀναγκαστικὰ ἀλλὰ διδακτικά). Why did not the Jews believe when they were told of these things? That he spoke truth was manifest: for he would not have been changed, had this not happened; so that all were bound to believe. He was not inferior to them that preached the Resurrection, and was more credible, by being all at once converted. He had no intercourse with any of the believers; it was at Damascus that he was converted, or rather before he came to Damascus that this happened to him. I ask the Jew: Say, by what was Paul converted? He saw so many signs, and was not converted: his teacher (Gamaliel, supra, p. 87, note 1) was converted, and he remained unconverted. Who convinced him—and not only convinced, ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἀπατηθεὶς), therefore it is that he preaches His resurrection: but when thou seest Paul, a man who knew Him not, had never heard Him, had never been under His teaching: a man, who even after His crucifixion makes war upon Him, puts to death them that believe in Him, throws all into confusion and disorder, when thou seest him suddenly converted, and in his toils for the Gospel outstripping the friends of Christ: what plea canst thou then have for thine effrontery, in disbelieving the word of the Resurrection?” 458 ᾽Επειδὴ δὲ ἐπληρώθη (ἐπληροφορήθη, A. om., Cat. ἐπηρώθη, E. D. F. Edd.) τῆς δεσποτείας αὐτοῦ τὰ τεκμήρια καὶ τῆς φιλανθρωπίας τότε ἀποκρίνεται (for τ. ἀ. E. D. F. Edd. γνωρίζει, Cat. εἶδεν)· ἵνα (γὰρ add B.) μή τις εἵπῃ ὃτι ὑπεκρίνετο, ὁ καὶ αἱμάτων ἐπιθυμῶν κ. τ. λ. (ἢ καὶ ἵνα μή τις…ὑπεκρ. Πῶς γὰρ ὁ καὶ αἱμ. ἐπ. κ. τ. λ. E. D. F. Edd.) We read ᾽Επειδὴ δὲ ἐπηρώθη,…τῆς φ. εἶδε. Τότε ἀπ. Κύριε, κ. τ. λ. ἵνα λὴ κ. τ. λ. but all at once inspired him with such ardent zeal? Wherefore was it, that he wished even to go into hell itself459 for Christ’s sake? The truth of the facts is manifest.

But, as I said, for the present let us take shame to ourselves (when we think of) the eunuch, both in his baptism and his reading. Do ye mark how he was in a station of great authority, how he was in possession of wealth, and even on his journey allowed himself no rest? What must he have been at home, in his leisure hours, this man who rested not even on his travels? What must he have been at night? Ye that are in stations of dignity, hear: imitate his freedom from pride,460 (de Lazaro, Conc. iii. §3, t. i. p. 748. c) his piety. Though about to return home, he did not say to himself: “I am going back to my country, there let me receive baptism;” those cold words which most men use! No need had he of signs, no need of miracles: from the Prophet merely, he believed. (b) But461 why is it (so ordered) 459 Διά τι καὶ εἰς γεένναν ηὔξατο ἀπελθεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; The modern text substitutes, “that he wished even to be accursed (Rom. ix. 2.) for Christ,” See Hom. xvi, ad Rom. in 1. But Chrys. elsewhere uses as strong expressions as he does here. Hom. ii. in 2 Thess. §4 οὐδὲ τὴν πεῖραν τῆς γεέννης ἡγεῖτό τι εἶναι διὰ τὸν τοῦ Χριστοῦ πόθον. And, διὰ τὸν τοῦ Χ. πόθον, καταδέχεται καὶ εἰς γεένναν ἐμπεσεῖν καὶ τῆς βασιλείας ἐκπεσεῖν, (cited in the Ecloga de Laud. Paul. t. xii. p. 659, E.) 460 τὸ ἄτυφον, above, p. 122, 2. Comp. x. §5. of the Eleven Homilies, t. xii. p. 393. “Admire how this man, barbarian as he was, and alien, and liable to be puffed up with his great authority, demeaned himself towards a man, poor, beggarly, unknown, whom until then he had never set eyes on.…If our rulers now, believers though they be, and taught to be humble-minded, and with nothing of the barbarian about them, meeting in the public place, I do not say an unknown stranger, but one whom they know, would be in no great hurry to give him a seat beside him (in their carriage), how came this man to condescend so much to a perfect stranger—for I will not cease to insist upon this—a stranger, I say, one whom he had never seen, a mean-looking person, apt to be despised for his appearance, as to bid him mount and sit beside him? Yet this he did, and to his tongue committed his salvation, and endured to put himself in the position of a learner: yea, beseeches, intreats, supplicates, saying, ‘I pray thee, of whom saith the Prophet this?’ and receives with profound attention what he says. And not only so, but having received, he was not remiss, did not put off, did not say, ‘Let me get back to my own country, let me see my friends, my family, my kinsfolk’—which is what many Christians say now-a-days when called to baptism: ‘let me get to my country, let me see my wife, let me see my children with my other kinsfolk: with them present, and making holiday with me, so will I enjoy the benefit of baptism, so partake of the Grace.’ But not these words spake he, the barbarian: Jew as he was, and trained to make strict account of places, especially with (the Law) ever sounding in his ears the duty of observing the Place, insomuch that he had gone a long journey to Jerusalem, on purpose that he might worship in the place which God commanded: and behold, all at once casting away all that he had been used to in this regard, and relinquishing this strict observance of place, no sooner is the discourse finished, and he sees a fountain by the roadside, than he says, ‘See, here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized?’” 461 The letters (a) (b) denote the order of the two parts in mss. and Edd. that he sees (Philip) not before he goes to Jerusalem, but after he has been there? It was not meet that he should see the Apostles under persecution. Because462 he was yet weak, the Prophet was not easy; (but yet the Prophet) catechized him. For even now, if any of you would apply himself to the study of the Prophets, he would need no miracles. And, if you please, let us take in hand the prophecy itself. “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened He not His mouth: in His humiliation His judgment was taken away: and who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth.463 (v. 22, 23.) It is likely he had heard that He was crucified, and now he learns, 462 διὰ τὸ ἀσθενὲς ἔτι: Edd, give this to the preceding sentence, and then: Οὐδὲ πρότερον οὕτως ἠν εὔκολον, ὡς ὅτε ὁ προφήτης αὐτὸν κατήχησεν: “nor was it so easy before, as (it was) when the Prophet had catechized him:” which is irrelevant to the question: for Philip might have found him engaged in the same study then as afterwards. The old text has: οὐκ ἦν εὔκολος, ὁ προφήτης γὰρ αὐτὸν κατήχησεν, but A. rightly omits γὰρ. Something is wanting; e.g. either, “until Philip catechized him,” or rather, “but yet the prophet catechized him.” What follows is much confused in the mss. By “the prophecy itself” Chrys. probably means more than the two verses given in the Acts, viz. Isai. liii. 7–12.—“It is likely he had heard that He had been crucified,” so C. D. F. (i.e. as appears further on, the eunuch when at Jerusalem had heard of the Crucifixion, had seen the rent in the rocks, etc., another reason why it was fit that he should have first visited Jerusalem:) but B., “Perhaps he had not heard:” and E. Edd., “Hence he learnt.” After “taken from the earth,” C. alone has, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσ᾽ (sic) ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, the others, ὅτι ἁμ. οὐκ ἐπ. after which Savile alone adds, “nor was guile found in His mouth.” After ἐσταυρώθη something is wanting, e.g. νῦν δὲ ἔμαθεν or κατηχήθη. In καὶ τὰ ἄλλα there seems to be a reference to the sequel in “the prophecy itself,” viz. “and the rest which may be read in Isaiah, as that He did no sin,” etc.—A., as usual, omits the whole passage: E. refashions it thus; “Hence He learnt that He was crucified, that His life is taken away from the earth, that He did no sin, that He prevailed to save others also, that His generation is not to be declared, that the rocks were rent, that the veil was torn, that dead men were raised from the tombs: or rather, all these things Philip told him.” etc. so Edd. 463 In the quotation the N.T. follows the LXX. (Is. liii. 7, 8), which but imperfectly renders the original. The meaning is obscure in Hebrew, but the best rendering is probably that of the R.V. which renders v. 8 thus: “By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living?” for which the LXX. and N.T. have: “In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: His generation who shall declare, for his life is taken from the earth.” It is almost useless to inquire what the LXX. translators could have meant by this rendering. Concerning the meaning of the first clause, there are four theories: (1) The judgment announced by His enemies was taken away, i.e., annulled by God (Bengel, Lechler). (2) His judicial power was taken away during his humiliation, i.e., he did not appear as men’s judge (Humphrey). (3) His judgment (punishment) was taken away, i.e., ended—by death (Meyer, Robinson). (4) The judgment due him—the rights of justice—was withheld by his enemies (Gloag, Hackett). The latter part of the LXX. trans.: “who shall declare,” etc., has been understood in the following ways: (1) Who shall declare his divine Sonship?— the reference being to the “eternal generation” of the Son (the Patristic view). (2) Who shall declare the number of his spiritual seed, i.e., predict the extent of his kingdom? (the Reformers). (3) Who shall declare the wickedness of his that “His life is taken away from the earth,” and the rest that “He did no sin, nor deceit in His mouth:” that He prevailed to save others also: [and] who He is, Whose generation is unutterable. It is likely he had seen the riven rocks there (on the spot), and (had heard) how the veil was rent, and how there was darkness, and so forth: and all these things Philip mentioned, merely taking his text from the Prophet. It is a great thing, this reading of the Scriptures! That was fulfilled which was spoken by Moses, “Sitting, lying down, rising up, and walking, remember the Lord thy God.” (Deut. vi. 7.) For the roads, especially when they are lonely, give us opportunity for reflection, there being none to disturb us. Both this man is on the road and Paul on the road: howbeit the latter no man draws, but Christ alone. This was too great a work for the Apostles: and, greater still, in that, the Apostles being at Jerusalem, and no person of authority at Damascus, he nevertheless returned thence converted: yet those at Damascus knew that he did not come from Jerusalem converted, for he brought letters, that he might put the believers in bonds. Like a consummate Physician, when the fever was at its height, Christ brought help to him: for it was needful that he should be quelled in the midst of his frenzy. For then most of all would he be brought down, and condemn himself as one guilty of dreadful audacity. (a) For these things Paul deplores himself, saying, “Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all His long suffering.” (1 Tim. i. 13–16.) Verily one has reason to admire this eunuch. He did not see Christ, he saw no miracle: he beheld Jerusalem standing yet entire (συνεστὥτα): he believed Philip. How came he to behave thus? His soul was earnest (μεμεριμνημένη). Yet the thief (on the cross) had seen miracles: the wise men had seen a star; but this man, nothing of the kind. So great a thing is the careful reading of the Scriptures! What of Paul then! did he not study the law? But he, it seems to me, was specially reserved, for the purpose which I have already mentioned by anticipation, because Christ would fain draw to Himself the Jews by inducements from every quarter. For had they been in their right mind, nothing was so likely to do them good as this; for this, more than miracles and all else, was calculated to attract them: as,464 on the other hand, nothing is so apt to prove a stumbling block to men of duller minds. See then how, after the Apostle, we have God also doing miracles. They accused the Apostles after these [miracles of theirs]; they cast contemporaries, for he was put to death (Meyer, De Wette, Lechler, Alford, Gloag). This interp. assigns to the word “generation,” the same meaning which the R.V. gives to it in the original passage and is the preferable view. It should be admitted that this is a probable theory of what the LXX. ought to have meant by the words which they used; that they did consciously mean this is far less certain.—G.B.S. 464 ὥσπερ οὖν οὐδὲν οὕτω σκανδαλίζειν εἴωθε τοὺς παχυτέρους: i.e. Saul’s conversion would have weighed with the Jews εἰ νοῦν εἶχον, but it was a great stumbling-block to them as παχύτεροι: “as indeed nothing is so apt to prove a stumbling-block to men of duller minds,” as this is—viz. the sudden conversion of one of their own party to the opposite side. them into prison: see thereupon God doing the miracles. For instance, the bringing them out of prison, was His miracle: the bringing Philip, His miracle: the bringing Paul over, was His.—Observe in what way Paul is honored, in what way the eunuch. There, Christ appears, probably because of his hardness, and because Ananias465 would not (else) have been persuaded. Conversant with these wonders, let us show ourselves worthy. But many in these times, even when they come to church, do not know what is read; whereas the eunuch, even in public (ἐπ᾽ ἀγορἅς) and riding in his chariot, applied himself to the reading of the Scriptures. Not so you: none takes the Bible in hand: nay, everything rather than the Bible.

Say, what are the Scriptures for? For as much as in you lies, it is all undone. What is the Church for? Tie up466 the Bibles: perhaps the judgment would not be such, not such the punishment: if one were to bury them in dung, that he might not hear them, he would not so insult them as you do now. For say, what is the insult there? That the man has buried them. And what here? That we do not hear them. Say, when is a person most insulted—when he is silent, and one makes no answer, or, when he does speak (and is unheeded)? So that the insult is greater in the present case, when He does speak and thou wilt not hear: greater the contempt. “Speak not to us” (Is. xxx. 10), we read, they said of old to the Prophets: but ye do worse, saying, Speak:467 we will not do. For there they turned them away that they should not even speak, as feeling that from the voice itself they got some sort of awe and obligation; whereas you, in the excess of your contempt, do not even this. Believe me, if you stopped our468 mouths by putting your hands over them, the insult would not be so great as it is now. For say, whether shows greater contempt, he that hears, even when hindering by this action, or, he that will not even hear? Say—if we shall look at it as a case of an insult offered—suppose one person to check the party insulting him, and to stop his mouth, as being hurt by the insults, and another person to show no concern, but pretend not even to hear them: whether will show most contempt? Would you not say the latter? For the former 465 καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἐπείσθη ᾽Ανανίας, A. B. C. But Edd. omit Ananias: “because he (Paul) would not otherwise have been persuaded.” In the next sentence, C. F. have ᾽Εντρεφόμενοι, “nurtured:” B. ἐντρυφῶντες, “luxuriating:” A. E. D. Edd. ἐνστρεφόμενοι. 466 δῆσον. i.e. tie them up, and keep them shut. E. Edd. κατάχωσον, “Bury.” Below, for καὶ μὴ ἀκούοι αὐτῶν, we read ἵνα μὴ. C. however has ἀκούει, which may imply that the sentence should be joined to the preceding one, οὐ τοιαύτη κόλασις, εἴ τις καταχώσειεν αὐτὰ ἐν κόπρῳ, καὶ εἰ μὴ ἀκούει αὐτῶν: “not such the punishment, were one to bury, etc., as it is if he refuse to hear them.” 467 All the mss. and Edd. Μὴ λαλεῖτε, “Speak not.” But the context plainly requires the sense. “Speak on, if you will: we will not do what you bid us:” though it should rather be, Οὐκ ἀκούομεν. 468 E. ὑμῖν, “your mouths,” so Edd. except Sav. and below, ὁ ἀκούων καὶ μὴ πειθόμενος μειζόνως καταφρονεῖ, where the old text has, ὁ ἀκούων μειζ. κατ. καὶ διὰ τούτου κωλύων, “by this,” viz. by putting his hand on the speaker’s mouth. shows that he feels himself hit: the latter all but stops the mouth of God. Did ye shudder at what was said? Why, the mouth by which God speaks, is the mouth of God. Just as our mouth is the mouth of our soul, though the soul has no mouth, so the mouth of the Prophets is the mouth of God. Hear, and shudder. There, common (to the whole congregation) stands the deacon crying aloud, and saying, “Let us attend to the reading.” It is the common voice of the whole Church, the voice which he utters, and yet none does attend. After him begins the Reader, “The Prophecy of Esaias,” and still none attends, although Prophecy has nothing of man in it. Then after this, he says, “Thus saith the Lord,”469 and still none attends. Then after this punishments and vengeances, and still even then none attends. But what is the common excuse? “It is always the same things over again.” This it is most of all, that ruins you. Suppose you knew the things, even so you certainly ought not to turn away: since in the theatres also, is it not always the same things acted over again, and still you take no disgust? How dare you talk about “the same things,” you who know not so much as the names of the Prophets? Are you not ashamed to say, that this is why you do not listen, because it is “the same things over again,” while you do not know the names of those who are read, and this, though always hearing the same things? You have yourself confessed that the same things are said. Were I to say this as a reason for finding fault with you, you would need to have recourse to quite a different excuse, instead of this which is the very thing you find fault with.—Do not you exhort your son? Now if he should say, “Always the same things!” would not you count it an insult? It would be time enough to talk of “the same things,” when we both knew the things, and exhibited them in our practice. Or rather, even then, the reading of them would not be superfluous. What equal to Timothy? tell me that: and yet to him says Paul, “Give attention to reading, to exhortation. (1 Tim. iv. 13.) For it is not possible, I say not possible, ever to exhaust the mind of the Scriptures. It is a well which has no bottom. “I said,” saith the Preacher, “I am become wise:470 and then it departed from me.”—(Eccles. vii. 24.) Shall I show you that the things are not “the same?” How many persons, do you suppose, have spoken upon the Gospels? And yet all have spoken in a way which was new and fresh. For the more one dwells on them, the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light. Look, what a number of things I am going to speak of:—say, what is narrative? what is prophecy? what is parable? what is type? what 469 When the Deacon had ordered silence by proclaiming, if need were, several times, Προσέχωμεν! the Reader commenced the Lesson, if from the Old Testament or the Gospels, with the formula, Τάδε λέγει Κύριος, “Thus saith the Lord:” (for the Epistles, with, “Dearly beloved Brethren.”) See Hom. in 2 Thess. iii. §4. p. 527. D. 470 Εἶπον, ἐσοφίσθην, φησί, καὶ τότε ἀπέστη ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. Ben. rendering the passage with Erasmus, “Deceptus sum, et tunc recessit a me,” remarks. “I do not see how this agrees with what precedes.” The Paris Editor, “Novi. inquiunt. et tum mihi effluxit,” as if it were a proverb. In the LXX, it is, Εἶπα, σοφισθήσομαι, καὶ αὕτη ἐμακρύνθη ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. E.V. “I said I will be wise, but it was far from me.” is allegory? what is symbol? what are Gospels? Answer me only to this one point, which is plain: why are they called Gospels, “good tidings?” And yet ye have often heard that good news ought to have nothing sad in it: yet this “good news” has abundance of sadness in it. “Their fire,” it saith, “shall never be quenched: their worm shall not die:” (Mark ix. 44.) “Shall appoint his portion,” it saith, “with the hypocrites,” with them that are “cut asunder: then shall He say, I know you not: Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. xxiv. 51; vii. 23.) Surely,471 we do not deceive ourselves, when we imagine that we tell you in your own mother-tongue (῾Ελληνιστί) these good tidings? You look downcast; you are stunned; you are struck all of a heap, unable to hold up your heads. “Good news” should have nothing in it of a duty to be done, but rather should counsel what is good: whereas these “Gospels” have endless duties to be done. And again, to mention other things, as for instance, Except a man hate father and mother, he is not worthy of Me” (Luke xiv. 26): and “I am not come to bring peace upon earth, but a sword” (Matt. x. 34; Luke xii. 51): and “In the world ye shall have tribulation—(John xvi. 33.) excellent472 good tidings these, are they not! For good news is such as this—“You shall have this and that good thing:” as in common life men say one to another, “What shall I have for my good news? Your father is coming, or, your mother:” he does not say, “You must do this or that.”—Again, tell me, how do the Gospels differ from the Prophets? Why are not the Prophecies also called Gospels, good tidings? For they tell the same things: for instance, “The lame shall leap as an hart.” (Is. xxxv. 6.) “The Lord shall give the word to them that preach the Gospel” (Ps. lxviii. 11): and, “A new heaven and a new earth.” (Is. lxv. 17.) Why are not those also called Gospels? But if, while you do not so much as know what “Gospels” mean, you so despise the reading of the Scriptures, what shall I say to you?—Let me speak of something else. Why four Gospels? why not, ten? why not twenty? If “many have taken in hand to set forth a narrative” (Luke i. 1), why not one person? Why they that were disciples (i.e. Apostles)? why they that were not disciples? But why any Scriptures at all? And yet, on the contrary, the Old Testament says, “I will give 471 ῏Αρα μὴ ἀπατῶμεν ἑαυτοὺς, νομίζοντες ταῦτα ἑλληνιστι ὑμῖν λέγειν; mss. and Edd., ἄρα μὴ without the interrogation. Ben. “Igitur ne decipiamus nosmetipsos hæc Græco more dici.” The meaning seems to be, “When we tell you these things as εὐαγγέλια, do we deceive ourselves in thinking that we are speaking Greek—that we are using the term aright?—Yes to judge from your looks, one may see that they are anything but εὐαγγέλια to you. ῾Υμεῖς κατηφεῖτε, ὑμεῖς κεκώφωσθε· ἀποπληκτοι τυγχάνετε κάτω κύπτοντες.” The innovator (E. Edd.) quite alters the meaning, as if it were, “You look as indifferent as if it were no concern of yours;” viz. “Or, have you nothing to do with these things? But you are struck deaf (κεκώφωσθε), and as if you were in a fit, hang down your heads.”—Below, for καὶ πάλιν ἕτερα ἐρῶ, οἷον, the same have, οἱαπέρ ἐστι καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα, “such as are also these.” 472 Edd. Καλά γε· οὐ γὰρ ταῦτα εὐαγγέλια: read Καλάγε (οὐγάρ;) ταῦτα εὐαγγέλια. In the next sentence, Τί μοι τῶν εὐαγγελίων; Ben. “Quid mihi est evangeliorum.” you a New Testament.” (Jer. xxxi. 31.) Where are they that say, “Always the same things?” If ye knew these, that, though a man should live thousands of years, they are not “the same things,” ye would not say this. Believe me, I will not tell you the answers to any of these questions; not in private, not in public: only, if any find them out, I will nod assent. For this is the way we have made you good-for-nothing, by always telling you the things ready to your hands, and not refusing when we ought. Look, you have questions enough: consider them, tell me the reasons. Why Gospels? Why not Prophecies? Why duties, to be done, in the Gospels? If one is at a loss, let another seek the answer, and contribute each to the others from what he has: but now we will hold our peace. For if what has been spoken has done you no good, much less would it, should we add more. We only pour water into a vessel full of holes. And the punishment too is all the greater for you. Therefore, we will hold our peace. Which that we may not have to do, it rests with yourselves. For if we shall see your diligence, perhaps we will again speak, that both ye may be more approved, and we may rejoice over you, in all things giving glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: to Him be glory and dominion now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Acts IX. 10, 12

“And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.”

What may be the reason that He neither drew any one of high authority and importance, nor caused such to be forthcoming for the purpose of instructing Paul?473 It was, because it was not meet that he should be induced by men, but only by Christ Himself: as in fact this man taught him nothing, but merely baptized him; for, as soon as baptized (φωτισθείς), he was to draw upon himself the grace of the Spirit, by his zeal and exceeding earnestness. And that Ananias was no very distinguished person, is plain. For, “the Lord,” it says, “spake unto him in a vision, and Ananias answered and said, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to Thy saints at Jerusalem.” (v. 13.) For if he spoke in objection to Him, much more would he have done so, had He sent an Angel. And this is why, in the former instance, neither is Philip told what the matter is; but he sees the Angel, and then the Spirit bids him go near to the chariot. But observe here how the Lord relieves him of his fear: “He is blind,” saith He, “and prayeth, and art thou afraid?” In the same way Moses also is afraid: so that the words betokened that he was afraid, and shrunk from the task, not that he did not believe. He said,” have heard from many concerning this man.” What sayest thou? God speaketh, and thou hesitatest? They did not yet well know the power of Christ. “And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on Thy name.” (v. 14.) How was that known? It is likely that they, being in fear, made minute enquiries. He does not say this, as thinking that Christ does not know the fact, but, “such being the case, how,” says he, “can these things be?” As in fact those (in the Gospel) say, “Who can be saved?”—(Mark x. 26.) This is done, in order that Paul may believe him that shall come to him: “he hath seen in a vision:” it hath showed him beforehand: “he prayeth,” saith (the Lord): fear not. And observe, He speaks not to him of the success achieved: teaching us not 473 OEcumen. adds from some other source, “but Ananias who was one of the Seventy:” and afterwards, “And this Ananias was a deacon, as Paul himself testifies in the Canons:” the latter from Ammonius the Presbyter, in the Catena.—Below, Καὶ ὅτι (Cat., ῞Οτι γὰρ) οὐ τῶν σφόδρα ἐπισήμων ἦν, δῆλον, C. comp. p. 279. But Edd. “But that Ananias also was one of the very distinguished persons, is plain both from what (the Lord) reveals and says to him, and from what he himself says in answer: Lord, I have heard,” etc. to speak of our achievements. And,474 though He saw him afraid, for all this He said it not. “Thou shalt not be disbelieved:” “he hath seen,” saith He, “in a vision a man (named) Ananias:” for this is why it was “in a vision,” namely, because he was blind. And not even the exceeding wonderfulness of the thing took possession of the disciple’s mind, so greatly was he afraid. But observe: Paul being blind, in this way He restored to sight. “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how great things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (v. 15, 16.) “Not only,” saith He, “shall he be a believer, but even a teacher, and great boldness shall he show: ‘before Gentiles and kings’—such shall be the spread of the doctrine!—that just as He astonished (him) by the former, so He may (startle him even more) by the latter.475 “And Ananias went, and entered into the house, and laid his hands upon him, and said, Brother Saul”—he straightway addresses him as a friend by that name—“Jesus, Who appeared unto thee in the way in which thou camest”—and yet Christ had not told him this, but he learnt it from the Spirit—“hath sent me unto thee, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” (v. 17.) As he said this, he laid his hands upon him. “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales.” (v. 18.) Some say this was a sign of his blindness. Why did he not blind his eyes (entirely)? This was more wonderful, that, with his eyes open, he did not see: (v. 8) which was just his case in respect of the Law, until476 the Name of Jesus was put on him. “And he received 474 Καὶ φοβούμενον ἰδὼν, οὐδὲ οὕτως εἶπεν. Οὐκ ἀπιστηθήσῃ. The mod, t. prefixes Μᾶλλον δ, and adds, ἀλλά τι; ᾽Αναστὰς πορεύθητι. “Nay, even seeing him afraid, even then He said not, Thou shalt not be disbelieved: (Erasm. negligently, Be not unbelieving:) but what? Arise,” etc. So Morel. Sav. but Ben. puts a full stop at ἰδών: as if the meaning were, “because He would teach us,” etc.: or rather, “because He also saw him to be afraid. Nor did He speak thus. Thou shalt not,” etc. But the full stop should be placed at εἶπεν: “nay, though he saw him afraid, He did not tell him what had happened to Paul—the victory He had won over this adversary. But only, Fear not to be disbelieved for he hath seen,” etc. 475 ἵνα ὥσπερ ἐξέπληττεν τούτῳ, οὕτω κἀκείνῳ. (Sav. marg. τοῦτο, κἀκεῖνο.) “That as He (Christ) astonished (Ananias) by the one, so He may by the other.” τούτῳ, by the announcement of Saul as a believer; ἐκείνῳ, by that of his becoming a preacher, and before Gentiles and kings. (Chrys. is negligent in his use of the pronouns οὗτος and ἐκεῖνος.) Or it may be, “that as he (Saul) astonished (men) by his conversion, so by his wonderful boldness as a preacher.”—E. Edd. omit this, and substitute, “as to prevail over all nations and kings.” 476 “But when was the name of Jesus put upon Paul, that he should recover his sight? Here is either something wrong in the text, or we must say that Ananias put the name of Jesus on Paul, when, having laid his hands on him, he told him that it was Jesus from whom he should receive his sight.” Ben.,—who surely must have overlooked the clause ὅπερ ἔπαθεν ἐπὶ τοῦ νόμου, to which these words belong.—Above, Τινές φασι τῆς πηρώσεως εἶναι τοῦτο σημεῖον, the meaning is, that this falling off the scales, etc., is an emblem of his mental blindness, and of his recovery therefrom. The innovator, not understanding this, alters it to, ταύτας τινές φασι τῆς π. αὐτοῦ sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And having taken food, he recovered strength.” (v. 19.) He was faint, therefore, both from his journey and from his fear; both from hunger, and from dejection of mind. Wishing therefore to deepen his dejection, He made the man blind until the coming of Ananias: and, that he might not imagine the blindness to be (only) fancy, this is the reason of the scales. He needed no other teaching: that which had befallen was made teaching (to him). “And he was with the disciples which were at Damascus certain days. And straightway in the synagogues he preached Jesus,477 that He is the Son of God.” (v. 20.) See, straightway he was a teacher in the synagogues. He was not ashamed of the change, was not afraid while the very things in which he was glorious afore-time, the same he destroyed. Even478 from his first appearance on the stage here was a man, death-dealing, ready for deeds of blood: seest thou what a manifest sign (was here)? And with this very thing, he put all in fear: for, said they, Hither also is he come for this very thing. “But all that heard him were amazed, and said: Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.” (v. 21, 22.) As one learned in the Law, he stopped their mouths, and suffered them not to speak. They thought they were rid of disputation in such matters, in getting rid of Stephen, and they found another, more vehement than Stephen.479

Acts IX. 26, 27

“And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the Apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way.”

One may well be much at a loss here to understand how it is that, whereas in the Epistle to the Galatians Paul says, “I went not to Jerusalem,” but “into Arabia” and “to Damascus,” and, “After three years I went up to Jerusalem,” and “to see Peter” (Gal. i. 17), (ἱστορἥσαι Cat.) here the writer says the contrary. (There, Paul says,) “And none of the Apostles saw I; but here, it is said (Barnabas), brought him to the Apostles.”—Well, then, either (Paul) means, “I went not up with intent to refer or attach myself to them (ἀναθέσθαι)—for what saith he? “I referred not myself, neither went I to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before me:”491 or else, that the laying await for him in Damascus was after his return from Arabia;492 or else, again, that the visit to Jerusalem was after he came from Arabia. Certainly of his own accord he went not to the Apostles, but “assayed to join himself unto the disciples”—as being493 a teacher, not a disciple—“I went not,” he says, “for this purpose, that I should go to those who were Apostles before me: certainly, I learnt nothing from them.” Or,494 he 491 St. Chrysostom’s exposition cannot be correctly reported here. Perhaps what he did say, was in substance as follows: “but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus: whence we learn, that the plot against him at Damascus was after his return from Arabia, and then the visit (to Jerusalem), after the escape from Damascus. Certainly of his own accord he went not to the Apostles,” etc.—(So far, the first hypothesis, viz. that the visit, Acts ix. and the visit in Gal. are one and the same. Then) “or else, Paul does not mean this visit (viz. after the flight from Damascus), but passes it by, so that the order (in his narration) is as follows: I went to Arabia, then to Damascus, then viz., at some time during the residence in Damascus, to Jerusalem (to see Peter), then to Syria, i.e. back to Damascus: whereas, had he related matters fully, it should have been, that he went into Arabia, thence to Damascus, then to Jerusalem to see Peter, thence to Damascus again, then again to Jerusalem after the escape from D., thence to Cæsarea.” 492 For ἢ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο, E. gives (as emendation) εἶτα πάλιν, and ἐκεῖθεν, for ἀπὸ ᾽Αραβίας, but retains the ἢ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο of the preceding clause, which equally needs correction. 493 E. F. D. Edd. “As not being a teacher, but a disciple:” the reading of A. B. C. N. is attested by Cat. OEc. but below it is said that he joined himself to the disciples, ἅτε μαθητὴν ὄντα, Infra, note 1, p. 135. 494 Here should begin the alternative to the former hypothesis (beginning ἢ τοίνυν τοῦτο φησίν) perhaps, with ἢ, εἰ μὴ τοῦτο. Cat, has ἀπῆλθον, ἦλθον, which we adopt, as the mention of Syria shows that the narrative in Gal. i. 17–21, is referred to; the subject therefore of λέγει, ἀφίησιν is Paul, and ταύτην means the visit in Acts ix. The next sentence, for ἢ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο πάλιν κ. τ. λ. requires to be remodelled as above, e. g. δέον λέγειν ὅτι does not speak of this visit, but passes it by, so that the order is, “I went into Arabia, then I came to Damascus, then to Jerusalem, then to Syria:” or else, again, that he went up to Jerusalem, then was sent to Damascus, then to Arabia, then again to Damascus, then to Cæsarea. Also, the visit “after fourteen years,” probably, was when he brought up the [alms to the] brethren together with Barnabas: (Gal. ii. 1) or else he means a different occasion. (Acts xi. 30.)495 For the Historian for conciseness, often omits incidents, and condenses the times. Observe how unambitious the writer is, and how he does not even relate (related in ch. xxii. 17–21) that vision, but passes it by. “He assayed,” it says, “to join himself to the disciples. And they were afraid of him.” By this again is shown the ardor of Paul’s character: not (only) from the mouth of Ananias, and of those who wondered at him there, but also of those in Jerusalem: “they believed not that he was a disciple:” for truly that was beyond all human expectation.496 He497 was no longer a wild beast, but a man mild and gentle! And observe ἐξ ᾽Αραβίας εἰς Δαμ. ὑποστρέψας, ἀνῆλθεν εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα, εἶτα εἰς Δαμ. ἀπῆλθε πάλιν, εἰτα πάλιν εἰς ῾Ιεροσ., εἶτα ἐξεπέμφθη εἰς Καισαρείαν. The reporter, or redactor, seems to have intended a recital of St. Paul’s movements before as well as after his conversion; viz. (from Tarsus) he went up to Jerusalem, then was sent (by the highpriest) to Damascus: then (after his conversion) went into Arabia (the mod. substitutes, Syria): then returned to Damascus: then (omitting all the rest) to Cæsarea.—In the Comment. on Gal. i. t. x. 675, D. Chrys. expounds thus: “Whereas he says, ‘I went not up,’ this also may be said, that he went not up at the outset of his preaching, and, when he did, it was not for the purpose of learning.” 495 Chrys. here confuses the visits of Paul to Jerusalem. That mentioned in Acts xi. 30, was the second visit, when he went to carry the gift of alms to the poor. The visit mentioned in Gal. ii. 1, synchronizes with Acts xv. 1, sq., when Paul went to attend the Apostolic council.—G.B.S. 496 The incredulity of the Christians at Jerusalem concerning the genuineness of Saul’s conversion is difficult to understand, especially since they must have heard of the miraculous manner of it. It can, however, more readily be conceived of if, as we suppose, the three years absence from the city had intervened, and during this period, Saul had been unheard of. The impression might have gone abroad that he had fallen back into his old Jewish life. Certainly the persecution which the Christians at Jerusalem had suffered at his hands would incline them to be incredulous concerning his conversion, unless there were positive proof of it. When it is said (27) that Barnabas brought Paul “to the apostles” in Jerusalem, we must hold this statement subject to the modification made in Paul’s own statement (Gal. i. 18) that during this visit he saw, of the apostles, only Peter and James, the Lord’s brother. These may have been the only apostles then in the city, for Paul’s stay was but for fifteen days. The purpose of this visit was to see Peter (Gal. i. 18).—G.B.S. 497 A. B. C. ἐκεῖνο. Βαρνάβας δὲ ἄνθρωπος ἐπιεικὴς καὶ ἥμερος ἥν· καὶ ὅρα κ. τ. λ. Cat. ἐκεῖ. Βαρνάβας ἄνθρωπος ἐπιεικὴς ἦν· καὶ ὅρα. The epithet ἥμερος, “tamed,” was felt to be unsuitable to Barnabas, hence Cat. omits it, OEc. substitutes (from below) καὶ χρηστὸς σφόδρα. The mod. t. transposes the clause to the comment on v. 27. The fact seems to be, that Βαρνάβας δὲ is out of its place, and that ἄνθρ. ἐπ. καὶ ἡμ. is a description of Saul’s present bearing contrasted with his former character: and that the sentence should begin with ἐκεῖνο, somewhat in this way: οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὄντως προσδοκίας ἀνθρωπίνης. ᾽Εκεῖνο e.g. τὸ θήριον, that raging wild-beast, how he does not go to the Apostles, such is his forbearance, but to the disciples, as being a disciple. He was not thought worthy of credit. “But Barnabas”—“Son of Consolation” is his appellation, whence also he makes himself easy of access to the man: for “he was a kind man” (ch. xi. 24), exceedingly, and this is proved both by the present instance, and in the affair of John (Mark)—“having taken him, brought him to the Apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way.”498 (xv. 39.) It is likely that at Damascus also he had heard all about him: whence he was not afraid but the others were, for he was a man whose glance inspired fear. “How,” it says, “he had seen the Lord in the way, and that He had spoken unto him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of the Lord. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem, and speaking boldly in the name of Jesus” (v. 28): these things were demonstrative of the former, and by his acts he made good what was spoken of him. “And he spake, and disputed with the Hellenists.” (v. 29.) So then the disciples were afraid of him, and the Apostles did not trust him; by this therefore he relieves them of their fear. “With the Hellenists:” he means those who used the Greek tongue: and this he did, very wisely; for those others, those profound Hebrews had no mind now was a man, mild and gentle.—Below, all the mss. have ἅτε μαθητὴν ὄντα, which is not easily reconciled with the former passage (note c). There it is represented, that he assayed to join himself to the disciples as being a teacher, and not a disciple; here, that he did this as being a disciple, and διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν. OEc, combines this with the former statement: “he went not to the Apostles, but assayed,” etc., μετριάζων, ἅτε διδ. ὢν, καὶ οὐ μαθ., where Henten. renders modeste de se sentiens “quum tamen” præceptor esset et non discipulus: rather, forbearing to put himself forward as he might have done, seeing he was himself a teacher, etc. The Catena has the διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν after ἀπιόντα, and again after ὄντα. Hence the true reading may be, καὶ ὅρα αὐτὸν οὐ πρὸς τ. ἀπ. ἀπιόντα, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς μαθητάς· οὐχ ἃτε μαθητὴν ὄντα, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ μετριάζειν. 498 A. B. C. (and Cat.) give the text, “But Barnabas—in the way,” continuously, and then the comments all strung together. Also the clause “it is likely—about him” is placed last, after γοργὸς ἦν ὁ ἀνήρ. This expression (Cat. adds γὰρ) may denote either the quick, keen glance of Paul’s eye, or the terror with which he was regarded—“ to them the man had a terrible look with him.”—The modern text: “‘But Barnabas—in the way.’ This Barnabas was a mild and gentle sort of man. ‘Son of Consolation’ is the meaning of his name: whence also he became a friend to Paul. And that he was exceedingly kind and accessible, is proved both from the matter in hand, and from the affair of John. Whence he is not afraid, but relates ‘how he had seen,’ etc.—‘in the name of the Lord Jesus.’ For it is likely, etc. Wherefore also ταῦτα ἐκείνων κατασκευαστικὰ ποιῶν, διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐβεβαίωσε τὰ λεχθέντα.” In the original text it is simply Ταῦτα ἐκείνων κατασκευαστικά, καί διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐβεβαίωσε τὰ λεχθέντα, which being put before v. 28, would mean, that the conduct of Paul “in Damascus,” the πῶς ἐπαρρησ., evidenced the truth of what he said, about the Lord’s appearing to him in the way. Hence in the mod. text: “wherefore Barnabas making the latter prove the former, confirmed by (Paul’s) deeds the things told of him.” (But Ben., Ideo hæc ad illa præparant, dum ille operibus dicta confirmat. Erasm., Ideo et hæc præparatoria facit operibus confirmans ea quæ dicta erant.) We have transposed the clause, as comment on v. 28. even to see him. “But they,” it says, “went about to slay him:” a token, this, of his energy, and triumphant victory, and of their exceeding annoyance at what had happened. Thereupon, fearing lest the issue should be the same as in the case of Stephen, they sent him to Cæsarea. For it says, “When the brethren were aware of this, they brought him down to Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus” (v. 30), at the same time to preach, and likely to be more in safety, as being in his own country. But observe, I pray you, how far it is from being the case that everything is done by (miraculous) grace; how, on the contrary, God does in many things leave them to manage for themselves by their own wisdom and in a human way; so499 to cut off the excuse of idle people: for if it was so in the case of Paul, much more in theirs.500 “Then, it says, “the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace (they), being edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and abounded in the comfort of the Holy Ghost.”501 (v. 31.) He is about to relate that Peter goes down (from Jerusalem), therefore that you may not impute this to fear, he first says this. For while there was persecution, he was in Jerusalem, but when the affairs of the Church are everywhere in security, then it is that he leaves Jerusalem. See how fervent and energetic he is! For he did not think, because there was peace, therefore there was no need of his presence. Paul502 departed, and there 499 This and the next clause are transposed in the mss. so that ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν would mean “in the case of the brethren.” 500 The reason given in v. 30 for Paul’s leaving Jerusalem is, that he was in danger of being slain by his opponents; that assigned by himself in xxii. 17, 18 is a revelation of the Lord given to him when in a trance in the temple, warning him that Jerusalem would not receive his message, and charging him to go unto the Gentiles. The two explanations have a common element in the opposition of the Jews and Hellenists at Jerusalem to Paul and their rejection of his message. “Paul, notwithstanding the opposition and machinations of the Jews, may have felt desirous to remain: he had a warm heart toward his brethren according to the flesh; he was eager for their conversion; and it required a revelation from Christ himself to cause him to comply with the importunity of his friends and to depart. Luke mentions the external reason; Paul the internal motive.” (Gloag.)—G.B.S. 501 A. B. C. of N.T. and vulg. Hieron. have the singular throughout; and so Cat. in 1. Edd. from E. the plural throughout: our other mss.; οἰκοδομούενοι and πορευόμενοι (F. D. περισσευόμενοι), “they being edified” etc., in apposition with ᾽Εκκλησία. 502 i.e. ‘If Paul had remained there would not have been peace and quiet.’ It is doubtful, as the text stands, whether the subject to ᾐδοῦντο is, the Jewish believers, or, the adversaries: and κατεφρόνουν, ἠγρίαινον seem inconsistent as predicated of the same persons. Perhaps what Chrys. said is not fully reported, and the text may be completed thus: (comp. p. 304,) “there is no war from without, nor disturbance within. For the Jewish believers respected the Apostles, as having often stood by them, and the unbelievers durst not attack them as being had in admiration by the people: but as for Paul, the one party—viz. the zealous Jewish believers, ‘the profound Hebrews,’ despised him, while the others—viz. the unbelievers were more savage against him.” Edd. (from E. alone). “And why, you may ask, does he this, and ‘passes through’ when there is peace, and after Paul’s departure, was peace: there is no war nor disturbance. Them, they respected most, as having often stood by them, and as being held in admiration by the multitude: but him, they despised, and were more savage against him. See, how great a war, and immediately, peace! See what that war effected. It dispersed the peace-makers. In Samaria, Simon was put to shame: in Judea, the affair of Sapphira took place. Not that, because there was peace, therefore matters became relaxed, but such was the peace as also to need exhortation. “And it came to pass, as Peter passed throughout all quarters, he came down also to the saints which dwelt at Lydda.” (v. 32.) Like the commander of an army, he went about, inspecting the ranks, what part was compact, what in good order, what needed his presence. See how on all occasions he goes about, foremost. When an Apostle was to be chosen, he was the foremost: when the Jews were to be told, that these were “not drunken,” when the lame man was to be healed, when harangues to be made, he is before the rest: when the rulers were to be spoken to, he was the man; when Ananias, he (ch. i. 15; ii. 15; iii. 4–12; iv. 8; v. 3–15.): when healings were wrought by the shadow, still it was he. And look: where there was danger, he was the man, and where good503 management (was needed); but where all is calm, there they act all in common, and he demands no greater honor (than the others). When need was to work miracles, he starts forward, and here again he is the man to labor and toil. “And there he found a certain man named Æneas, which had kept his bed eight years, and was sick of the palsy. And Peter said unto him, Æneas, Jesus Christ maketh thee whole: arise, and make thy bed. And he arose immediately.” (v. 33, 34.) And why did he not wait for the man’s faith, and ask if he wished to be healed? In the first place, the miracle served for exhortation to many: hear then how great the gain. “And all that dwelt at Lydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord.” (v. 35.) For the man was notable. “Arise, and make thy bed:” he does well to give a proof of the miracle: for they not only released men of their diseases, but in giving the health they gave the strength also. Moreover, at that time they had given no proofs of their power, so that the man could not reasonably have been required to show his faith, as neither in the case of the lame man did they demand it. (ch. iii. 6.) As therefore Christ in the beginning of His miracles did not demand faith, so neither did these. For in Jerusalem indeed, as was but reasonable, the faith of the parties was first shown; “they brought out their sick into the streets, but as Peter passed by, his shadow at least might fall upon some of them” (ch. v. 15); for many miracles had been wrought there; but here this is the first that i.e. why does Peter delay his journey until Paul is gone, and all is quiet? Because them they most respected, as having,” etc. 503 Καὶ ἔνθα οἰκονομία· ἔνθα δὲ, κ. τ. λ. It does not appear what οἰκονομία can be intended, unless it be the order taken for the appointment of the deacons, but this was the act of all the Apostles, vi. 2. Hence perhaps the reading should be: ἔνθα δὲ οἰκονομία, καὶ ἔνθα.…“But where management (or regulation) only is concerned, and where all is peace,” etc. occurs. For of the miracles, some were wrought for the purpose of drawing others (to faith); some for the comfort of them that believed. “Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and alms-deeds which she did. And it came to pass in those days, that she was sick, and died: whom when they had washed, they laid her in an upper chamber. And forasmuch as Lydda was nigh to Joppa, and the disciples had heard that Peter was there, they sent unto him two men, desiring him that he would not delay to come to them.” (v. 36–38). Why did they wait till she was dead? Why was not Peter solicited (ἐσκύλη) before this? So rightminded (φιλοσοφοὕντες) were they, they did not think it proper to trouble (σκύλλειν) the Disciples about such matters, and to take them away from the preaching: as indeed this is why it mentions that the place was near, seeing504 they asked this as a thing beside his mark, and not now in the regular course. “Not to delay to come unto them:” for she was a disciple. And Peter arose, and went with them. And when he was come, they led him into the upper chamber.” (v. 39.) They do not beseech, but leave it to him to give her life (σωτηρίαν.) See505 what a cheering inducement to alms is here! “And all the widows,” it says, “stood round him weeping, and showing the coats and garments which Dorcas had made while she was with them.” Peter went into the apartment, as one who took it calmly, but see what an accession came of it! It is not without a meaning that the Writer has informed us of the woman’s name, but to show that the name she bore (φερώνυμος ἦν) matched her character; as active and wakeful was she as an antelope. For in many instances there is a Providence in the giving of names, as we have often told you. “She was full,” it says, “of good works:” not only of alms, but “of good works,” first, and then of this good work in particular. “Which,” it says, “Dorcas made while she was with them.” Great humility! Not as we do; but they were all together in common, and in company with them she made these things and worked. “But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, 504 εἴπου (ἤπου, B) ἐν τάξει παρέργου τοῦτο ᾔτουν (ἦν, C.), προηγουμένως δὲ οὐκ ἔτι, μαθήτρια γὰρ ἦν. A. B. C. Cat. But Edd. ὥστε δεῖξαι ὅτι ἐν κ. τ. λ. and μαθήτρια γὰρ ἦν before προηγ. OEcum, ἐν τάξει γὰρ παρ. τοῦτο ᾔτουν, μαθ. γὰρ ἦν, omitting. προηγ. δὲ οὐκέτι.—“If the place had not been near, they would not have made the request: for it was asking him to put himself out of his way, to do this over and above, and not in the regular course.”—This is a hint to the hearers that they should show the like forbearance and discretion, in not giving their Bishop unnecessary trouble. 505 ῾Ορᾷς ἐλεημοσύνης πόση γίνεται προτροπή. Edd. from E, “Thus is here fulfilled the saying, ‘Alms delivereth from death. And all the widows,’” etc. Below, for Εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἰσήει ὁ Πέτρος ὡς φιλοσοφῶν· ὅρα δὲ πόση ἡ ἐπίδοσις γέγονεν: the same have, “Where she was laid out dead, they take Peter, τάχα οἰU+0026 231·μενοι πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν αὐτῷ τι χαρίζεσθαι, perhaps thinking to give him a subject for elevated thought. Seest thou,” etc.—The meaning seems to be, “Peter went to see the dead body, expecting no miracle, but only as one who could bear such sights, and would teach others to do so: but see what a mighty additional boon came of it!” Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.” (v. 40.) Why does he put them all out? That he may not be confused nor disturbed by their weeping. “And having knelt down, he prayed.” Observe the intentness of his prayer. “And506 he gave her his hand.” (v. 41.) So did Christ to the daughter of Jairus: “And (says the Evangelist) having taken her by the hand.” Mark severally, first the life, then the strength brought into her, the one by the word, the other by his hand—“And he gave her his hand, and lifted her up, and when he had called the saints and widows, presented her alive:” to some for comfort, because they received back their sister, and because they saw the miracle, and for kindly support (προστασίαν) to others. “And it was known throughout all Joppa; and many believed in the Lord. And it came to pass, that he tarried many days in Joppa with one Simon a tanner.” (v. 42–43.) Mark the unassuming conduct, mark the moderation of Peter, how he does not make his abode with this lady, or some other person of distinction, but with a tanner: by all his acts leading men to humility, neither suffering the mean to be ashamed, nor the great to be elated! “Many days;”507 for they needed his instruction, who had believed through the miracles.—Let us look then again at what has been said.

“Assayed,” it says, “to join himself to the disciples.” (Recapitulation, v. 26.) He did not come up to them unabashed, but with a subdued manner. “Disciples”508 they were all called at that time by reason of their great virtue, for there was the likeness of the disciples plainly to be seen. “But they were all afraid of him.” See how they feared the dangers, how the alarm was yet at its height in them. “But Barnabas,” etc. (v. 27.)—it seems to me that Barnabas was of old a friend of his—“and related,” etc.: observe how Paul says nothing of all this himself: nor would he have brought it forward to the others, had he not been compelled to do so. “And he was with them, coming in and going out at Jerusalem, and speaking boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (v. 28, 29.) This gave them all confidence. “But they went about to slay him: which when the brethren knew” etc. (v. 30.) Do you observe how both there (at Damascus), and here, the rest take care for him, and provide for him the means of departure, and that we nowhere find him thus far receiving (direct supernatural) aid from God? So the energy of his character is betokened. “To Cæsarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus:” so that, I suppose, he did not continue his journey by land, but sailed the rest of it. And this (departure) 506 In the mss. Καὶ κρατήσας, φησί, τῆς χειρός. U+0026 169·Ορα (E. Edd. ᾽Ενταῦθα δείκνυσι) κατὰ μέρος κ. τ. λ. But the passage cited is from Luke viii. 52, καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, ἐφώνησε κ. τ. λ. to which, and probably to the ἐκβαλὼν ἔξω πάντας there preceding, St. Chrys. here referred. 507 Edd. from E. ὃς καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἔκρινε διελθεῖν, ἐπείδη τῆς αὐτοῦ διδασκαλίας ἐδέοντο οἱ πιστεύσαντες. “Who also for this reason judged it right to make this circuit, because those who had believed needed his instruction.” 508 The modern text: “He calls by the name of ‘disciples’ even those who were not included in the company of the twelve (Apostles), because they were all called disciples,” etc. is Providentially ordered, that he might preach there also: and so likewise were the plots against him ordered by God’s Providence, and his coming to Jerusalem, that the story about him might no longer be disbelieved. For there he was “speaking boldly,” it says, “in the name of the Lord Jesus; and he spake and disputed against the Hellenists;” and again, “he was with them coming in and going out.—So509 the Church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace”—i.e. it increased: and peace with itself, that peace which is peace indeed: for the war from without would have done them no harm —“they being edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and abounded in the consolation of the Holy Ghost.” And the spirit consoled them both by the miracles and by the works, and independently of these in the person of each individual. “And it came to pass, etc. And Peter said unto him, Eneas,” etc. (v. 32–34.)510 But before discourse, before exhortations, he says to the lame man himself, “Jesus Christ maketh thee whole.” This word he believed in any wise, and was made whole. Observe how unassuming he is: for he said not, “In the Name,” but511 rather as a sign he narrates the miracle itself, and speaks as its Evangelist. “And having seen him,” it says, “all that dwelt in Lydda, and Saron, turned unto the Lord.—Now there was at Joppa,” etc. (v. 35, 36.) Observe everywhere the signs taking place. But let us so believe them, as if we were now beholding them. It is not simply said, that Tabitha died, but that she died, having been in a state of weakness. And (yet) they did not call Peter until she died; then “they sent and told him not to delay to come unto them.” Observe, they send and call him by others. And he comes: he did not think it a piece of disrespect, to be summoned by two men: for, it says, “they sent two men unto him.”—Affliction, my beloved, is a great thing, and rivets our souls 509 Here the modern text has: “And the Churches had peace, being edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord:” i.e. they increased, and (had peace), peace as it is in itself, the true peace, εἰρήνην αὐτὴν δὴπου πρὸς ἑαυτὴν, τὴν ὄντως εἰρήνην.” (The singular ἡ ᾽Εκκλ. being altered to the plural, the reference in πρὸς ἑαυτὴν was not perceived.) “With good reason. For the war from without exceedingly afflicted them. ‘And were filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost.’” See p. 136, note 3. 510 Something must be supplied: e.g. “He did not wait for Eneas to ask, or to show his faith,” as above, p. 301.—Edd. from E. “‘And it came to pass—maketh thee whole.’ It is not the word of one making a display, but of confidence that the thing shall be. And it does very much seem to me, that the sick man believed this word, and was made whole. That Peter is unassuming, is clear from what follows. For he said not, In the Name of Jesus, but rather as a miracle he narrates it. ‘And they that dwelt at Lydda saw, and turned unto the Lord.’ It was not for nothing that I said, that the miracles were wrought in order to persuade and comfort. ‘But in Joppa—and died.’ Do you mark the miracles everywhere taking place? It is not merely said, etc. Wherefore also they do not call Peter until she was dead. ‘And having heard, (that Peter was there) the disciples sent,’” etc. 511 ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὡς σημεῖον μᾶλλον αὐτὸ (αὐτὸς B.) διηγεῖται καὶ εὐαγγελίζεται: “he speaks not in the form of command or promise, but of narration: he relates it, Evangelist-like, as a fact.” together. Not a word of wailing there, nor of mourning. See512 how thoroughly matters are cleansed! “Having washed her,” it says, “they laid her in an upper chamber:” that is, they did all (that was right) for the dead body. Then Peter having come, “knelt down, and prayed; and turning him to the body, said, Tabitha, arise.” (v. 40.) They did not perform all their miracles with the same ease. But this was profitable for them: for truly God took thought not only for the salvation of others, but for their own. He that healed so many by his very shadow, how is it that he now has to do so much first? There are cases also in which the faith of the applicants coöperated. This is the first dead person that he raises. Observe how he, as it were, awakes her out of sleep: first she opened her eyes: then upon seeing (Peter) she sat up: then from his hand she received strength. “And it was known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.” (v. 42.) Mark the gain, mark the fruit, that it was not for display. Indeed, this is why he puts them all out, imitating his Master in this also.

513 For where tears are—or rather, where miracles are, there tears ought not to be; not where such a mystery is celebrating. Hear, I beseech you: although somewhat of the like kind does not take place now, yet in the case of our dead likewise, a great mystery is celeb- rating. Say,514 if as we sit together, the Emperor were to send and invite some one of us to the palace, would it be right, I ask, to weep and mourn? Angels are present, commissioned from heaven and come from thence, sent from the King Himself to call their fellow servant, and say, dost thou weep? Knowest thou not what a mystery it is that is taking place, how awful, how dread, and worthy indeed of hymns and lauds? Wouldest thou learn, that thou mayest know, that this is no time for tears? For it is a very great mystery of the Wisdom of God. As if leaving her dwelling, the soul goes forth, speeding on her way to her own Lord, and dost thou mourn? Why then, thou shouldst do this on the birth of a child: for this in 512 ῞Ορα πῶς διακαθαίρεται τὰ πράγματα (omitted in E. D. F. Edd.): i.e. how the Gospel has purged away all excess of mourning, and all noisy demonstrations of grief. St. Chrys. frequently inveighs against the heathenish customs of mourning for the dead, which were still practised—such as the hiring of heathen mourning-women: Hom. in Matt. xxxi. p. 207. A. “I confess to you, I am ashamed when I see the troops of women tearing their hair, gashing their flesh, as they move through the market—and this under the very eyes of the heathen.” Conc. in Laz. v. t. i. p. 765 D. where the Christian mode of interment is described; viz. the procession of clergy with psalms and hymns of praise, lighted tapers, etc. comp. Hom. iv. in Heb. (ii. 15.) 513 ῎Ενθα γὰρ δάκρυα, μᾶλλον δὲ ἔνθα θαύματα, οὐ δεῖ δάκρυα παρεῖναι· ἔνθα τοιοῦτον μυστήριον τελεῖται. It seems, he was going to say, “Where tears are, it is no fit time for miracles,” but corrects himself, for put in that way the proposition was not true. The innovator weakly substitutes, “For where tears are, such a mystery ought not to be performed: or rather, where miracles are, there tears ought not to be.” 514 The rest of the Hom. is given in the Florilegium or Eclogæ, in t. xii. ecl. xlv.—the only instance in which these Homilies have been employed in that compilation. Its author used the old text: it does not appear that any of his various readings were derived from the modern text. fact is also a birth, and a better than that. For here she goes forth to a very different light, is loosed as from a prison-house, comes off as from a contest. “Yes,” say you, “it is all very well to say this,515 in the case of those of whose salvation we are assured.” Then, what ails thee, O man, that even in the case of such, thou dost not take it in this way? Say, what canst thou have to condemn in the little child? Why dost thou mourn for it? What in the newly baptized? for he too is brought into the same condition: why dost thou mourn for him? For as the sun arises clear and bright, so the soul, leaving the body with a pure conscience, shines joyously. Not such the spectacle of Emperor as he comes in state to take possession of the city (ἐπιβαίνοντα πόλεως), not such the hush of awe, as when the soul having quitted the body is departing in company with Angels. Think what the soul must then be! in what amazement, what wonder, what delight! Why mournest thou? Answer me.—But it is only in the case of sinners thou doest this? Would that it were so, and I would not forbid your mournings, would that this were the object! This lamentation were Apostolic, this were after the pattern of the Lord; for even Jesus wept over Jerusalem. I would that your mournings were discriminated by this rule. But when thou speakest the words of one516 that would call back (the dead), and speakest of thy long intimacy and his beneficence, it is but for this thou mournest (not because he was a sinner), thou dost but pretend to say it. Mourn, bewail the sinner, and I too will give a loose to tears; I, more than thou, the greater the punishment to which he is liable as such: I too will lament, with such an object. But not thou alone must lament him that is such; the whole city must do the same, and all that meet you on the way, as men bewail them that are led to be put to death. For this is a death indeed, an evil death, the death of sinners. But (with you) all is clean reversed. Such lamentation marks a lofty mind, and conveys much instruction; the other marks a littleness of soul. If we all lamented with this sort of lamentation, we should amend the persons themselves while yet living. For as, if it rested with thee to apply medicines which would prevent that bodily death, thou wouldest 515 ἐπὶ τῶν εὐδοκίμων: i.e. those who are certainly not reprobates (οὐκ ἀδοκίμων). In the next sentence, E. Edd. καὶ τί πρὸς σὲ, ἄνθρωπε; σὺ γὰρ οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τῶν εὐδοκ. τοῦτο ποιεῖς. Ben. Et quid hoc ad te, o homo? tu enim erga probos hoc non agis. Erasm. tu enim neque apud probatissimos hoc agis. The other mss. and Ecl. τί οὖν…ὅτι. 516 ῞Οταν δὲ ἀνακαλούμενος ῥU+0026 208·ματα λέγῃς καὶ συνήθειαν καὶ προστασίαν, so mss. and Edd. but Ecl. ἀνακαλουμένου, which we adopt. To the same purport, but more fully, Hom. xii. in 1 Cor. p. 392. (and Ecl. xlv.) “If when some (friend) were taken into the palace and crowned, thou shouldest bewail and lament, I should not call thee the friend of him that is crowned, but very much his hater and enemy. ‘But now, say you, I do not bewail him, but myself.’ But neither is this the part of a friend, that for thine own sake thou wouldest have him still in the contest, etc. ‘But I know not where he is gone.’ How knowest thou not, answer me? For whether he lived rightly or otherwise, it is plain where he will go. ‘Why, this is the very reason why I do bewail—because he departed a sinner.’ This is mere pretence. If this were the reason of thy lamenting him that is gone, thou oughtest while he was alive to have amended him, and formed his manners,” etc. use them, just so now, if this death were the death thou lamentest, thou wouldest prevent its taking place, both in thyself and in him. Whereas now our behavior is a perfect riddle; that having it in our power to hinder its coming, we let it take place, and mourn over it when it has come. Worthy indeed of lamentations are they (when we consider), what time as they shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, what words they shall then hear, what they shall suffer! To no purpose have these men lived: nay, not to no purpose, but to evil purpose! Of them too it may be fitly said, “It were good for them had they never been born.” (Mark xiv. 21.) For what profit is it, I ask, to have spent so much time to the hurt of his own person? Had it been spent only to no purpose, were not that, I ask you, punishment enough! If one who has been an hired servant twenty years were to find that he has had all his labor in vain, would he not weep and lament, and think himself the most miserable of men? Why, here is a man who has lost all the labor of a whole life: not one day has he lived for himself, but to luxury, to debauchery, to covetousness, to sin, to the devil. Then, say, shall we not bewail this man? shall we not try to snatch him from his perils? For it is, yes, it is possible, if we will, to mitigate his punishment, if we make continual prayers for him, if for him we give alms. However unworthy he may be, God will yield to our importunity. For if517 Paul showed mercy on one (who had no claims on his mercy), and for the sake of others spared one (whom he would not have spared), much more is it right for us to do this. By means of his substance, by means of thine own, by what means thou wilt, aid him: pour in oil, nay rather, water. Has he no alms-deeds of his own to exhibit? Let him have at least those of his kindred. 517 Εἰ γὰρ Παῦλος ἕτερον ἠλέU+0026 219·σε, καὶ δἰ ἄλλους ἄλλων (Ecl. ἄλλον) ἐφείσατο, πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἡμᾶς τοῦτο δεῖ ποιεῖν. But E. Edd. Εἰ διὰ Παῦλον ἑτέρους διέσωσε, καὶ δἰ ἄλλους ἄλλων φείδεται, πῶς οὐχὶ καὶ δἰ ἡμᾶς τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐργάσεται; “If (God) for Paul’s sake saved others, and for some men’s sake spares other men, how shall He not for our sakes do this same thing?” In Hom. xli. in 1 Cor. p. 393. B. Chrys. uses for illustration Job’s sacrifice for his sons, and adds, “For God is wont to grant favors to others in behalf of others, ἑτέροις ὑπὲρ ἑτέρων χαρίζεσθαι. And this Paul showed, saying, ῞Ινα ἐν πολλῷ προσώπῳ, κ. τ. λ. 2 Cor. i. 11.” But here the reference seems to be to 2 Cor. ii. 10, “To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also; for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, ‘for your sakes’ forgave I it in the person of Christ.”—St. Chrysostom constantly teaches, as here, that the souls of the departed are aided by the prayers, alms, and Eucharistic oblations of the living, Hom. xli. in 1 Cor. u. s. “Even if he did depart a sinner,…we ought to succor him, in such sort as may be (ὡς ἂν οἷU+0026 231·ν τε ᾖ), not by tears, but by prayers and supplications, and alms and oblations. For not idly have these things been devised, nor to no purpose do we make mention of the departed in the Divine Mysteries, and for them draw near, beseeching the Lamb Which lieth there, Which taketh away the sins of the world, but in order that some consolation may thence come to them. Nor in vain does he that stands beside the altar, while the dread Mysteries are celebrating, cry out, ‘For all that sleep in Christ, and for them that make the memorials for them.’” See also Hom. iii. ad Phil. p. 217, 218. Comp. St. Cyrill. Hier. Catech. Mystag. v. §9, St. Augustin, Serm. 172. Has he none done by himself? At least let him have those which are done for him, that his wife may with confidence beg him off in that day, having paid down the ransom for him. The more sins he has to answer for, the greater need has he of alms, not only for this reason, but because the alms has not the same virtue now, but far less: for it is not all one to have done it himself, and to have another do it for him; therefore, the virtue being less, let us by quantity make it the greatest. Let us not busy ourselves about monuments, not about memorials. This is the greatest memorial: set widows to stand around him. Tell them his name: bid them all make for him their prayers, their supplications: this will overcome God: though it have not been done by the man himself, yet because of him another is the author of the almsgiving. Even this pertains to the mercy of God: “widows standing around and weeping” know how to rescue, not indeed from the present death, but from that which is to come. Many have profited even by the alms done by others on their behalf: for even if they have not got perfect (deliverance), at least they have found some comfort thence. If it be not so, how are children saved? And yet there, the children themselves contribute nothing, but their parents do all: and often have women had their children given them, though the children themselves contributed nothing. Many are the ways God gives us to be saved, only let us not be negligent.

How then if one be poor? say you. Again I say, the greatness of the alms is not estimated by the quantity given, but by the purpose. Only give not less than thine ability, and thou hast paid all. How then, say you, if he be desolate and a stranger, and have none to care for him? And why is it that he has none, I ask you? In this very thing thou sufferest thy desert, that thou hast none to be thus thy friend, thus virtuous. This is so ordered on purpose that, though we be not ourselves virtuous, we may study to have virtuous companions and friends—both wife, and son, and friend—as reaping some good even through them, a slight gain indeed, but yet a gain. If thou make it thy chief object not to marry a rich wife,518 but to have a devout wife, and a religious daughter, thou shalt gain this consolation; if thou study to have thy son not rich but devout, thou shalt also gain this consolation. If thou make these thine objects then wilt thyself be such as they. This also is part of virtue, to choose such friends, and such a wife and children. Not in vain are the oblations made for the departed, not in vain the prayers, not in vain the almsdeeds: all those things hath the Spirit ordered,519 wishing us to be benefited one by the other. See: he is benefited, thou art be- 518 εὐλᾶβῆ γυναῖκα καὶ θυγάτριον ἀγαγέσθαι σεμνόν. A. B. C. In the Edd. καὶ θυγ. σεμνὸν, is transposed after μὴ πλουτοῦντα υἱU+0026 232·ν καταλιπεῖν ἀλλ᾽ εὐλαβῆ: and so in the Ecl. which however retains ἀγ, between θυγ. and σεμνόν. In the old text, wife and daughter are mentioned first, as the persons most apt to perform these offices of religion: in ἀγαγέσθαι there is a zeugma; “to take to wife, and to have wife and daughter, etc.” 519 Hom.iii. in Phil. ad fin. Οὐκ εἰκῆ ταῦτα ἐνομοθετήθη ὑτὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων κ. τ. λ. “Not idly were these things enacted by the Apostles, that in the dread mysteries there is mention made of the departed: they know that to them great is the gain which accrues, great the benefit. For when the whole congregation stands there, nefited: because of him, thou hast despised wealth, being set on to do some generous act: both thou art the means of salvation to him, and he to thee the occasion of thine almsgiving. Doubt not that he shall get some good thereby. It is not for nothing that the Deacon cries, “For them that are fallen asleep in Christ, and for them that make the memorials for them.” It is not the Deacon that utters this voice, but the Holy Ghost: I speak of the Gift. What sayest thou? There is the Sacrifice in hand, and all things laid out duly ordered: Angels are there present, Archangels, the Son of God is there: all stand with such awe, and in the gen- eral silence those stand by, crying aloud: and thinkest thou that what is done, is done in vain? Then is not the rest also all in vain, both the oblations made for the Church, and those for the priests, and for the whole body? God forbid! but all is done with faith. What thinkest thou of the oblation made for the martyrs, of the calling made in that hour, martyrs though they be, yet even “for martyrs?”520 It is a great honor to be named in the presence of the Lord, when that memorial is celebrating, the dread Sacrifice, the unutterable mysteries. For just as, so long as the Emperor is seated, is the time for the petitioner to effect what he wishes to effect, but when he is risen, say what he will, it is all in vain, so at that time, while the celebration of the mysteries is going on, it is for all men the greatest honor to be held worthy of mention. For look: then is declared the dread mystery, that God gave Himself for the world: along with that mystery he seasonably puts Him in mind of them that have sinned. For as when the celebration of Emperors’ victories is in progress, then, as many as had their part in the victory receive their meed of praise, while at the same time as many as are in bonds are set at liberty in honor of the occasion; but when the occasion is past, he that did not obtain this favor then, no longer gets any: so is it here likewise: this is the time of celebration of a victory. For, saith it, “so often as ye eat this bread, ye do show forth the Lord’s death.” Then let us not approach indifferently, nor imagine that these things are done in any ordinary sort. But it is in another sense521 that we make mention of martyrs, and this, all lifting up their hands, the sacerdotal body (πλήρωμα ἱερατικὸν), and the dread sacrifice is laid out, how shall we fail to prevail with God, in supplicating for these?” 520 Τί οἴει τὸ ὑπὲρ μαρτύρων προσφέρεσθαι, τὸ κληθῆναι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ κἂν μάρτυρες ὦσι, κἂν (καὶ A. ὑπὲρ μαρτύρων; There is no reason to suppose (as Neander, Der Heilige Johannes Chrysostomus, t. ii. p. 162) that the words κἂν μάρτυρες κ. τ. λ. are part of the Liturgy: the meaning is, Think what a great thing it is to be mentioned in that Prayer of Oblation; to be mentioned as the martyrs are mentioned, for of them also, martyrs though they be, the same form of expression is used, ὑπὲρ μαρτύρων.—In the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom the words are, ῎Ετι προσφέρομεν σοι τὴν λογικὴν ταύτην λατρείαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν πίστει ἀναπαυομένων προπατόρων, πατέρων, πατριαρχῶν, προφητῶν, ἀποστόλων, κηρύκων, εὐαγγελιστῶν, μαρτύρων κ. τ. λ. See St. Augustin, Hom. on St John, p. 842, note a. 521 i.e. not to intercede on their behalf, but for commemoration of Christ’s victory over death, achieved in Himself and in them. The Eucharist is, so to say, Christ’s ἐπινίκια, in which the Martyrs are eulogized as sharers for assurance that the Lord is not dead: and this, for a sign that death has received its death’s blow, that death itself is dead. Knowing these things, let us devise what consolations we can for the departed, instead of tears, instead of laments, instead of tombs, our alms, our prayers, our oblations, that both they and we may attain unto the promised blessings, by the grace and loving-kindness of His only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts X. 1–4

“There was a certain man in Cæsarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.”

This man is not a Jew, nor of those under the Law, but he had already forestalled our manner of life.522 Observe, thus far, two persons, both of high rank, receiving the faith, the eunuch at Gaza and this man; and the pains taken on behalf of these men. But do not imagine that this was because of their high rank: God forbid! it was because of their piety. For that the Scripture mentions their dignified stations, is to show the greatness of their piety; since it is more wonderful when a person being in a position of wealth and power is such as these were. What makes the praise of the former is, his undertaking so long a journey, and this when there was no (festival) season to require it,523 and his reading on his road, and while 522 The conversion of Cornelius marks an important step in the progress of the gospel. Hitherto Christianity had been confined to Jews, Hellenists, and that mixed people—the Samaritans (unless, as is improbable, the Ethiopian chamberlain formed an exception). Now a beginning was made of receiving the Gentiles, and in connection with that apostle to whom Christ had committed a certain leadership and privilege of opening the doors to the Kingdom (ch. Acts xv. 7). The narrative is one of the important notices in the N.T. concerning the gradual realization of Christ’s command to make disciples of all nations, and shows, so far as it relates to Peter, with how great difficulty the most enlightened of the early Christians conceived of Christianity becoming free from the forms of Judaism. Cornelius was doubtless a Roman who had become dissatisfied with the idolatrous religion of his people and who had been attracted by the influences of the Jewish religion to the worship of the true God. There is no evidence, however, that he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion. He could not have failed to hear of Jesus and his disciples. Probably Philip, the deacon, was at this time residing in Cæsarea and Peter had been preaching and working miracles in the neighboring towns. It is not unlikely that the vision which he had, appealed to thoughts and convictions concerning the gospel which had been growing stronger in his own mind. To the vision of Cornelius, that of Peter forms the complement. They symbolize the great facts that while God in his providence was preparing his apostles for the larger truth of Christianity for the world, he was also preparing the Gentile world for the reception of the gospel. It is noticeable that the three centurions who appear in the N.T. are favorably mentioned. (Matt. viii. 10; xxviii. 54, and this passage).—G.B.S. 523 καὶ τὸ, μηδὲ καιροῦ καλοῦντος. As above xix. p. 120, note 2, Chrys. remarks, that there was no festival which required the presence of the eunuch at Jerusalem. Probably he was led to this by the circumstance, that riding in his chariot, and his beseeching Philip, and numberless other points: and the great praise of the latter is, that he makes alms and prayers, and is a just man, holding such a command. The reason why the writer describes the man so fully, is, that none may say that the Scripture history relates falsehoods: “Cornelius,” he says, “a centurion of the band called the Italian band.” (v. 1.) A “band,” σπεἵρα, is what we now call a “numerous.”524 “A devout man,” he says, “and one that feared God with all his house” (v. 2): that you may not imagine that it is because of his high station that these things are done.—When Paul was to be brought over, there is no angel, but the Lord Himself: and He does not send him to some great one, but to a very ordinary person:525 but here, on the contrary, He brings the chief Apostle (to these Gentiles), not sends them to him: herein condescending to their weakness, and knowing how such persons need to be treated. As indeed on many occasions we find Christ Himself hasting (to such), as being more infirm. Or (it may be) because (Cornelius) was not able himself to leave his home. But here again is a high commendation of alms, just as was there given by means of Tabitha. “A devout man,” it says, “and one that feared God with all his house.” Let us hear this, whoever of us neglect them of our own house, whereas this man was careful of his soldiers also. “And that gave alms,” it says, “to all the people.” Both his doctrines and his life were right. “He saw in a vision evidently, about the ninth hour of the day, an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.” (v. 3.) Why does he see the angel? This also was in order to the full assurance of Peter, or rather, not of him, but of the others, the weaker ones. “At the ninth hour,” when he was released from his cares and was at quiet, when he was engaged in prayers and compunction. “And when he looked on him, he was afraid.” (v. 4.) Observe how what the angel speaks he does not speak immediately, but first rouses and elevates his mind. At the sight, there was fear, but a fear in moderation, just so far as served to fix his attention. Then also the words relieved him of his fear. The fear roused him: the praise mitigated what was unpleasant in the fear. “Thy prayers,” saith he, “and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. And now the incident of the eunuch occurs after the Martyrdom of St. Stephen and the Conversion of St. Paul, i.e. according to the Church Calendar, between the 26th of December and the 25th of January. 524 “Σπεῖρα and cohors in Polyb. differ. The Greeks call the cohort λόχος, it contained about five hundred men. Polyb. vi. καὶ μὲν μέρος ἕκαστον ἐκάλεσε καὶ τάγμα καὶ σπεῖραν καὶ σημεῖον. Casaubon: Ac singulas partes appellant ordinem, manipulum, signum.” Downe ap. Sav. 525 ἀλλὰ πρὸς εὐτελῆ. The innovator (E. Edd.) having made Chrys. say above, Hom. xx. §1, that Ananias was a man of note, here alters the text to: “But the Lord Himself appears: neither does He send him to some one of the Twelve, but to Ananias.” Below καὶ οὐκ αὐτοὺς πέμπει πρὸς αὐτὸν: meaning, it seems, Cornelius and his hour. The same hand substitutes (for explanation of the plural, αὐτῶν τῇ ἀσθενείU+0026 139·), “as He did Philip to the eunuch, condescending to their infirmity.” And in the following sentence; “Since Christ Himself is often seen going to them that are ill, and in their own persons unable to come to Him.” send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter.” (v. 5.) Lest they should come to a different person, he designates the man not only by his surname, but by the place. “And the same,” saith he, “is lodging with one Simon a tanner, who hath his house by the seaside.” (v. 6.) Do you mark how the Apostles, for love of solitude and quiet, affected the retired quarters of the cities? “With one Simon a tanner:” how then if it chanced that there was another? Behold, there is another token, his dwelling by the seaside. All three tokens could not possibly coincide (elsewhere). He does not tell him for what purpose, that he may not take off the intense desire, but he leaves him to an eager and longing expectation of what he shall hear. “And526 when the Angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually; and when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.” (v. 7, 8.) Do you see, that it is not without purpose that the writer says this? (it shows) that those also “who waited on him continually” were such as he. “And when he had declared the whole matter unto them:” observe the unassuming character of the man: for he does not say, Call Peter to me: but, in order also to induce him to come, he declared the whole matter:—this was so ordered by Providence;—for he did not choose to use the authority of his rank to fetch Peter to him; therefore “he declared the matter;” such was the moderation of the man: and yet no great notion was to be formed of one lodging with a tanner. “And on the morrow, as they journeyed, and drew nigh to the city” (v. 9.)—observe how the Spirit connects the times: no sooner than this, and no later, He Causes this to take place—“Peter about the sixth hour went up upon the housetop to pray:” that is, privately and quietly, as in an upper chamber. “And he became very hungry, and would have eaten; but while they made ready, there fell upon him a trance.” (v. 10.) What means this expression,527 ἔκστασις, “trance?” 526 The clause οὗτος λαλήσει σοι τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν is not recognized by Chrys., nor by the leading authorities. See infra, p. 145, note 6. 527 τί ἐστιν ἔκστασις. Because the word also, and more commonly, means the being beside one’s self, amazed, or stupefied by excess of grief, Chrys. explains that it denotes the being rapt out of the bodily consciousness: it was not that Peter was out of his mind, but his soul out of the body. (St. Augustin, Serm. 266, §6, “orantis mens alienata est; sed ab infimis ad superua; non ut deviaret, sed ut videret.”) Comp. Exp. in Psa. 115. t. v. p. 312, D. “In Gen. ii. 21. the ἔκστασις which fell upon Adam denotes a kind of insensibility, for ἔκστ. means τὸ ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ γενέσθαι: and in Acts x. 10 it denotes κάρον τινα καὶ τὸ ἔξω αἰσθήσεως γενέσθαι: and everywhere ἔκστασις implies this. It comes, either by the act of God: or because the excess of calamity causes a kind of stupor, κάρος. For calamity likewise is wont to occasion ἔκστ. and κάρος.” Didymus (or some other author) in the Catena: “They that have chosen to be disciples of frantic women, I mean, they of Phrygia (the Montanists), affirm that the Prophets, when possessed by the Holy Ghost, were not in a condition to be strictly cognizant of their own thoughts, being borne away from themselves at the instant of prophesying. And they think to confirm their error by this Scripture, which says, that Peter ἐξεστακέναι. But let these silly ones, these indeed frantic persons, know that this is a word of many significations. It denotes the amazement of wonder: and the being wrapt above Rather, there was presented to him a kind of spiritual view (θεωρία): the soul, so to say, was caused to be out of the body (ἐξέστη). “And saw heaven opened, and, knit at the four corners, a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet, and let down to the earth: wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.” (v. 11–16.) What is this? It is a symbol of the whole world. The528 man was uncircumcised: and —for he had nothing in common with the Jews—they would all accuse him as a transgressor: sensible objects, led on to spiritual things: and the being beside one’s self (παρακόπτειν)—which is not be said either of Peter, or of the Prophets. Nay Peter, in his trance, was strictly cognizant, so as to report what he had seen and heard, and to be sensible of what the things shown were symbolical. The same is to be said of all the Prophets—that their consciousness kept pace with the things presented to their view.” Comp. on this subject, S. Epiphan. adv. Hæres. Montan. 2. ὅσα γὰρ οὶ προφῆται εἰρήκασι μετὰ συνέσεως παρακολουθοῦντες ἐφθέγγοντο. Euseb. H. E. v. 17. relates that Miltiades wrote a treatise περὶ τοῦ μὴ δεῖν προφήτην ἐν ἐκστάσει λαλεῖν. See also S. Heironym, Præf, in Esai. “Neque vero ut Montanus cum insanis foeminis somniat, prophetæ in ecstasi locuti sunt, ut nescirent quid loquerentur, et cum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent quid dicerent.” Id. Proem. in Nahum. Præf. in Abac. and, on the difference between the heathen μάντις and the divinely inspired Prophet, St. Chrysost. Hom. xxix. in 1 Cor. p. 259, C. τοῦτο γὰρ μάντεως ἴδιον, τὸ ἐξεστηκέναι κ. τ. λ. and Expos. in Psa. xliv. p. 161. C.—The clause τέσσαρσιν ἀρχαῖς δεδεμένον, before σκεῦος τί, (A. B. C ) agrees with the Lat. of S. Hilar. p. 750, “exquatuor principiis ligatum vas quoddam,” etc. 528 St. Chrysostom’s exposition, as we gather it from this and the following Homily, seems to be in substance as follows: St. Peter was not ignorant of nor averse to, the counsel of God in respect of the free admission of the Gentiles. He did not need instruction on this point for himself, and the vision was not so much intended for his instruction or assurance, as for reproof to the Jewish believers who were not yet enlightened in this mystery. (Even the token which was given in the descent of the Holy Ghost on Cornelius before baptism, was for them, not for him.) He needed but a command to act upon it without hesitation. But because this would certainly be regarded as a flagrant offence by the weaker brethren, for their sakes this symbolical lesson is given: and the circumstances are so contrived (οἰκονομεῖται) as to silence their objections. It is so ordered, that the matter of accusation is put by them in this form, “Thou didst go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” Had they said, “Thou didst baptize such,” St. Peter could not have alleged that he did it reluctantly: but to the charge of unclean eating he had his answer: “I did object; I said, not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean,” etc. This carried with it his exculpation from the whole matter of offence: for they would apply it thus—“he baptized these Gentiles, but not without objecting to the command; not until his reluctance was overruled,” though in fact St. Peter had no such reluctance. “thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them: (ch. xi. 3)” this529 was a thing altogether offensive to them: observe then what is providentially managed. He himself also says, “I have never eaten:” not being himself afraid—far be the thought from us—but it is so contrived by the Spirit, in order that he may have it to say in answer to those accusing him, that he did object: for it was altogether necessary for them to observe the Law. He was in the act of being sent to the Gentiles: therefore that these also may not accuse him, see how many things are contrived (by the Providence of God). For, that it may not seem to be a mere fancy, “this was done thrice. I530 said,” saith he, “Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten aught common or unclean.—And the voice came unto him, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” (ch. xi. 8, with x. 14.) It seems indeed to be spoken to him, but the whole is meant for the Jews. For if the teacher is rebuked, much more these.531 The earth then, this is what the linen sheet denotes, and the wild beasts in it, are they of the Gentiles, 529 Τοῦτο πάνυ αὐτοῖς προσίστατο (B. and Sav. marg. παρίστατο) Erasm. Et hoc illis valde frequens erat. Ben. Et illis admodum cordi erat. But Hom. xxiv. 2. ἵνα μὴ προστῇ (προσστῇ) αὐτοῖς, Ben. remarks that προσίστασθαι in the sense “offendere” is frequent in St. Chrysostom. It properly applies to food against which the stomach rises: “to raise the gorge, to be nauseous, disgusting, offensive.” See Field Annotat. in Hom. ad Matt. p. 319. B.—Τοῦτο, i.e. the going in to men uncircumcised, and eating with them. Comp. Hom. li. in Matt. p. 317. (Am. ed.) “Such was the strict observance in respect of meats, that, even after the Resurrection, Peter said, ‘Not so, Lord,’ etc. For though ‘he said this for the sake of others, and so as to leave himself a justification against those who should accuse him, and that he may show that he did object,’ (ὅτι καὶ ἀντεῖπον), and for all this, the point was not conceded to him, still it shows how much was made of this matter.” 530 Here besides the clause, “this was done thrice,” something is wanting: e.g. “And observe how Peter relates the matter, and justifies himself,” viz. in xi. 8, “I said,” saith he, “Not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered my mouth.” Here for εἶπον, B. has εἶπεν, which is adopted by the modern text, in which the whole passage is refashioned thus: “Since then they would all accuse him as a transgressor, and this was altogether offensive to them, of necessity it is managed (οἰκον.) that he says, “I never ate:” not being himself afraid, God forbid! but, as I said, being managed (οἰκονομούμενος) by the Spirit, that he may have a justification to those accusing him, namely, that he did object: for they made a great point of keeping the Law. He was sent to the Gentiles: therefore, that these also may not have to accuse him, as I said before, these things are contrived, or also, that it may not seem to be a fancy, ‘he said, Not so, Lord,’” etc. 531 Peter’s vision fitly represents the divine lesson concerning the destination of the gospel and the manner of its progress. None of the apostles doubted that Christianity was for the Gentiles: the great question was, whether it was to be preached to them through the medium of Judaism. Should it still be held within Jewish forms? Should circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law be required? This was a great practical question in the days of transition from Judaism to Christianity. Later Paul became the champion of the idea that it was to be cut loose from the Jewish system. Peter and James came but slowly to this idea. The destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Jewish state brought the question to a decisive settlement. Apart from this, however, the and the command, “Kill and eat,” denotes that he must go to them also; and that this thing is thrice done, denotes baptism. “What God hath cleansed,” saith it, “call not thou common.” Great daring! Wherefore532 did he object? That none may say that God was proving him, as in the case of Abraham, this is why he says, “Not so, Lord,” etc. not gainsaying—just as to Philip also He said, “How many loaves have ye?” Not to learn, but tempting, or “proving him.”533 And yet it was the same (Lord) that had discoursed above (in the Law) concerning Pauline type of teaching on this point constantly gained ground and influence. The vision of Peter takes its place in the gradual development of the idea that Christianity was free from the law—an idea on which he seems after this to have held a somewhat uncertain and vacillating position, so that Paul “resisted him to the face” for his declining to eat with the Gentiles at Antioch on account of the presence of certain delegates from Jerusalem—a practice in which he had, before their coming, engaged (Gal. ii. 11, 12). It is not strange that perplexing questions arose concerning the relations of the new system to the old at this time. The general line of procedure was settled by the apostolic conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv., Gal. i., ii.) and was substantially determined by the apostle Paul. While as matter of fact, the Church has always followed the lead of Paul in this matter, the most diverse views still prevail among Christians as to the relation, theoretically considered, of Christianity to Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures.—G.B.S. 532 St. Chrys. seems here to be controverting a different exposition. He will not allow that the vision was meant for instruction to St. Peter, as if he were in ignorance up to this time of the counsel of God concerning the Gentiles. Let it not be said, that like as God did tempt Abraham, so He was putting Peter to the proof whether he would obey the call to the Gentiles, as if Peter understood the vision in that sense. Had he so understood the command, “Kill and eat,” he would not have objected; for he could not be either ignorant or unwilling. But he did not so understand it, and his objection was solely to the matter of eating. And as he needed not the lesson (it was intended for others): so neither did God need to learn his willingness. When God tempts, or proves, it is not to learn something that He did not know before; as, when Christ said to Philip, “Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat? this He said tempting, or, proving him, for He Himself knew what He would do.” He put that question to Philip that he might the more admire the greatness of the miracle which he was about to work. (see note 2.) But nothing of the kind can be said here: the case is not parallel: the command to baptize the Gentiles would not surprise Peter: he expected no less from the beginning.—His objection, then, was to the thing itself, the command, “kill and eat.” And no wonder, for the same Lord had in the Law strictly commanded to distinguish between clean and unclean, while there in the sheet were animals of all sorts indiscriminately. 533 Hom.xlii. in Ev. Joann. §2. “What meaneth, Tempting, or, proving him? was He ignorant what would be said by him? This cannot be said, …We may learn the meaning from the Old Testament. For there also it is said, After these things God did tempt Abraham, etc. He did not say this in order to learn by the proof whether he would obey or not—how should it be so? for He knoweth all things before they come into existence: but on both occasions it is spoken after the manner of men. As, when it is said, He searcheth the hearts of men, it indicates the search, not of ignorance, but of perfect knowledge; so when it is said, He tempted, tried, or proved, it means no other than that He perfectly knew.—Or, it may mean, that He made the person more approved: as Abraham things clean and unclean. But in that sheet were also “all the four-footed beasts of the earth:” the clean with the unclean. And534 for all this, he knew not what it meant. “Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate, and called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there. But while Peter,” it says, “doubted in himself” (v. 17, 18), the men come at the right moment to solve his doubt: just as (the Lord) suffered Joseph first to be perturbed in mind, and then sends the Angel: for the soul with ease accepts the solution, when it has first been in perplexity. His perplexity neither lasts long (when it did occur), nor (did it occur) before this, but just at the moment when they “asked whether he were lodging there. While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee. Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.” (supra, p. 142, and 145, note 7; v. 19, 20.) And this again is a plea for Peter in answer to the disciples, that he did doubt, and was instructed to doubt nothing. “For I,” saith He, “have sent them.” Great is the authority of the Spirit! What God doth, this the Spirit is said to do. Not so the Angel, but having first said, “Thy prayers and thine alms have ascended, for a memorial before God,” to show that he is sent from thence, then he adds, “And now send men,” etc.: the Spirit not so, but, “For I have sent them. Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come? And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.” (v. 21, 22.) They there, so Philip by this question, leading him into the sure knowledge of the sign:” i.e. bringing more home to his mind the greatness of the miracle, by leading him in the first place to estimate the utter inadequacy of the means. 534 Either this refers to the clause, “This was done thrice,” etc., which should be inserted; or, the connection may be—This very circumstance of the clean and unclean being together in the sheet (as in the Ark), might have led him to an apprehension of the thing symbolized, viz., that he was not commanded to “kill and eat” the unclean with the clean (by the same Lord who of old had commanded a distinction of meats), but that the time was come to baptize all nations without respect of persons. But, obvious as it may seem, St. Peter was still ignorant what it meant: as the Writer adds, And while Peter was at a loss to know what the vision should mean, etc.—In E. (Edd.) the whole passage from “that this is thrice done, denotes baptism,” is refashioned thus: “‘Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten aught common or unclean.’ And why, it may be asked, did he object? That none may say that God was tempting him, as in the case of Abraham, when he was ordered to offer up his son as a sacrifice: as in the case of Philip, when he was asked by Christ, How many loaves have ye? not that he may learn, did He so ask, but proving him. And yet in the Law Moses had distinctly enjoined concerning clean and unclean, both of land and sea; and yet for all this he knew not.” speak his praises, so as to persuade him that an Angel has in fact appeared unto him. “Then called he them in,”535 (b) that they may suffer no harm, “and lodged them:” thenceforth he without scruple takes his meals with them. “And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Cæsarea accompanied him. And the morrow after, they entered into Cæsarea.” (v. 23, 24.) The man was a person of note, and it was in a city of note that he then was.

(a) But let us look over again what has been said. “There was a certain man in Cæsarea,” etc. (Recapitulation, v. 1, 2.) Observe with whom the beginning of the Gentiles is made—with “a devout man,” and one proved to be worthy by his works. For if, though the case be so, they are still offended, if this had not been the case, what would not have been the consequence! But536 mark the greatness of the assurance. (c) To this end537 all is done (in the way it is done), and the affair takes its beginning from Judea. (d) “He saw in a vision, evidently,” etc. (v. 3). It was not in his sleep that the Angel appeared to him, but while he was awake, in the daytime, “about the ninth hour. He538 saw an Angel of God coming in unto him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. And when he looked on him, he was afraid.” So occupied was he with himself. Implying, that it was in consequence of the Angel’s calling him by a voice that he saw him; as, had he not called him, he would not have seen him: so taken up was he with the act in which he was engaged.539 But the Angel says to him, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God, and now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, who is called Peter.” (v. 5.) So far, he signified that the sending for him 535 The letters a, b, c, d, denote the order of the parts in the old text. But C. has the formula of recapitulation, both in the beginning of (a), and again in (d), before the verse, “And the Angel said,” etc.: E. D. F. Edd. retain it only in the latter place. 536 ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὅρα πόση ἀσφάλεια, i.e. how it is made infallibly certain, that it was the purpose of God to admit the Gentiles without circumcision. It might indeed be inserted in (b), after συνδιαιτᾶται: “he has no scruples—but mark the greatness of the assurance he has received.” In the modern text, the connection is, “He called them in, and lodged them. See what security: (Θέα πόση ἀσφάλεια) in order that they should take no harm, he calls them in, and thenceforth without scruple,” etc. i.e. “how sure he feels that he is doing right in receiving them: with what assuredness of mind he does this.” But Sav. “See what security for them, in order that they should take no harm.” 537 Διὰ τοῦτο πάντα γίνεται, A. B. C. N. Cat. But Edd. Διό καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πάντα ὁμοῦ οἰκονομεῖται: “wherefore both in his person at once all the circumstances are providentially ordered, and” etc. 538 Here after the clause, οὕτως ἑαυτῷ προσεῖχεν (meaning, as afterwards explained, that he did not notice the Angel until he spoke), A. B. C. have, Λέγει δὲ ὁ ἄγγελος κ. τ. λ. Edd. ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν ἄνωθεν τὰ εἰρημένα. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος κ. τ. λ. 539 The old text: “And thy prayers, saith he. So far,” etc. Edd. “And send for Simon, who is called Peter. So far, etc.” would be for good consequences, but in what way good, he did not intimate.540 So, neither does Peter relate the whole matter, but everywhere, the narratives are in part only, for the purpose of making the hearers apply their minds to what is said. “Send and call for Simon:” in like manner the Angel only calls Philip. “And541 as they went on their journey, and drew nigh to the city” (v. 9): in order that Peter should not be in perplexity too long. “Peter went up upon the housetop,” etc. Observe, that not even his hunger forced him to have recourse to the sheet. “Rise, Peter,” saith the Voice, “kill and eat.” (v. 13.) Probably he was on his knees when he saw the vision.—To me542 it seems that this also denotes the Gospel (or, “the Preaching”). That the thing taking place was of God (the circumstances made evident, namely), both that he sees it (descending) from above, and that he is in a trance; and, that the voice comes from thence, and the thrice confessing that the creatures there were unclean, and its coming from thence, and being drawn back thither (all this), is a mighty token of 540 The text is defective here. He seems to be commenting upon the variations of the different narratives: viz. the writer himself v. 6. mentions only the command to send for Peter. (p. 142, note 4.) The messengers v. 22 add, “And to hear words of thee.” Cornelius, v. 32, “who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.” St. Peter 11, 14, “who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” “On the other hand,” he says, “neither does Peter, though he is more full on this point, relate all that the Angel said, but gives only the substance.” See the comment on 11, 14. 541 The modern text, omitting this clause, and the comment, inserts the rest of the verse, “Peter went up,” etc.: and has below, But that Peter may not be in perplexity too long, he hears a voice saying, “Rise, Peter, kill and eat.” But the meaning is, The Spirit caused the vision to take place when they were near the city, that Peter might not be too long in doubt: as above, on the same clause, “Observe how the Spirit connects the times,” etc. 542 ᾽Εμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ (om. A. B.) τὸ (om. Cat.) κήρυγμα τοῦτο εἷναι (om. Cat.) ῞Οτι θεῖον ἦν τὸ γινόμενον τό τε ἄνωθεν ἰδεῖν, τό τε ἐν ἐκστάσει γενέσθαι. (Here δηλοῖ, δείκνυσιν, or the like, must be supplied. OEcumen. Δείκνυται δὲ ὅτι θεῖον κ. τ. λ. In the modern text the wording is slightly altered, but the sense is the same. In the latter part, for ὅτι ἀκαθαρτὰ ἦν ἐκεῖ, OEcumen. has ἐκεῖνα: the modern text substitutes καὶ τὸ τρὶς τοῦτο γενέσθαι, καὶ τὸ οὐρανὸν ἀνεωχθῆναι, καὶ τὸ ἐκεῖθεν κ. τ. λ. and at the end, τοῦ θεῖον εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα for καθαρότητος.—Above, he had said that the sheet was a symbol of the world; now he adds, that the command “Kill and eat” denotes the Gospel, to be preached universally: that the descent of the sheet from heaven, and the circumstance of Peter’s being in a spiritual trance, shows that the thing was of God—not a φαντασία. Again: that it is all done thrice, denotes baptism: thrice the Voice says, Kill and eat: thrice Peter confesses that the creatures are unclean: thrice it is declared that God hath cleansed them: nay, thrice these unclean creatures are let down from heaven, and drawn up thither again: a mighty proof that they are now clean, and of the Kingdom of Heaven. the cleanness (imparted to them).—But why is this done? For543 the sake of those thereafter, to whom he is about to relate it. For to himself it had been said, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles.” (Matt. x. 5.) * * For if Paul needed both (to give) circumcision, and (to offer) sacrifice, much more (was some assurance needed) then, in the beginning of the Preaching, while they were as yet weaker. (Acts xvi. 3; xxi. 16.)—Observe544 too how he did not at once receive them. For, it says, they “called, and asked, whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodging there.” (v. 18.) As it was a mean looking house, they asked below, they inquired545 of the neighbors. “And while Peter thought, the Spirit said unto him, Arise, get thee down, and go, nothing doubting, for I have sent them.” (v. 19, 20.) And he does not say, For to this end did the vision appear unto thee; but, “I have sent them. Then Peter went down” (v. 21)—this is the way the Spirit must be obeyed, without demanding reasons. For it is sufficient for all assurance to be told by Him, This do, this believe: nothing more (is needed)—“Then Peter went down, and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek:546 what is the 543 It was remarked above, that St. Chrysostom’s exposition proceeds upon the assumption, that St. Peter did not need the instruction for himself. Here the reporter has not fully expressed his meaning: which should be to this effect. “Since it had been said at the outset to Peter and the other Apostles, ‘Go not into the way of the Gentiles,’ though after the Resurrection they were commanded to ‘baptize all nations,’ it is no marvel that the less enlightened brethren needed some strong assurance on this behalf. And if at a later time, we find Paul, to conciliate the Jewish believers, causing Timothy to be circumcised and himself offering sacrifice, much more was some condescension to their infirmity needed now.”—Didymus in the Catena puts the question, “How was it that Peter needed a revelation in the matter of Cornelius, when the Lord after his Resurrection had expressly ordered to ‘baptize all the nations?’ or how came it that the Apostles in Jerusalem, having heard of the affair of Cornelius, disputed with Peter?” To which he answers: “Peter did undoubtedly need the revelation; for he knew not that the distinction of circumcision and uncircumcision was to cease: knew not for certain that the Lord meant the Gentiles to be baptized apart from the visible worship under the Law, until the Lord manifested this mystery to him, convincing him both by the emblem of the sheet, and by the faith and grace of the Holy Spirit given to the Gentiles, that in Christ Jesus there is no distinction of Jew and Greek: of which thing because the Apostles at Jerusalem were ignorant, therefore they contended with Peter, until they also learnt the hidden riches of God’s mercy over all mankind.” St. Cyril, Alex., also, c. Julian. (ibid.) explains, that “Peter was fain to dwell in the Jewish customs, and, in a manner, was loath to go on to the better, because he was overawed by the types: therefore he is corrected by this vision.” 544 E. D. F. Edd. omit this clause, see note x: and A. B. for οὐδὲ…ἐδέξατο have οὐδὲν…ἐδείξατο, which is evidently corrupt. “Neither did he at once receive these Gentiles: not until the Spirit expressly commanded him.” 545 So Cat. and the mss. except E., which has οὐ τοὺς γείτονας ἠρώτων, and so OEcumen. But the meaning seems to be, that not expecting to find so mean a house, and thinking they might have come wrong, they asked below, in the street, i.e. inquired of the neighbors. 546 Here Edd. from E. have, “Wherefore did he not receive them immediately, but asks this question?” but D. F. insert it as above, ῞Ορα πῶς οὐκ εὐθέως αὐτοὺς ἐδέξατο, with the addition, ἀλλὰ πυνθάνεται. In the next cause wherefore ye are come?” He saw a soldier, saw a man:547 it was not that he was afraid, on the contrary, having first confessed that he was the person whom they sought, then he asks for the cause (of their coming); that it may not be supposed that the reason of his asking the cause, was, that he wished to hide himself: (he asks it) in order, that if it be immediately urgent, he may also go forth with them, but if not, may receive them as guests. “And548 they said, etc. into his house.” (v. 22.) This he had ordered them. Do not think he has done this out of contempt: not as of contempt has he sent, but so he was ordered. “And Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.” (v. 24.) It was right that his kinsmen and friends should be gathered to him. But being there present,549 they would have heard from him (what had happened).

See how great the virtue of alms, both in the former discourse, and here! There, it delivered from death temporal; here, from death eternal; and opened the gates of heaven. Such are the pains taken for the bringing of Cornelius to the faith, that both an angel is sent, and the Spirit works, and the chief of the Apostles is fetched to him, and such a vision is shown, and, in short, nothing is left undone. How many centurions were there not besides, and tribunes, and kings, and none of them obtained what this man did! Hear, all ye that are in military commands, all ye that stand beside kings. “A just man,” it says, “fearing God; devout” sentence: A. B. C. Cat. εἶδεν στρατιώτην, εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον· i.e. Saw a soldier, saw him, as he would have seen any common man, without fear. For this, D. F. have εἶδε στρατιώτας ἀνθρώπους. E. Edd. εἶδε στρατιώτας ὄντας τοὺς ἐπιστάντας.—Below, for καὶ ζητήσας A. B. C. Cat. which the other mss. omit, we correct, ὅν ἐζήτησαν. 547 In the old text, the last words of the citation, v. 22. εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ. the rest being lost, are joined on to ἵνα ξενίσῃ: Cat. εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτούς. Edd. from E. D. F. “But why do they say, ‘Sends for thee into his house?’ Because he had given them this order. And perhaps also, by way of apology, they as good as say, Do not find fault (μηδὲν καταγνῷς·) not as of contempt has he sent, etc.” In A. B. C. Cat. μὴ καταφρονήσῃς, for which Sav. marg. has ὡς ἂν εἴποιεν, μὴ καταφρ., is corrupt: perhaps it should be μὴ νομίσῃς, ὅτι κατεφρόνησέ σε· οὐχ ὡς κ. τ. λ. 548 ᾽αλλ᾽ (A. καὶ) ἐκεῖ πάροντος αὐτοῦ ἤκουσαν ἂν (A. ταῦτα ἀκούειν). We read, πάροντες, and conjecture the meaning to be, But they being there present, would have heard from Cornelius an account of all that had happened to him. Edd. from E. D. F. ῞Αλλως δὲ καὶ ἐκεῖ πάροντες μᾶλλον αὐτοῦ ἤκουσαν ἄν. “And besides by being there present they would the more hear him (Peter),” what he had to say. 549 Here Edd. from E. have, “Wherefore did he not receive them immediately, but asks this question?” but D. F. insert it as above, ῞Ορα πῶς οὐκ εὐθέως αὐτοὺς ἐδέξατο, with the addition, ἀλλὰ πυνθάνεται. In the next sentence: A. B. C. Cat. εἶδεν στρατιώτην, εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον· i.e. Saw a soldier, saw him, as he would have seen any common man, without fear. For this, D. F. have εἶδε στρατιώτας ἀνθρώπους. E. Edd. εἶδε στρατιώτας ὄντας τοὺς ἐπιστάντας.—Below, for καὶ ζητήσας A. B. C. Cat. which the other mss. omit, we correct, ὅν ἐζήτησαν. (v. 2, and 22); and what is more550 than all, with all his house. Not as we (who): that our servants may be afraid of us, do everything. but not that they may be devout. And551 over the domestics too, so * *. Not so this man; but he was “one that feared God with all his house” (v. 2), for he was as the common father of those with him, and of all the others (under his command.) But observe what (the soldier) says himself. For, fearing * *, he adds this also: “well reported of by all the nation.” For what if he was uncircumcised? Nay, but those give him a good report. Nothing like alms: great is the virtue of this practice, when the alms is poured forth from pure stores; for it is like a fountain discharging mud, when it issues from unjust stores, but when from just gains, it is as a limpid and pure stream in a paradise, sweet to the sight, sweet to the touch, both light and cool, when given in the noon-day heat. Such is alms. Beside this fountain, not poplars and pines, nor cypresses, but other plants than these, and far better, of goodly stature: friendship with God, praise with men, glory to Godward, good-will from all; blotting out of sins, great boldness, contempt of wealth. This is the fountain by which the plant of love is nourished: for nothing is so wont to nourish love, as the being merciful: it makes its branches to lift themselves on high. This fountain is better than that in Paradise (Gen. ii. 10); a fountain, not dividing into four heads, but reaching unto Heaven itself: this gives birth to that river “which springeth up into eternal life” (John iv. 14): on this let Death light, and like a spark it is extinguished by the fountain: such, wherever it drops, are the mighty blessings it causes. This quenches, even as a spark, the river of fire: this so strangles that worm, as naught else can do. (Mark ix. 44.) He that has this, shall not gnash his teeth. Of the water of this, let there be dropped upon the chains, and it dissolves them: let it but touch the firebrands,552 it quenches all.—A fountain does 550 The modern text: “and what is greater, that he was such with all his house. So intent was he, and so set upon this, that he not only well ordered his own affairs, but also over his household (ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας) he did the same. For not as we, who,” etc. 551 A. B. καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας δὲ οὕτως. ᾽Αλλ᾽ οὗτος οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τῆς οἰκίας ἁπάσης. U+0026 244·σπερ γὰρ κ. τ. λ. C., καὶ ἐπὶ τ. οἰκ. δὲ οὐκέτι κακῶς, ἀλλὰ δικαίως· ὥσπερ γὰρ κ. τ. λ. Below, the modern text has, “he feared God with all his house, as being the common father, not only of all who were with him, but also of the soldiers under him.” In the next sentence, ῞Ορα δὲ τί φησὶν καὶ αὐτός, the meaning seems to be, “Observe what is said of him by the soldier whom Cornelius sent: ‘A just man, and one that feareth God:’ and then—for fearing (lest Peter should refuse to come to him, as being a Gentile) he adds this—‘and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews.” Edd. from E. alone: “But hear also what they say besides: for of necessity that is added, ‘Well reported of by all the nation,’ that none may say, What, if he was uncircumcised? Even those, saith he, give him a good report. Why then, there is nothing like alms; or rather great is the virtue of this thing, when,” etc. 552 κἂν εἰς τὰς λαμπάδας (E. Edd., καμίνους) ἅψηται(ἐμπέσῃ, E. D. F. Edd.) In the next sentence, Αὕτη ἡ πηγή κ. τ. λ. the pronoun must be omitted.—E. D. F., Edd., “As therefore the fountain in Paradise (or, in a garden) does not give out streams,” etc. not give out streams for a while and anon run dry,—else must it be no more a fountain,—but ever gushes: so let our fountain give out more copiously of the streams of mercy (in alms). This cheers him that receives: this is alms, to give out not only a copious, but a perennial, stream. If thou wouldest that God rain down His mercy upon thee as from fountains, have thou also a fountain. And553 yet there is no comparison (between God’s fountain and thine): for if thou open the mouths of this fountain, such are the mouths of God’s Fountain as to surpass every abyss. God does but seek to get an opportunity on our part, and pours forth from His storehouses His blessings. When He expends, when He lavishes, then is He rich, then is He affluent. Large is the mouth of that fountain: pure and limpid its water. If thou stop not up the fountain here, neither wilt thou stop up that fountain.—Let no unfruitful tree stand beside it, that it may not waste its spray. Hast thou wealth? Plant not poplars there: for such is luxury: it consumes much, and shows nothing for it in itself, but spoils the fruit. Plant not a pine-tree—such is wantonness in apparel, beautiful only to the sight, and useful for nothing—nor yet a fir-tree, nor any other of such trees as consume indeed, but are in no sort useful. Set it thick with young shoots: plant all that is fruitful, in the hands of the poor, all that thou wilt. Nothing richer than this ground. Though small the reach of the hand, yet the tree it plants starts up to heaven and stands firm. This it is to plant. For that which is planted on the earth will perish, though not now, at any rate a hundred years hence. Thou plantest many trees, of which thou shalt not enjoy the fruit, but ere thou canst enjoy it, death comes upon thee. This tree will give thee its fruit then, when thou art dead.—If thou plant, plant not in the maw of gluttony, that the fruit end not in the draught-house: but plant thou in the pinched belly, that the fruit may start up to heaven. Refresh the straightened soul of the poor, lest thou pinch thine own roomy soul.—See you not, that the plants which are over-much watered at the root decay, but grow when watered in moderation? Thus also drench not thou thine own belly, that the root of the tree decay not: water that which is thirsty, that it may bear fruit. If thou water in moderation, the sun will not wither them, but if in excess, then it withers them: such is the nature of the sun. In all things, excess is bad; wherefore let us cut it off, that we also may obtain the things we ask for.—Fountains, it is said, rise on the most elevated spots. Let us be elevated in soul, and our alms will flow with a rapid stream: the elevated soul cannot but be merciful, and the merciful cannot but 553 Καίτοιγε οὐδὲν ἴσον. U+0026 174·Αν γὰρ σὺ ταύτης κ. τ. λ.—Edd., Οὐδὲν ταύτης ἴσον. U+0026 174·Αν σὺ ταύτης κ. τ. λ. “Nothing like this fountain. If then,” etc.—Below, ῞Οταν ἀναλίσκῃ, ὅταν δαπανᾷ, κ. τ. λ. in itself, may perhaps be better referred to the giver of alms: “when (one) expends, when one lavishes (alms),” etc. but in that case the connection is obscure. be elevated. For he that despises wealth, is higher than the root of evils.—Fountains are oftenest found in solitary places: let us withdraw our soul from the crowd, and alms will gush out with us. Fountains, the more they are cleaned, the more copiously they flow: so with us, the more we spend, the more all good grows.—He that has a fountain, has nothing to fear: then neither let us be afraid. For indeed this fountain is serviceable to us for drink, for irrigation, for building, for everything. Nothing better than this draught: it is not possible for this to inebriate. Better to possess such a fountain, than to have fountains running with gold. Better than all gold-bearing soil is the soul which bears this gold. For it advances us, not into these earthly palaces, but into those above. The gold becomes an ornament to the Church of God. Of this gold is wrought “the sword of the Spirit” (Eph. vi. 17), the sword by which the dragon is beheaded. From this fountain come the precious stones which are on the King’s head. Then let us not neglect so great wealth, but contribute our alms with largeness, that we may be found worthy of the mercy of God, by the grace and tender compassion of His only begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts X. 23, 24

“Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him. And the morrow after they entered into Cæsarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.”

“He” called them in, and lodged them.” Good, that first he gives the men friendly treatment, after the fatigue of their journey, and makes them at home with him; “and on the morrow,” sets out with them.” And certain accompany him: this too as Providence ordered it, that they should be witnesses afterwards when Peter would need to justify himself. “And Cornelius was waiting for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.” This is the part of a friend, this the part of a devout man, that where such blessings are concerned, he takes care that his near friends shall be made partakers of all. Of course (his “near” friends), those in whom he had ever full confidence; fearing, with such an interest at stake, to entrust the matter to others. In my opinion, it was by Cornelius himself that both friends and kinsmen had been brought to a better mind. “And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.” (v. 25.) This, both to teach the others, and by way of giving thanks to God, and showing his own humility: thereby making it plain, that though he had been commanded, yet in himself he had great piety. What then did Peter? “But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (v. 26.) Do you mark how, before all else (the Apostles) teach them this lesson, not to think great things of them? “And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” (v. 27, 28.) Observe, he straightway speaks of the mercy of God, and points out to them that it is a great grace that God has shown them. Observe also how while he utters great things, at the same time he speaks modestly. For he does not say, We, being men who do not deign to keep company with any (such), have come to you: but what says he? “Ye know”—God commanded this554—“that it is against law to keep company with, or come unto, one of another nation.” Then he goes on to say, “And to me God has shown”—this he says, that none may account the thanks 554 So mss. and Edd. but the clause ὁ Θεὸς τοῦτο ἐκέλευσε might be better transferred, in the sense, “It is only in obedience to God’s command that I come to you.” Below, Εἶτα ἵνα μηδεὶς αὐτῷ τὴν χάριν ἔχῃ (A. B. C. D. F. Cat.) ἐπάγει (om. C.) τί φησίν; (A. B. C. but Cat. for ἐπάγει τί φησίν; has, ταῦτα φησίν·) Καὶ ἐμοὶ κ. τ. λ. We read, Εἶτα ἐπάγει, Καὶ ἐμοὶ ἔδειξεν ὁ Θεὸς (ἵνα μηδεὶς αὐτῷ τὴν χάριν ἔχῃ ταῦτα φησὶν) μηδένα κ. τ. λ. due to him—“that I should call no man”—that it may not look like obsequiousness to him, “no human being,” says he—“common or unclean.”555 (v. 29.) “Wherefore also”—that they may not think the affair a breach of the law on his part, nor (Cornelius) suppose that because he was in a station of command therfore he had complied, but that they may ascribe all to God,—“wherefore also I came without gainsaying as soon as I was sent for:” (though) not only to keep company, but even to come unto (him) was not permitted. “I ask therefore, for what intent ye have sent for me.” Already Peter had heard the whole matter from the soldiers also, but he wishes them first to confess, and to make them amenable to the Faith. What then does Cornelius? He does not say, Why, did not the soldiers tell thee? but observe again, how humbly he speaks. For he says, “From the fourth day I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing, and said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. And at the ninth hour,” he says, “I was praying.” (v. 30, 31.) It seems to me, that this man had also fixed for himself set times of a life under stricter rule, and on certain 555 By saying “it is not lawful,” Peter does not refer to any specific command in the Mosaic law forbidding intercourse with Gentiles. The separateness of the Jewish people from the heathen world had, indeed, its basis in the Levitical system, especially in the regulations concerning ceremonial cleanness. Still the Jews had constant commercial relations with other nations. Peter here refers, no doubt, to the customary and traditional exclusiveness of his nation which had become a social as well as a religious trait, and which had been extended far beyond the purport of the Mosaic requirements, which had for their end the preservation of the truth and purity of the religion of the nation. This exclusive and jealous spirit is frequently reflected in the N.T. and contemporaneous literature. The Jewish Christians accuse Peter (Acts xi. 3) of eating with the uncircumcised. On another occasion, the prejudices of his kinsmen and friends intimidated him and constrained him to break off his custom of associating with the Gentile Christians at meals (Gal. ii. 11 sq.). “Moses,” says Josephus, “does not allow those who come to us without living according to our laws to be admitted into communion with us” (Contra Apion. ii. 29). Tacitus accuses the Jews of harboring “the bitterest animosity against all other nations” (Hist. v. 5) and Juvenal says that they will not point out the way except to those of their own religion, and that they will “conduct those only to the fountain inquired after who are circumcised” (Sat. xiv. 103). How great was the lesson then, which Peter had been taught in the vision! It is not strange that it was only gradually learned and practised.—G.B.S. days.556 For this is why he he says, “From the fourth day.”557 See how great a thing prayer is! When he advanced in piety, then the Angel appears to him. “From the fourth day:” i.e.

Acts X. 44, 46

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.”

Observe God’s providential management. He does not suffer the speech to be finished, nor the baptism to take place upon a command of Peter, but, when He has made it evident how admirable their state of mind is, and a beginning is made of the work of teaching, and they have believed that assuredly baptism is the remission of sins, then forthwith comes the Spirit upon them. Now this is done by God’s so disposing it as to provide for Peter a mighty ground of justification.576 And it is not simply that the Spirit came upon them, but, “they spake with tongues:” which was the thing that astonished those who had come together. They altogether disliked the matter, wherefore it is that the whole is of God; and as for Peter, it may almost be said, that he is present only to be taught577 (with them) the lesson, that they must take the Gentiles in hand, and that they themselves are the persons by whom this must be done. For whereas after all these great events, still both in Cæsarea and in Jerusalem a questioning is made about it, how would it have been if these (tokens) had not gone step 576 This is the only instance in the Acts in which the Holy Spirit is said to be given anterior to baptism (cf. xix. 5, 6) which was generally accompanied by the laying on of hands by the apostles. A special reason is observable here which greatly diminishes the force of Baur’s objections to the historicity of the narrative drawn from this exceptional order of events, viz: the marked receptivity of Cornelius and his company. Perhaps it was intended by divine providence to signalize this bringing in of the first fruits of the Gentiles by showing how little the gifts of grace are conditioned upon outward rites. Some critics suppose that this gift of the Spirit before baptism was granted to impress Peter with the idea of the admissibility of the Gentiles, but this seems unnecessary, as he had been taught this lesson already by the vision and had distinctly avowed his conviction (v. 35). Chrysostom’s exposition is in the line of the latter interpretation; he forcibly calls this gift of the Spirit an ἀπολογίαμεγάλη for Peter. The principle which Bengel lays down in his comments—liberum gratia habet ordinem—together with the special significance of the occasion is a sufficient explanation of the apparently exceptional manner of the bestowment of the Spirit here.—G.B.S. 577 καὶ ὁ Πέτρος σχεδὸν ἁπλῶς πάρεστι παιδευόμενος. Erasm. fere simpliciter adest ut discat. Not meaning that St. Peter needed to be taught (see above p. 146, note 1), but that—such is the οἰκονομία for his exculpation—it is made to appear as if he needed the lesson and was now taught it, and had his misapprehensions rectified in common with them. Ben., entirely mistaking the meaning, has quasi fortuito adest docens. by step with the progress of the affair? Therefore it is that this is carried to a sort of excess.578 Peter seizes his advantage, and see the plea he makes of it. “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (v. 47.) Mark the issue to which he brings it; how he has been travailing to bring this forth. So (entirely) was he of this mind! “Can any one, he asks, “forbid water?” It is the language, we may almost say, of one triumphantly pressing his advantage (ἐπεμβαίνοντος) against such as would forbid, such as should say that this ought not to be. The whole thing, he says, is complete, the most essential part of the business, the baptism with which we were baptized. “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.” (v. 48.) After he has cleared himself, then, and not before, he commands them to be baptized: teaching them by the facts themselves. Such was the dislike the Jews had to it! Therefore it is that he first clears himself, although the very facts cry aloud, and then gives the command. “Then prayed they him”—well might they do so—“to tarry certain days:” and with a good courage thenceforth he does tarry.

“And the Apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” (ch. xi. 1–3.) After such great things, “they of the circumcision contended:” not the Apostles; God forbid! It means, they took no small offence.579 And see what they allege. They do not say, Why didst thou preach? but, Why didst thou eat with them? But Peter, not stopping to notice this frigid objection—for frigid indeed it is—takes his stand (ἵσταται) on that great argument, If they had the Spirit Itself given them, how could one refuse to give them the baptism? But how came it that in the case of the Samaritans this did not happen, but, on the contrary, neither before their baptism nor after it was there any 578 Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μεθ᾽ ὑπερβολῆς γίνεται. Erasm. Idcirco hæc cum excellentia quadam fiebant. Ben. Ideo hæc modo singulari fiunt. But the meaning is, “There is a lavish array of Divine interpositions. The mission of the Angel to Cornelius, Peter’s vision, the command given by the Spirit, above all, the gift of the Holy Ghost and the speaking with tongues before the baptism. This last was in itself an unanswerable declaration of the will of God, and sufficed for the Apostle’s justification. The others are ἐκ περιουσίας, arguments ex abundanti.” 579 Some critics (as Meyer, Olshausen) have affirmed the opposite of what Chrys. states, in regard to the ὁι ἐκ περιτομῆς. He excludes the apostles from this category; they would include them. The ὁι ἐκ περιτομῆς, however, seem to have been a special class of Christians in the mind of the writer. In expressing the fact that the Church learned of the reception of the Gentiles, the “apostles and brethren” are named, but when the narrative advances to the thought of the contention against Peter on account of it, a new term is chosen; the writer could not allow the same subject to stand for the verb διεκρίνοντο, but chooses another term—ὁι ἐκ περιτομῆς. The two subjects, then, can hardly be identical. The phrase more probably denotes judaizing Christians, i.e. those who gave special prominence to the Law and the necessity of circumcision (So Lechler, Gloag, Alford).—G.B.S. controversy, and there they did not take it amiss, nay, as soon as they heard of it, sent the Apostles for this very purpose? (ch. viii. 14.) True, but neither in the present case is this the thing they complain of; for they knew that it was of Divine Grace: what they say is, Why didst thou eat with them? Besides, the difference580 is not so great for Samaritans as it is for Gentiles. Moreover, it is so managed (as part of the Divine plan) that he is accused in this way: on purpose that they may learn: for Peter, without some cause given, would not have related the vision. But observe his freedom from all elation and vainglory. For it says, “But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, I was in the city of Joppa, praying:” he does not say why, nor on what occasion: “and in a trance I saw a vision, a certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me (v. 4, 5): upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.” (v. 6, 7.) As much as to say, This of itself was enough to have persuaded me—my having seen the linen sheet: but moreover a Voice was added. “But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.” (v. 8.) Do you mark? “I did my part,” says he: “I said, that I have never eaten aught common or unclean:” with reference to this that they said, “Thou wentest in, and didst eat with them.” But this he does not say to Cornelius: for there was no need to mention it to him. “But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.” (v. 9, 10.) The essential points were those581 (that ensued at Cæsarea); but by these he prepares the way for them. Observe how he justifies himself (by reasons), and forbears to use his authority as teacher. For the more mildly he expresses himself, the more tractable he makes them. “At no time,” says he, “has aught common or unclean entered into my mouth.—And, behold—this too was part of his defence— three men stood at the house in which I was, sent to me from Cæsarea. And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting.” (v. 11, 12.) Do you mark that it is to the Spirit the enacting of laws belongs! “And these also accompanied me”—nothing can be more lowly, when he alleges the brethren for witnesses!—“these six men, and we entered into the man’s house: and he showed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter; who 580 ῎Αλλως δὲ οὐ τοσοῦτον τὸ διάφορον Σαμαρειτῶν καὶ ἐθνῶν. Edd. (from E. alone,) for οὐ τοσοῦτον have πολὺ καὶ ἄπειρον, “great and infinite the difference between Samaritans and Gentiles.” 581 A. B. C. (after v. 11. which we have removed), ᾽Εκεῖνα ἀναγκαῖα ἦν (read τὰ ἀν.) ἀλλὰ διὰ τούτων αὐτὰ κατασκευάζει. By ἐκεῖνα he means, what we have heard above, what happened at Cæsarea. The modern text (Edd.): “What points were essential, he relates, but of the rest he is silent: or rather by these he confirms them also, καὶ αὐτὰ κατασκευάζει.” shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.” (v. 13, 14.) And he does not mention the words spoken by the Angel to Cornelius, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God, that he may not disgust them; but what says he? “He shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved:” with good reason this is added.582 Also he says nothing of the man’s fitness (ἐπιεικές). “The Spirit,” he might say, “having sent (me), God having commanded, on the one part having summoned (me) through the Angel, on the other urging (me) on, and solving my doubt about the things, what was I to do?” He says none of these things, however: but makes his strong point of what happened last, which even in itself was an incontrovertible argument. “And as I began to speak,” etc. (v. 15.) Then why did not this happen alone? Of superabundance (ἐκ περιουσίας) this is wrought by God, that it might be shown that the beginning too was not from the Apostle. But had he set out of his own motion, without any of these things having taken place, they would have been very much hurt: so583 that from the beginning he disposes their minds in his favor**: saying to them, “Who have received the Holy Ghost even as we.” And not content with this, he reminds them also of the words of the Lord: “Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (v. 16.) He means, that no new thing has happened, but just what the Lord foretold. “But584 there was no need to baptize?” (Comp. p. 158.) But the baptism was completed already. And he does not say, I ordered them to be baptized: but what says he? “Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as He did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?” (v. 17.) He shows that he had himself done nothing: for the very thing which we have obtained, he says, that same did those men receive. That he may more effectually stop their mouths, therefore he says, “The like gift.” Do you perceive how he does not allow them to have less: when they believed, says he, the same gift did God give unto them, as He did to us who believed on the Lord, and Himself 582 τοῦτο εἰκότως πρόσκειται. i.e. though this was not mentioned before (see above, p, 145. note 6) with good reason it is added here: viz. for Peter’s justification. Edd. from E. “that he may not disgust them: but what had nothing great in it. ‘He shall speak,’ etc. Do you mark how for this reason I mentioned before, he hastens on?” But the saying, “He shall speak,” etc. was great, even greater than that which he omits: but this was not necessary, the other (Chrys. means) made a strong point for Peter’s defence, and therefore is added. 583 ἄνωθεν αὐτῶν τὴν διανοίαν οἰκειοῖ, viz. by letting them see how all along it was not his doing. Then before λέγων πρὸς αὐτοὺς, something is wanting: e.g. “Which done, he urges most effectively, ‘Who have received,’” etc. 584 E. D. F. Edd. “But there was no need to baptize, it may be said, for the baptism was complete, ‘when the Spirit fell upon them.’ Therefore he does not say, I first ordered them to be baptized but what? ‘Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized?’ By this showing that he did nothing himself. What therefore we have obtained, those received.” cleanses them. And he does not say, To you, but to us. Why do you feel aggrieved, when we585 call them partakers (with us?) “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.” (v. 18.) Do you mark that it all came of Peter’s discourse, by his admirably skilful way of relating the facts? They glorified God that He had given repentance to themselves (καὶ αὐτοῖς) also: they were humbled by these words. Hence was the door of faith opened thenceforth to the Gentiles. But, if you please, let us look over again what has been said.

“While Peter yet spake,” etc. (Recapitulation.) He does not say that Peter was astonished, but, “They of the circumcision:” since he knew what was in preparation. And yet they ought to have marvelled at this, how they themselves had believed. When they heard that they had believed, they were not astonished, but when God gave them the Spirit. Then586 “answered Peter and said,” etc. (v. 47.) And therefore it is that he says, “God hath shown that I should not call common or unclean any human being.” (v. 28.) He knew this from the first, and plans his discourse beforehand (with a view to it). Gentiles? What Gentiles henceforth? They were no longer Gentiles, the Truth being come. It is nothing wonderful, he says, if before the act of baptism they received the Spirit: in our own case this same happened. Peter shows that not as the rest either were they baptized, but in a much better way. This is the reason why the thing takes place in this manner, that they may have nothing to say, but even in this way may account them equal with themselves. “And they besought him,” it says, “to tarry certain days.” (v. 48.) “And the Apostles and brethren, etc. And they of the circumcision contended with him.” (ch. xi. 1, 2.) Do you remark how they were not kindly disposed towards him? Saying “Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” (v. 3.) Do you note what zeal they had for the Law? Not Peter’s authority abashed them, not the signs which had taken place, not the success achieved, what a thing it was, the Gentiles having “received the word:” but they contended about those petty things. For if none of those (signs) had taken place, was not the success (itself) enough?587 But not so does Peter frame his defence: for he was wise, or rather it was not his wisdom, but the Spirit that spake 585 ὅταν ἡμεῖς αὐτοὺς κοινωνοὺς λέγωμεν; “when we put them on a level with us the Apostles and first disciples, in regard that they received the Spirit in the same manner as we received, and as the rest of you did not?” 586 τότε ὁ Π. ὕστερον ἐξίσταται· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο φησίν. “But when God gave them the Spirit, then Peter afterwards is astonished,” etc. This is evidently corrupt. Τότε ὁ Π. seems to be part of the text v. 46. τότε ἀπεκρίθη ὁ Π. For ὕστερον ἐξίσταται we may perhaps restore, καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ὁ Π. ὕστερον ἵσταται. “On this Peter afterwards insists (as above, p. 156), and with a view to this he says (before), ‘God hath shown me,’” etc. The innovator substitutes: “When Peter expounded to them his trance, saying, ‘God hath shown me,’” etc. So Edd. 587 Εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν τούτων ἦν, οὐκ ἦρκει τὸ κατόρθωμα; Of the Edd. only Savile puts this, as it ought to be, interrogatively: Ben. renders, non sat fuisset præstium. the words. And by the matter of his defence, he shows that in no one point was he the author, but in every point God, and upon Him he casts the whole. “The trance,” he says—“it was He that caused me to fall into it, for “I was in Joppa,” etc.: the vessel—it was He that showed it; I objected: again, He spake, and even then I did not hear: the Spirit commanded me to go, and even then though I went, I did not run: I told that God had sent me, and after these things, even then I did not baptize, but again God did the whole. God baptized them, not I.” And he does not say, Was it not right then to add the water? but, implying that nothing was lacking, “What was I, that I should withstand God?” What a defence is here! For he does not say, Then knowing these things, hold your peace; but what? He stands their attack, and to their impeachment he pleads—“What was I, to be able to hinder God?” It was not possible for me to hinder—a forcible plea indeed, and such as might well put them to shame. Whence being at last afraid, “they held their peace and glorified God.”

In like manner ought we also to glorify God for the good things which befall our neighbors, only588 not in the way that the rest of the newly-baptized are insulted, when they see others receiving baptism, and immediately departing this life. It, is right to glorify God, even though all be saved: and as for thee, if thou be willing, thou hast received a greater gift (than they): I do not mean in respect of the baptism, for the gift there is the same for him 588 μόνον μὴ καθάπερ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεοφωτίστων ἐπηρεάζονται, ὅταν ἄλλους ὁρῶσι φωτισθέντας, καὶ εὐθὺς ἀπιόντας. Δοξάζειν δεῖ τὸν Θεὸν, κᾂν πάντες σωθῶσιν· καὶ σὺ ἐU+0026 129·ν θέλῃς κ. τ. λ. Above Hom. i. p. 20, it is said, “the sick man” having received baptism in the prospect of death, “if he recovers, is as vexed” because of his baptism “as if some great harm had happened to him.” And so it might have been said here, “not (to feel) as some of the newly-baptized (are apt to do, who) are annoyed (or aggrieved, ἐτηρεάζονται), when they see others” etc.: i.e. who, seeing such cases, think themselves ill used that they were not allowed to defer their baptism to the last moment, but were forced upon the alternative either of leading a strict life, or of forfeiting the grace of baptism. But the assertion οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν νεοφ. is too sweeping, and the word ἐπηρεάζονται is scarcely suitable to this sense: it should rather have been δεινοπαθοῦσιν or ἀναξιοπαθοῦσιν. The meaning, not fully expressed, is: “only not, like as the rest of the newly-baptized are insulted, taunted or jeered (by some), when they see others,” etc.: i.e. it is right to glorify God, only not to imagine that God is glorified by those who, exulting in the safety of their friends who received baptism at the point of death, taunt the rest of the newly baptized, saying, “See, these men are safe: they are baptized to some purpose; while you have received the gift, only to be in danger of losing it.”—He adds, “It is right to glorify God, though all be saved”—though that were the case with all except yourself, that they passed at once from baptism to that world, with the gift unimpaired, and no more in danger to be lost. “And as for you, if you will, you have received a greater gift,” than they: etc.—For ἐπηρεάζονται, A. has ἐπηρεάζουσιν: and this is adopted by the innovator, who alters the passage thus (E. Edd.): “to glorify God, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐπηρεάζειν (adopted by F. D.) καθάπερ οἰ πολλοὶ τῶν νεοφωτ. ἐτηρεάζουσιν, when they see, etc. It is right to glorify God, καὶ ὅτι μένειν οὐ συγχωρεῖ· U+0026 169·Ωστε καὶ σὺ ἐU+0026 129·ν θέλῃς κ. τ. λ.(Erasm. et non insultare: Ben. non autem insultare illis.) as for thee, but in regard that thou hast received a set time for winning distinction. The other put on the robe, and was not suffered to exhibit himself therewith in the procession, whereas to thee, God hath given full opportunity to use thine arms for the right purpose, thereby to make proof of them. The other goes his way, having only the reward of his faith: thou standest in the course, both able to obtain an abundant recompense for thy works, and to show thyself as much more glorious than he, as the sun is than the smallest star, as the general, nay rather as the Emperor himself, than the lowest soldier. Then blame thyself, or rather not blame, but correct: for it is not enough to blame thyself; it is in thy power to contend afresh. Hast thou been thrown? hast thou taken grievous hurt? Stand up, recover thyself: thou art still in the course, the meeting (θέατρον) is not yet broken up. Do you not see how many that have been thrown in the wrestling have afterwards resumed the combat? Only do not willingly come by thy fall. Dost thou count him a happy man for departing this life? Much rather count thyself happy. Was he released of his sins? But thou, if thou wilt, shalt not only wash away thy sins, but shalt also have achievements (of good works), which in his case is not possible. It is in our power to recover ourselves. Great are the medicinal virtues (φάρμακα) of repentance: let none despair of himself. That man truly deserves to be despaired of, who despairs of himself; that man has no more salvation, nor any hopes. It is not the having fallen into a depth of evils, it is the lying there when fallen, that is dreadful, it is not the having come into such a condition, it is the making light of it that is impious. The very thing that ought to make thee earnest, say, is it this that makes thee reckless? Having received so many wounds, hast thou fallen back? Of the soul, there can be no incurable wound; for the body, there are many such, but none for the soul: and yet for those we cease not in our endeavors to cure them, while for these we are supine. Seest thou not the thief (on the cross), in how short a time he achieved (his salvation)? Seest thou not the Martyrs, in how short a time they accomplished the whole work? “But martyrdom is not to be had nowadays.” True, but there are contests to be had, as I have often told you, if we had the mind. “For they that wish,” says the Apostle, “to live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.” (2 Tim. iii. 12.) They that live godly are always undergoing persecution, if not from men, at any rate from evil spirits, which is a more grievous persecution. Yes, and it is in consequence, first and foremost, of ease and comfort, that those who are not vigilant undergo this. Or thinkest thou it is a trifling persecution to be living at ease? This is more grievous than all, this is worse than persecution. For, like a running flux, ease makes the soul languid (χαυνοἵ): and as summer and winter, so persecution and ease. But to show you that this is the worse persecution, listen: it induces sleep in the soul, an excessive yawning and drowsiness, it stirs up the passions on every side, it arms pride, it arms pleasure, it arms anger, envy, vainglory, jealousy. But in time of persecution none of these is able to make a disturbance; but fear, entering in, and plying the lash vigorously, as one does to a barking dog, will not let any of these passions so much as attempt to give tongue. Who shall be able in time of persecution to indulge in vainglory? Who to live in pleasure? Not one: but there is much trembling and fear, making a great calm, composing the harbor into stillness, filling the soul with awe. I have heard from our fathers (for in our own time God grant it may not happen, since we are bidden not to ask for temptation), that in the persecution of old time one might see men that were indeed Christian. None of them cared for money, none for wife, none for children, nor home, nor country: the one great concern with all was to save their lives (or, souls). There were they hiding, some in tombs and sepulchres, some in deserts: yes tender and dainty women too, fighting all the while with constant hunger.

Then think whether any longing for sumptuous and dainty living at all came into the mind of a woman, while in hiding beside a coffin (παρὰ λάρνακι), and waiting for her maidservant to bring her meal, and trembling lest she should be taken, and lying in her terror as in a furnace: was she even aware that there ever was such a thing as dainty living, that such things as dress and ornaments exist at all (ὅτι κόσμος ὅλως ἐστίν)? Seest thou that now is the persecution, with our passions, like wild beasts, setting upon us on every side? Now is the trying persecution, both in this regard, and especially if it is not even thought to be persecution at all. For this (persecution) has also this evil in it, that being war, it is thought to be peace, so that we do not even arm ourselves against it, so that we do not even rise: no one fears, no one trembles. But if ye do not believe me, ask the heathen, the persecutors, at what time was the conduct of the Christians more strict, at what time were they all more proved? Few indeed had they then become in number, but rich in virtue. For say, what profit is it, that there should be hay in plenty, when there might be precious stones? The amount consists not in the sum of numbers, but in the proved worth. Elias was one: yet the whole world was not worth so much as he. And yet the world consists of myriads: but they are no myriads, when they do not even come up to that one. “Better589 is one that doeth the will of God, than ten thousand who are transgressors:” for the ten thousands have not yet reached to the one. “Desire not a multitude of unprofitable children.” (Ecclus. xvi. 1.) Such bring more blasphemy against God, than if they were not Christians. What need have I of a multitude? It is (only) more food for the fire. This one might see even in the body, that better is moderate food with health, than a (fatted) calf with damage. This is more food than the other: this is food, but that is disease. This too one may see in war: that better are ten expert and brave men, than ten thousand of no experience. These latter, besides that they do no 589 κρείσσων εἷς ποιῶν τὸ θέλημα Κυρίου, ἢ μύριοι παράνομοι. St. Chrys. repeatedly cites this, and almost in the same words, as a text of Scripture, and the Edd. refer it to Ecclus. xvi. 3, but there it is, κρείσσων γὰρ εἷς ἢ χίλιοι (with no various reading), and here the following words, οἱ (B. εἰ) γὰρ μύριοι πρὸς τὸν (τὸ, B. F. ἕνα οὐδέπω ἔφθασαν, seem to be meant as part of the citation. For these E. Edd. substitute, Τοῦτο καί τις σοφὸς αἰνιττόμενος οὕτω τως φησί. Savile adopts both, but reads οὐ γὰρ μύριοι. work, hinder also those that do work. The same too one may see to be the case in a ship, viz. that better are two experienced mariners, than ever so great a number of unskilful ones: for these will sink the ship. These things I say, not as looking with an evil eye upon your numbers, but wishing that all of you should be approved men, and not trust in your numbers. Many more in number are they who go down into hell: but greater than it is the Kingdom, however few it contain. As the sand of the sea was the multitude of the people (Israel) yet one man saved them. Moses was but one, and yet he availed more than they all: Joshua was one and he was enabled to do more than the six hundred thousand. Let us not make this our study merely, that (the people) may be many, but rather, that they may be excellent; when this shall have been effected, then will that other follow also. No one wishes at the outset to make a spacious house, but he first makes it strong and sure, then spacious: no one lays the foundations so that he may be laughed at. Let us first aim at this, and then at the other. Where this is, that also will be easy: but where this is not, the other, though it be, is to no profit. For if there be those who are able to shine in the Church, there will soon be also numbers: but where these are not, the numbers will never be good for anything. How many, suppose you, may there be in our city who are likely to be saved (τοὺς σωζομένους)? It is disagreeable, what I am going to say, but I will say it nevertheless. Among all these myriads, there are not to be found one hundred likely to be saved: nay, even as to these, I question it. For think, what wickedness there is in the young, what supineness in the aged! None590 makes it his duty to look after his own boy, none is moved by anything to be seen in his elder, to be emulous of imitating such an one. The patterns are defaced, and therefore it is that neither do the young become admirable in conduct. Tell not me, “We are a goodly multitude:” this is the speech of men who talk without thought or feeling (ψυχρὥν.) In the concerns of men indeed, this might be said with some show of reason: but where God is concerned, (to say this with regard to Him) as having need of us,591 can never be allowed. Nay, let me tell you, even in the former case, this is a senseless speech (ψυχρόν). Listen. A person that has a great number of domestics, if they be a corrupt set what a wretched time will he have of it! For him who has none, the hardship, it seems, amounts to this, that he is not waited on: but where a person has bad servants, the evil is, that he is ruining himself withal, and the damage is greater (the more there are of them.) For it is far worse than having to be one’s own servant, to have to fight with others, and take up a (continual) warfare. These things I say, that none may admire the Church because of its numbers, but that we may study to make the multitude proof-worthy; that each may be earnest for his own share 590 Οὐδεὶς τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν ἔχει τοῦ παιδὸς τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ· οὐδεὶς ἔχει ζῆλον πρὸς πρεσβύτην ἰδὼν μιμήσασθαι. i.e. “The young are neglected by their own parents and masters, and elsewhere they see no good example of the old to move them to virtue.” 591 ᾽Επὶ δὲ τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ δεομένου ἡμῶν, οὐκ ἔτι. So A. B. C. The modern text, τοῦ οὐδ. of the duty—not for his friends only, nor his kindred as I am always saying, nor for his neighbors, but that he may attract the strangers also. For example, Prayer is going on; there they lie (on bended knees), all the young, stupidly unconcerned (ψυχροὶ), (yes,) and old too:592 filthy nuisances rather than young men; giggling, laughing outright, talking—for I have heard even this going on—and jeering one another as they lie along on their knees: and there stand you, young man or elder: rebuke them, if you see them (behaving thus): if any will not refrain, chide him more severely: call the deacon, threaten, do what is in your power to do: and if he dare do anything to you, assuredly you shall have all to help you. For who is so irrational, as, when he sees you chiding for such conduct, and them chidden not to take your part? Depart, having received your reward from the Prayer.—In a master’s house, we count those his best-disposed servants, who cannot bear to see any part of his furniture in disorder. Answer me; if at home you should see the silver plate lie tossed out of doors, though it is not your business, you will pick it up and bring it into the house: if you see a garment flung out of its place, though you have not the care of it, though you be at enmity with him whose business it is, yet, out of good-will to the master, will you not put it right? So in the present case. These are part of the furniture: if you see them lying about in disorder, put them to rights: apply to me, I do not refuse the trouble: inform me, make the offender known to me: it is not possible for me to see all: excuse me (in this). See, what wickedness overspreads the whole world! Said I without reason that we are (no better than) so much hay (disorderly as) a troubled sea? I am not talking of those (young people), that they behave thus; (what I complain of, is) that such a sleepy indifference possesses those who come in here, that they do not even correct this misbehavior.

Again I see others stand talking while Prayer is going on; while the more consistent593 of them (do this) not only during the Prayer, but even when the Priest is giving the Benediction. O, horror! When shall there be salvation? when shall it be possible for us to propitiate 592 πάντες νέοι ψυχροὶ καὶ γέροντες. The last word must be corrupt, for he is speaking only of the young: perhaps it should be γέμοντες with some genitive, e.g. “full of folly,” or “evil thoughts.” Then, καθάρματα μᾶλλον ἢ νέοι, more fit to be swept away from the floor as filthy litter than to be regarded as young men. But κάθαρμα, in the sense derived from the heathen ritual, has no equivalent in our language: it means, what remains of the sacrifice used for lustration or atonement, which as having taken into itself the uncleanness or the guilt which was to be removed, was regarded with the utmost abhorrence. 593 οἱ δὲ ἐπιεικέστεροι αὐτῶν. Erasm., Et quidam ex illis, adhuc meliores scilicet. Ben. alios modestiores scilicet. But the irony is not of this kind, and the word here has its proper sense: “men whose conduct is more of a piece, the more consistent of them.” Some stand and talk during the prayers, yet kneel and are silent for the Benediction: but these make no such inconsistent pretence: they do not commit this absurdity at least.—Comp. Hom. i. in. Oziam, §4, t. vi. p. 101. “A grievous disease prevails in the Church: when we have purposed to hold converse God?—Soldiers594 go to their diversion, and you shall see them, all keeping time in the dance, and nothing done negligently, but, just as in embroidery and painting, from the wellordered arrangement in each individual part of the composition, there results at once an exceeding harmony and good keeping, so it is here: we have one shield, one head, all of us (in common): and if but some casual point be deranged by negligence, the whole is deranged and is spoilt, and the good order of the many is defeated by the disorder of the one part. And, fearful indeed to think of, here you come, not to a diversion, not to act in a dance, and yet you stand disorderly. Know you not that you are standing in company with angels? with them you chant, with them sing hymns, and do you stand laughing? Is it not wonderful that a thunderbolt is not launched not only at those (who behave thus), but at us? For such behavior might well be visited with the thunderbolt. The Emperor is present, is reviewing the army: and do you, even with His eyes upon you, stand laughing, and endure to see another laughing? How long are we to go on chiding, how long complaining? Ought not such to be with God, and are in the act of sending up the doxology to Him, we interrupt our business, and each takes his neighbor aside to talk with him about his domestic concerns, about the goings on in the agora, the public, the theatre, the army: how this was well managed, that neglected: what is the strong point, and what the weak point in this or that business: in short, about all sorts of public and private matters they talk here with one another. Is this pardonable? When a man speaks with the earthly sovereign, he speaks only on the subjects the sovereign chooses to speak and put questions about, and if against the will of the sovereign he should presume to start any other subject, he would bring upon himself the severest punishment. And you, who are speaking with the King of kings, to Whom the angels minister with dread reverence, do you leave your converse with Him to talk about mire, and dust, and spiders—for that is what earthly things are? But you say, the public affairs are in such a bad way, and there is much to talk of and much to be anxious about. And whose fault is that? They say, The blunders of our rulers are the cause. No, not the blunders of our rulers, but our sins: the punishment of our faults. It is these have ruined all, have brought upon us all our sufferings, wars, and defeats. Therefore if we had an Abraham, a Moses, a David, a Solomon, for our ruler, yea, the most righteous of men, it would signify nothing as far as the cause of all our evils is concerned…And if we have one of the most iniquitous of men, a blundering illmanaging person for our ruler, it is our own folly and wickedness that has brought this upon us, it is the punishment of our sins. Therefore let each when he comes here think of his own sins, and not complain of others.” Hom. ix. in 1 Tim. he complains of the women talking in Church. 594 The illustration is taken from some kind of shield dance, which formed one of the amusements of the camp, skilfully executed by a large body of soldiers. The innovator, (E. D. F. Edd.) not understanding the allusion, substitutes: “If you go to a diversion, you will see all keeping time in the dance, and nothing done negligently. As therefore in a well-harmonized and curiously wrought lyre, one well sounding symphony results from the orderly arrangement severally of the component parts, so here there ought to result from all one symphonious harmony. For we are become one Church, we count as members, ‘fitly joined together’ of one Head, we all make one Body: if any carnal point be done negligently, the whole, etc. Thus the good order,” etc. treated as very pests and nuisances; as abandoned, worthless reprobates, fraught with innumerable mischiefs, to be driven away from the Church? When will these forebear laughing, who laugh in the hour of the dread Mystery (ἑν ὣρᾳ φρίκης)? when refrain from their trifling, who talk at the instant of the Benediction? Have they no sense of shame before those who are present? have they no fear of God? Are our own idle thoughts not enough for us, is it not enough that in our prayers we rove hither and thither, but laughter also must needs intrude, and bursts of merriment? Is it a theatrical amusement, what is done here? Aye, but, methinks, it is the theatres that do this: to the theatres we owe it that the most of you so refuse to be curbed by us, and to be reformed. What we build up here, is thrown down there: and not only so, but the hearers themselves cannot help being filled with other filthinesses besides: so that the case is just the same as if one should want to clean out a place with a fountain above it discharging mire; for however much you may clean out, more runs in. So it is here. For when we clean people out, as they come here from the theatres with their filthiness, thither they go again, and take in a larger stock of filthiness, as if they lived for the purpose of only giving us trouble, and then come back to us, laden with ordure, in their manners, in their movements, in their words, in their laughter, in their idleness. Then once more we begin shovelling it out afresh, as if we had to do this only on purpose that, having sent them away clean, we may again see them clogging themselves with filth. Therefore I solemnly protest to you, the sound members, that this will be to you judgment and condemnation, and I give you over to God from this time forth, if any having seen a person behaving disorderly, if any having seen any person talking, especially in that part (of the Service), shall not inform against him, not bring him round (to a better behavior). To do this is better than prayer. Leave thy prayer and rebuke him, that thou mayst both do him good, and thyself get profit, and so we may be enabled all to be saved and to attain unto the Kingdom of Heaven, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Acts XI. 19

“Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that rose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.”

The persecution turned out to be no slight benefit as “to them that love God all things work together for good.” (Rom. viii. 28.) If they had made it their express study how best to establish the Church, they would have done no other thing than this—they dispersed the teachers.595 Mark in what quarters the preaching was extended. “They travelled,” it says, “as far as Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch; to none however did they preach the word but to Jews only.” Dost thou mark with what wise purposes of Providence so much was done in the case of Cornelius? This serves both to justify Christ, and to impeach the Jews. When Stephen was slain, when Paul was twice in danger, when the Apostles were scourged, then the Gentiles received the word, then the Samaritans. Which Paul also declares: “To you it was necessary that the Word of God should first be spoken; but since ye thrust it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy, lo, we turn unto the Gentiles.” (ch. xiii. 46.) Accordingly they went about, preaching to Gentiles also. “But some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus:” (v. 20.) for it is likely both that they could now speak Greek, and that there were such 595 The narrative beginning with xi. 19, may be considered as a resumption of viii. 4, sq. where the preaching of Philip in Samaria is referred to the persecution at Jerusalem as its occasion. The dispersion of the disciples now becomes the means of a great extension of the Gospel and the founding of the first Gentile Church (at Antioch in Syria). This is the third great movement in the spread of early Christianity. The order is: (1) The preaching of Philip in Samaria, (2) The conversion of Cornelius and his company—the first Gentile additions to the church, (3) This mission which resulted in the founding of the church at Antioch. But at this time Divine Providence was preparing an agent who was destined soon to enter upon his great life work as the Christian missionary to the Gentile world, to prove the chief means of spreading the gospel throughout the Roman world—this was the former persecutor Saul, now transformed into the great apostle to the Gentiles. The conversion of Cornelius must have occurred about eight years after the ascension of Jesus. During this time the church had continued Jewish. But in this very period the conditions were preparing for the extension of Christianity to the Gentile world. Stephen had caught glimpses of the largeness of God’s truth and purposes. Peter had learned that God is no respecter of persons. The mother church at Jerusalem now finds that God’s grace has outrun all their former conception of its scope; consecrated and able men like Barnabas and Paul are rising up to labor in the line of the more comprehensive conception of Christianity’s method and purpose which is now dawning upon the consciousness of the church.—G.B.S. men in Antioch.596 “And the hand of the Lord,” it says, “was with them,” that is, they wrought miracles; “and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.” (v. 21.) Do you mark why now also there was heed of miracles (namely) that they might believe? “Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.” (v. 22.) What may be the reason that, when such a city received the word, they did not come themselves? Because of the Jews. But they send Barnabas. However, it is no small part of the providential management even so that Paul comes to be there. It is both natural, and it is wisely ordered, that they are averse to him, and (so) that Voice of the Gospel, that Trumpet of heaven, is not shut up in Jerusalem. Do you mark how on all occasions, Christ turns their ill dispositions to needful account and for the benefit of the Church? Of their hatred to the man, He availed Himself for the building up of the Church. But observe this holy man—Barnabas, I mean—how he looked not to his own interests, but hasted to Tarsus. “Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart, they would cleave unto the Lord. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost, and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.” (v. 23, 24.) He was a very kind man, and single-hearted, and considerate (συγγνωμονικός). “Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul.” (v. 25.) He came to the athletic wrestler, the general (fit to lead armies), the champion of single combat, the lion—I am at a loss for words, say what I will—the hunting-dog, killer of lions, bull of strength, lamp of brightness, mouth sufficing for a world. “And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch.” (v. 26.) Verily this is the reason why it was there they were appointed to be called Christians, because Paul there spent so long time! “And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the Church, and taught much people. And the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.”597 No small matter of 596 While the textual evidence for the reading ῾Ελληνιστάς (v. 20.) predominates over that for the reading ῞Ελληνας (A. C.), yet the latter is the reading adopted by Meyer, Tischendorf, and most critics (not so, W. and H.) on grounds of internal evidence, such as: (1) That they should preach to Hellenists—men of Jewish nationality residing out of Judea—would be nothing noteworthy, since they had long been received into the Christian community. (2) The contrast between vv. 19 and 20 would be greatly weakened, if not lost, on the supposition that Hellenistic Jews were meant. If this view is correct, they now preached to the Greeks, the uncircumcised heathen, and the Antioch Church was founded and its reception into Christian fellowship approved by the mother church at Jerusalem. Antioch now became an important centre of Christian work, second only to Jerusalem. Here Paul labored a year, and from Antioch he went forth to his three great missionary journeys.—G.B.S. 597 The name Christians was probably given by the Gentiles. The word appears but twice, besides here, in the N.T. (Acts xxvi. 8; 1 Pet. iv. 16), and in both cases it is implied that the name was a name applied to the disciples of Jesus by others. The Jews could hardly have originated the name since Christ was to them but the Greek equivalent for their sacred name Messiah, and from that word they would not have formed a name for the hated sect. The Jews called them rather Nazarenes (Acts xxiv. 5). The Romans seem to have misunderstood the origin praise to that city! This is enough to make it a match for all, that for so long a time it had the benefit of that mouth, it first, and before all others: wherefore also it was there in the first place that men were accounted worthy of that name. Do you observe the benefit resulting (to that city) from Paul, to what a height that name, like a standard (σημεἵον), exalted it? Where three thousand, where five thousand, believed, where so great a multitude, nothing of the sort took place, but they were called “they598 of the way:” here they were called Christians. “And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.” (v. 27.) It was need that the fruit of alms should also be planted there. And see how of necessity (ἀναγκαίως) (it comes about that) none of the men of note becomes their teacher. They got for their teachers, men of Cyprus, and Cyrene, and Paul—though he indeed surpassed (the Apostles) themselves—since Paul also had for teachers Ananias and Barnabas. But599 here of necessity (this was the case). “And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there would be great dearth throughout the world, which also came to pass in the of the name, as Tacitus says: Auctor nominis ejus (Christiani) Christus, as if Christus was an appellative instead of a title.—G.B.S. 598 ἀλλ᾽ οἱ τῆς ὁδοῦ μόνον ἤκουον, so Cat. OEcum. which we adopt. A.B.C. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι, the modern text ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι. 599 ἀναγκαίως δὲ ἐνταῦθα, as above πῶς ἀναγκαίως. But in the mss. part of the text v. 28. being transposed, it reads “But here of necessity he says there will be a great dearth,” etc.—Below, Εἰ δἰ αὐτοὺς ἦν, πάντως ἔδει καὶ ὄντα παύσασθαι. Τί ἠδίκησαν ῞Ελληνες, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ τῶν κακῶν μετέχωσιν; εὐδοκιμῆσαι γὰρ αὐτοὺς μᾶλλον ἐχρῆν, ὅτι τὸ αὐτῶν ἐποίουν, κ. τ. λ. ᾽Αλλ᾽ εἰ διὰ τὰ κακὰ, φησίν, κ. τ. λ. So the old text in mss. and Cat. The meaning is obscure, but on the whole it seems most probable that all this is an interlocution of an objector. “If as you say, it was because of the Jews, assuredly it ought, even when it was there, to have ceased (and not gone on to the rest of the world). What harm had the Gentiles done, that they should share in the punishment? Why, they ought rather to have been distinguished by special marks of the Divine favor, because they were doing their part (in executing God’s judgments upon the Jews), were slaying, punishing. etc. Observe, too, the time when this visitation first came—precisely when the Gentiles were added to the Church. Whereas if, as you say, it was because of the evils the Jews inflicted upon the believers, these (the believers, Jews and Gentiles) ought to have been exempted,” etc. The modern text has: “But even if (ἀλλ᾽ εἰ καὶ) it were because of them, yet because of the rest (διὰ τοὺς ἄλλους) it ought, even when it was, to have ceased. For what harm had the Gentiles done, that even they, having done no harm, should have their share of the evils? But if not because of the Jews verily they ought rather to have been even marked objects of favor,” etc. Perhaps this was intended to mean: “Suppose it was inflicted by the demons, the Gods of the heathen, because of the Christians, why were the Gentiles included? And as for the Jews, if it was not, as I say, sent by God because of their wickedness, but as the heathen say, was a token of the anger of their Gods because of the new religion, why assuredly the Jews ought to have been marked objects of favor because they were doing all they could to exterminate the faith.” But if so, it does not appear how the next sentence, was understood, “And observe at what time,” etc. days of Claudius Cæsar.” (v. 28.) “By the Spirit,” it says: for, that they may not imagine that this was the reason why the famine came, (namely) because Christianity was come in, because the demons were departed, the Holy Ghost foretells it: this, however, was nothing wonderful, for in fact Christ predicted it. Not this was the reason, else this must have been the case from the beginning: but it was because of the evils done to the Apostles—and God had borne long with them; but, when they pressed upon them, a great famine ensues, betokening to the Jews the coming woes. “If it was because of them, in any wise it ought to have stopped (there), when it did exist. What harm had the Gentiles done, that they should have their share in the evils? They ought rather to have been marked as approved (εὐδοκιμἥσαι), because they were doing their part, were slaying, punishing, taking vengeance, persecuting on every side. And mark also at what time the famine comes: precisely when the Gentiles were thenceforth added to the Church. But if, as you say, it was because of the evils (done by the Jews), these ought to have been exempted.” How so? Christ, forestalling this objection, said, “Ye shall have tribulation.” (John xvi. 33.) (It is) just as if you should say, They ought not to have been scourged either. “Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea.” (v. 29.) Mark how the famine becomes to them the means of salvation, an occasion of alms-giving, a harbinger of many blessing. And (so it might have been) to you, one may say, if you were so minded, but ye would not. But it is predicted, that they might be prepared beforehand for almsgiving. “Unto the brethren which dwelt in Judæa;” for they were enduring great hardships, but before this, they were not suffering from famine. “Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.” (v. 30.) Do you mark them, that no sooner do they believe than they bring forth fruit, not only for their own but for those afar off? And Barnabas is sent and Saul, to minister (the same.) Of this occasion (᾽Ενταὕθα) he says (to the Galatians), “And James, Cephas, and John gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, only” (they would) “that we should remember the poor.” (Gal. ii. 9.) James was yet living.600

Acts XII. 1, 2

“Now at that time Herod the King stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. Then were the days of unleavened bread.”

“At that time,” of course meaning the time immediately following: for613 this is the custom of Scripture. And he well says that Herod “the king” (did this): this was not he of Christ’s time. Lo, a different sort of trial—and mark what I said in the beginning, how things are blended, how rest and trouble alternate in the whole texture of the history—not now the Jews, nor the Sanhedrim, but the king. Greater the power, the warfare more severe, the more it was done to obtain favor with the Jews. “And,” it says, “he slew James the brother of John with the sword:” (taking him) at random and without selection. But, should any raise a question, why God permitted this, we shall say, that it was for the sake of these (Jews) themselves: thereby, first, convincing them, that even when slain (the Apostles) prevail, just as it was in the case of Stephen: secondly, giving them opportunity, after satiating their rage, to recover from their madness; thirdly, showing them that it was by His permission this was done. “And when he saw,” it says, “that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. O excessive wickedness! On whose behalf was it, that he gratified them by doing murders thus without plan or reason? “And it was the day of unleavened bread.” Again, the idle preciseness of the Jews: to kill indeed they forbade not, but614 at such a time they did such things! “Whom having arrested, he put in ward, having delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers.” (v. 4.) This was done both of rage, and of fear. “He slew,” it says, “James the brother of John with the sword.” Do you mark their courage? For, that none may say 613 The modern text (E. D. F. Edd.) “But here it is said in this sense, elsewhere in a different sense. For when Matthew says, ‘In those days cometh John preaching,’ he speaks it not as meaning the days immediately following, but ‘those’ in which the things he relates were about to take place. For it is the custom of Scripture to use this mode of speech, and at one time to expound in their sequence the things successively taking place, at another to relate as in immediate succession the things about to take place afterwards. And he well says that Herod the king did this, for this was not he of Christ’s time:” as if Chrys. meant, He does right to call him king, for this was not the tetrarch of the Gospel history. But this is merely a parenthetic remark: the point to which the καλῶς λέγει refers is this—that the persecution is now raised by a king, not by the Jews: “he does well to designate Herod as the king, thereby showing that the trial here was of a different kind, more severe, as the power wielded against them was greater.” 614 ἐν δὲ καιρῷ τοιούτῳ τοιαῦτα ἔπραττον. So mss. and Edd. But the Catena has ἐν δὲ καιρῷ τοιούτῳ πράττειν οὐκ ἤθελον. “They had no objection to killing, but they had rather not do it at such a time.” that without danger or fear of danger they brave death, as being sure of God’s delivering them, therefore he permits some to be put to death, and chief men too, Stephen and James, thereby convincing their slayers themselves, that not even these things make them fall away, and hinder them. “Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for him.” (v. 5.) For the contest was now for life and death: both the slaying of the one made them fearful, and the casting of the other into prison. “And when Herod would have brought him forth, the same night Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains; and the keepers before the door kept the prison. And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.” (v. 6, 7.) In that night He delivered him. “And a light shined in the prison,” that615 he might not deem it fancy: and none saw the light, but he only. For if, notwithstanding this was done, he thought it a fancy, because of its unexpectedness; if this had not been, much more would he have thought this: so616 prepared was he for death. For his having waited there many days and not being saved caused this. Why then, say you, did He not suffer him to fall into the hands of Herod,617 and then deliver him? Because that would have brought people into astonishment, whereas this was credible:618 and they would not even have been thought human beings. But in the case of Stephen, what did He not do? Did He not show them his face as it had been the face of an angel? But what in short did He leave undone here also? “And the angel said to him, Gird thyself, and bind on thy sandals.” (v. 8.) Here again it shows, that it was not done of craft: for one that is in haste and wishes to break out (of prison), is not so particular as to take his sandals, and gird himself. “And he did so. And he said unto him, Put on thy cloak, and follow me. And he went out, and followed him; and wist not that it was true which was done by the Angel; but thought he saw a vision. When they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth unto the city; which opened to them of its own accord.” (v. 9, 10.) Behold, a second miracle. “And they went out, and passed on through one street; and forthwith the angel departed from him. And when Peter was come to himself, he said, Now I know of a surety, that the Lord hath sent His Angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod, and from all the ex- 615 This seems more suitable to the clause, “And his chains fell off from his hands:” but see below in the recapitulation, p. 170. 616 i.e. so unexpected was it, so entirely had he made up his mind that he was to be put to death, that he thought it all a dream. 617 i.e. on the morrow, to be led out to execution, and then and there deliver him. 618 τοῦτο δὲ πιστὸν ἐγένετο. That would have astonished: this was calculated to obtain belief. E. D. F. Edd. τοῦτο δὲ ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν εγένετο. “But this was done for their sakes for they would not have been counted human beings, if he had done all after the manner of God, εἰ θεοπρεπῶς πάντα ἐποίει.” pectation of the people of the Jews.” (v. 10, 11.) When the angel departed, then Peter understood: “Now I perceive,” says he, not then. But why is this so, and why is Peter not sensible of the things taking place, although he had already experienced a like deliverance when all were released? (ch. v. 18.) (The Lord) would have the pleasure come to him all at once, and that he should first be at liberty, and then be sensible of what had happened. The circumstance also of the chains having fallen off from his hands, is a strong argument of his not having fled.619 “And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.” (v. 12.) Observe how Peter does not immediately withdraw, but first brings the good tidings to his friends. “And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a damsel came to hearken, named Rhoda. And when she knew Peter’s voice, she opened not the gate for gladness,”—Mark even the servant-girls, how full of piety they are,—“but ran in, and told how Peter stood before the gate.” (v. 13–15.) But they, though it was so, shook their heads (incredulously): “And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly affirmed that it was even so. And they said, It is his angel. “But Peter continued knocking: and when they had opened the door, and saw him, they were astonished. But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go show these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.” (v. 16, 17.) But let us review the order of the narrative.

(Recapitulation.) “At that time,” it says, “Herod the king stretched forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church.” (v. 1.) Like a wild beast, he attacked all indiscriminately and without consideration. This is what Christ said: “My cup indeed ye shall drink, and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, shall ye be baptized.” (Mark x. 39.) (b) “And620 he killed James the brother of John.” (v. 2.) For there was also another James, the brother of the Lord: therefore to distinguish him, he says, “The brother of John.”621 Do you mark that 619 In the old text this sentence and the next are transposed. The mod. text has restored the true order, but for ἡδονὴν has ἀπαλλαγὴν, “his deliverance to come to him all at once.”—The connection may be thus supplied, “When he came to himself, he found himself there at large, and with his hands no longer chained. And this circumstance again is a strong evidence that he had not fled.” 620 The order in mss. and Edd. is a, b, c. Αὕτη, in the beginning of (c) evidently refers to τῆς παραινέσεως τῆς Γαμ. in (a). 621 James the brother of John was the son of Zebedee, commonly called the “elder” James. He was the first of the apostles to suffer martyrdom. The other James, called “the Lord’s brother” (Gal. i, 19.) mentioned in v. 17 (cf. Acts xv. 13; xxi. 18) was the Bishop of Jerusalem, a man of much importance and influence in the apostolic church, whom Paul reckons among the “pillars” (Gal. ii. 9). Chrys. gives no opinion here concerning him. Three views have prevailed in the church: (1) that he was the same as the apostle, James the son of Alphæus and is called the “brother” of Jesus in the loose sense of that word in which it is taken as equivalent to “relative.” (2) That he was the son of Joseph by a former marriage. (3) That he was the son of Joseph and Mary—the real the sum of affairs rested in these three, especially Peter and James? (a) And how was it he did not kill Peter immediately? It mentions the reason: “it was the day of unleavened bread:” and he wished rather to make a display (ἐκπομπεὕσαι) with the killing of him. “And when he saw it pleased the Jews.” (v. 3.) For their own part, they now in consequence of Gamaliel’s advice, abstained from bloodshedding: and besides, did not even invent accusations; but by means of others they compassed the same results. (c) This (counsel of Gamaliel’s) above all was their condemnation: for the preaching was shown to be no longer a thing of men. “He proceeded further to kill Peter also.” (ch. v. 8.) In very deed was that fulfilled, “We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Psa. xliv. 13.) “Seeing,” it says, “it was a pleasing thing to the Jews.” (Rom. viii. 36.) A pleasing thing, bloodshed, and unrighteous bloodshed, wickedness, impiety!622 He ministered to their senseless (ἀτόποις) lusts: for, whereas he ought to have done the contrary, to check their rage, he made them more eager, as if he were an executioner, and not a physician to their diseased minds. (And this) though he had numberless warnings in the case of both his grandfather and his father Herod, how the former in consequence of his putting the children to death suffered the greatest calamities, and the latter by slaying John raised up against himself a grievous war. But623 as they thought He feared lest Peter, in consequence of the slaying of James, should withdraw; and wishing to have him in safe keeping, he put him in prison: “and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers” (v. 4): the stricter the custody, the more wondrous the display. “Peter therefore was kept in prison.” (v. 5.) But this was all the better for Peter, who was thereby made more approved, and evinced his own manly courage. And it says, “there was earnest prayer making.” It was the prayer of (filial) affection: it was for a father they asked, a father mild. “There was,” it says, “earnest prayer.” Hear how they were affected to their teachers. No factions, no perturbation:624 but they betook them to prayer, to that alliance which is brother of Jesus and is called an apostle in Gal. i. 19, in the more comprehensive sense which that word acquired according to which it was applied also to Paul and Barnabas (Acts xiv. 14). This view seems to me the correct one. There were also other brothers (Matt. xii. 46; Matt xiii. 55, 56) Joses, Simon and Judas, and sisters who are not personally named. Chrys. seems to have held view (2) in his earlier writings, but to have adopted view (1), following Jerome. (Cf. Lightfoot on Galatians, pp. 289, 290).—G.B.S. 622 A. B. C. κακία, ἀσέβεια. Cat φονος ἄδικος κακίας;ἀσέβεια ταῖς κ. τ. λ. Mod. text substitutes for these two words, Πολλὴ ἡ ἄνοια τοῦ ῾Ηρώδου. 623 Καθὼς δὲ ᾤοντο A. B. C. Either this is out of its place, or the sentence is incomplete. The mod. text substitutes, “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison.” 624 οὐκ ἐστασίασαν, οὐκ ἐθορυβήθησαν: alluding perhaps to the factious and turbulent proceedings, which in his time often ensued when a Bishop was removed or at the point of death. But possibly ἐστασ. is corrupt.—Below, Τοῦτο δὲ ἦν ὑπὲρ Πέτρου, etc. the meaning seems to be, “That Herod was permitted to do this, and that Peter was delivered into his hands, not withdrawing upon the death of James, was all the better for Peter: it gave fresh proof of his worth, it showed how courageous he was in himself, independently of supernatural aid.” indeed invincible, to this they betook them for refuge. They did not say, “What? I, poor insignificant creature that I am, to pray for him!” for, as they acted of love, they did not give these things a thought. And observe, it was during the feast, that (their enemies) brought these trials upon them, that their worth might be the more approved. “And when Herod,” etc. (v. 6.) See Peter sleeping, and not in distress or fear! That same night, after which he was to be brought forth, he slept, having cast all upon God. “Between two soldiers, bound with two chains.” (comp. 1 Pet. v. 7.) Mark, how strict the ward! “And says, Arise.” (v. 7.) The guards were asleep with him, and therefore perceived nothing of what was happening. “And a light shined.” What was the light for? In order that Peter might see as well as hear, and not imagine it to be all fancy. And the command, “Arise quickly,625” that he may not be remiss. He also smote him; so deeply did he sleep. (a) “Rise,” says he, “quickly:” this is not to hurry him (θορυβοὕντος) but to persuade him not to delay. (c) “And” immediately “his chains fell off from his hands.” (b) How? answer me: where are the heretics?—let them answer. “And the Angel said unto him,” etc. (v. 8) by this also convincing him that it is no fancy: to this end he bids him gird himself and put on his shoes, that he may shake off his sleep, and know that it is real. (a) (e) “And he wist not that it was true that was done by the Angel, but thought he saw a vision” (v. 9): (e) well he might, by reason of the excessive greatness (ὑπερβολὴν) of the things taking place. Do you mark what a thing it is for a miracle to be excessive (ὑπερβολὴ σημείου)? how it amazes (ἐκπλήττει) the beholder? how it will not let the thing be believed?626 For if Peter “thought he saw a vision,” though he had girded himself and put on his shoes, what would have been the case with another? “And,” it says, “when they had passed the first and the second ward, they came to the iron gate, which opened unto them of its own accord” (v. 10): and yet the things that had happened within (the prison) were more marvellous: but this was now more after the manner of man. “And having gone out, they went along one street and immediately (all ‘until’) the Angel departed from him.” (v. 11.) When there was no hindrance, then the Angel departed. For Peter would not have gone along (προἥλθεν), there being so many hindrances. “And when he came to 625 A. B. C. Cat. καὶ τὸ “ἐν τάχει,” ὥστε μη ῥαθυμησαι· καὶ ἔπληξεν αὐτόν· (C. καὶ ἔκπληξις ἦν εἰς αὐτόν) οὕτω βαθέως ἐκάθευδεν. Perhaps C. has preserved the true reading, see on v. 11. If so, it should be transposed with the part marked (a), viz. “—by the Angel: and it was an amazement to him, so deeply did he sleep: but he thought he saw a vision.” The letters as usual denote the order of parts in the mss. Before (b), the clause, “And he passed the first and second ward,” is inserted. It is not easy to see what can be the reference of the question, Πῶς; ποῦ εἰσὶν οἱ αἱρετικοί; it can hardly be meant for the mention of the sandals and cloak, v. 8, for the persons who objected to the Christians, that, according to Christ’s command, they ought to have no shoes, nor two coats, etc. were not heretics, but heathens: see Hom. in illud, Salutate Prisc. et Aq. t. iii. 181. and Hom. ix. in Philip. t. xi. 272 (the latter cited in the Catena here). 626 A. B. C. Cat. ἀπιστηθῆναι, “be disbelieved?” But this is evidently corrupt. himself:” for in very truth, it was indeed an amazement (ἔκπληξις). “Now,” saith he, “I know”—now, not then, when I was in the prison,—“that the Lord hath sent His Angel, and hath delivered me out of the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the people of the Jews. And when he had considered” (v. 12), it says: viz. where he was, or, that he must not without more ado depart but requite his Benefactor: “he came to the house of Mary the mother of John.” Who is this John? Probably627 he that was always with them: for this is why he adds his distinctive name (τὸ παράσημον), “whose surname was Mark.” But observe, “praying” in the night, how much they got by it: what a good thing affliction is; how wakeful it made them! Do you see how great the gain resulting from the death of Stephen? do you see how great the benefit accruing from this imprisonment? For it is not by taking vengeance upon those who wronged them that God shows the greatness of the Gospel: but in the wrongdoers themselves,628 without any harm happening to those, he shows what a mighty thing the afflictions in themselves are, that we may not seek in any wise deliverance from them, nor the avenging of our wrongs. And mark how the very servant-girls were henceforth upon an equality with them. “For joy,” it says, “she opened not.” (v. 13, 14.) This too is well done, that they likewise may not be amazed by seeing him at once, and that they may be incredulous, and their minds may be exercised. “But ran in,” etc. just as we are wont to do, she was eager to be herself the bringer of the good tidings, for good news it was indeed. “And they said unto her, Thou art mad: but she constantly affirmed that it was even so: then said they, It is his Angel.” (v. 15.) This is a truth, that each man has an Angel.629 And what would the Angel?630 It was from the time (of night) that they surmised this. But when he “continued 627 ἵσως ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἀεὶ αὐτοῖς συνών. OEcumen. may have read οὐκ ἐκεῖνος, for he has, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι οὐ τοῦ ἀεὶ συνόντος αὐτοῖς ᾽Ιωάννου τὴν μήτερα φησίν: “to show that he does not mean the mother of John (the Apostle) who was always with them, he adds his distinctive name.” 628 ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἀδικοῦσιν. Perhaps it may mean, He brings it home to the conviction of the wrong-doers themselves, etc. ᾽Εκείνων, i.e. the enemies. But ἀδικουμένοις would suit the meaning better than ἀδικοῦσιν, and then ἐκείνων would be right: otherwise it should be αὐτῶν. 629 The interpretation of Chrys. regarding the idea of the company assembled in Mary’s house expressed by: “It is his angel,” is doubtless correct. Others interpret: “It is his messenger”—a messenger sent by Peter to them, but it is said that Rhoda recognized Peter’s voice (14). Others understand angel in the sense of spirit—a view which is not sanctioned by linguistic usage. Their idea was that Peter’s guardian angel who had taken on his form and appearance was before the door. The belief in guardian angels attending individuals was common in later Jewish theology as well as in the Greek and Roman religions. It was doubtless stimulated in the early church by the saying of Jesus concerning children: “In heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. xvii. 10), which seems to sanction the idea (cf. Heb. i. 14).—G.B.S. 630 καὶ τὶ βουλεται ὁ ἄγγελος; A. B. C. Cat. The mod. text substitutes, “And whence did it come into their minds at that time to surmise that it was an Angel?” knocking, and when they had opened, and saw him, they were astonished. But he beckoning to them with his hand” (v. 16, 17), made them keep quiet, to hear all that had happened to him. He was now an object of more affectionate desire to the disciples, not only in consequence of his being saved, but by his sudden coming in upon them and straightway departing. Now, both his friends learn all clearly; and the aliens also learn, if they had a mind, but they had not. The same thing happened in the case of Christ. “Tell these things,” he says, “to James, and to the brethren.” How free from all vainglory! Nor did he say, Make known these things to people everywhere, but, “to the brethren. And he withdrew to another place:” for he did not tempt God, nor fling himself into temptation: since, when they were commanded to do this, then they did it. “Go,” it was said, “speak in the temple to the people.” (ch. v. 20.) But this the Angel said not (here); on the contrary, by silently removing him and bringing him out by night, he gave him free permission to withdraw—and this too is done, that we may learn that many things are providentially brought about after the manner of men—so that he should not again fall into peril.—For that they may not say, “It was his Angel,”631 after he was gone, they say this first, and then they see himself overthrowing their notion of the matter. Had it been the Angel, he would have knocked at the door, would not have retired to another place. And632 what followed in the day, make them sure.

“So Peter was kept in the prison,” etc. (v. 5.) They, being at large, were at prayer: he, bound, was in sleep. “And he wist not that it was true.” (v. 9.) If he thought it was true that was happening, he would have been astonished, he would not have remembered633 (all the circumstances): but now, seeming to be in a dream, he was free from perturbation. “When,” it says, “they were past the first and the second ward”—see also how strong the guard was—“they came unto the iron gate.” (v. 10.) “Now know I that the Lord hath sent His Angel.” (v. 11.) Why is not this effected by themselves?634 (I answer,) By this also the Lord honors them, that by the ministry of His Angels he rescues them. Then why was it not so in the case of Paul? There with good reason, because the jailer was to be converted, whereas here, it was only that the Apostle should be released. (ch. xvi. 25.) And God disposes all things in divers ways. And there too, it is beautiful, that Paul sings hymns, while here Peter was asleep. “And when he had considered, he came to the house of Mary,” etc. (v. 12.) Then let us not 631 i.e. It was so ordered (ᾠκονόμητο) that the notion of its being his Angel came into their minds before they saw him, in order that it might not be possible for them to think this after he was gone. 632 Πιστοῦται δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ τὸ ἐν ἡμέρα γενόμενον. i.e. “When it was day there was no small stir among the soldiers,” etc. v. 18. The innovator, not perceiving the meaning, substitutes καὶ τὸ μὴ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ γενεσθαι, “And its not happening by day, confirms their belief.” 633 ἐμνημονευσεν. i.e. astonishment would have deprived him of the power of remembering, and afterwards relating the circumstances, v. 17. 634 Here, and on former occasion, v. 19. Hence the plural δἱ εαυτῶν. hide God’s marvels, but for our own good let us study to display these abroad for the edifying of the others. For as he deserves to be admired for choosing to be put into bonds, so is he worthy of more admiration, that he withdrew not until he had reported all to his friends. “And he said, Tell James and the brethren.” (v. 17.) That they may rejoice: that they may not be anxious. Through these635 those learn, not those through him: such thought had he for the humbler part!—

Truly, nothing better than affliction not above measure (συμμέτρου). What think you must have been their state of mind—how full of delight! Where now are those women, who sleep the whole night through? Where are those men, who do not even turn themselves in their bed? Seest thou the watchful soul? With women, and children, and maid-servants, they sang hymns to God, made purer than the sky by affliction. But now, if we see a little danger, we fall back. Nothing ever was more splendid than that Church. Let us imitate these, let us emulate them. Not for this was the night made, that we should sleep all through it and be idle. To this bear witness the artisans, the carriers, and the merchants (to this), the Church of God rising up in the midst of the night. Rise thou up also, and behold the quire of the stars, the deep silence, the profound repose: contemplate with awe the order (οἰκονομίαν) of thy Master’s household. Then is thy soul purer: it is lighter, and subtler, and soaring disengaged: the darkness itself, the profound silence, are sufficient to lead thee to compunction. And if also thou look to the heavens studded with its stars, as with ten thousand eyes,636 if thou bethink thee that all those multitudes who in the daytime are shouting, laughing, frisking, leaping, wronging, grasping, threatening, inflicting wrongs without number, lie all one as dead, thou wilt condemn all the self-willedness of man. Sleep hath invaded and defeated (ἡλεγξεν) nature: it is the image of death, the image of the end of all things. If637 thou (look out of window and) lean over into the street, thou wilt not hear even a sound: if thou look into the house, thou wilt see all lying as it were in a tomb. All this is enough to arouse the soul, and lead it to reflect on the end of all things.

Here indeed my discourse is for both men and women. Bend thy knees, send forth groans, beseech thy Master to be merciful: He is more moved by prayers in the night, when thou makest the time for rest a time for mourning. Remember what words that king uttered: “I have been weary with my groaning: every night will I wash my bed, I will water my couch 635 διὰ τούτων (the persons assembled in the house of Mary) ἐκεῖνοι (James and the brethren), οὐκ ἐκεῖνοι διὰ τούτου. This is corrupt, but the meaning is, James and the more important of the brethren learn the particulars through these inferior persons, not these through those, but through Peter himself. Mod. text, ἵνα διὰ τούτων ἐκεῖνοι μανθάνωσιν, οὐκ αὐτοὶ δἰ ἐκείνων 636 Mod. text adds, “thou wilt enjoy all pleasure, being led forthwith to reflect on the Creator.” 637 ῍Αν διακύψῃς εἰς τὸν στενωπόν. The στενωποὶ, angiportus or vici are the lanes or alleys in the quarters formed by intersection of the broad streets, πλατεῖαι. with my tears.” (Ps. vi. 6.) However delicate a liver thou mayest be, thou art not more delicate than he: however rich thou mayest be, thou art not richer than David. And again the same Psalmist saith, “At midnight I rose to give thanks unto Thee for the judgments of Thy righteousness.” (Ps. cxix. 62.) No vainglory then intrudes upon thee: how can it, when all are sleeping, and not looking at thee? Then neither sloth nor drowsiness invades thee: how can they, when thy soul is aroused by such great things? After such vigils come sweet slumbers and wondrous revelations. Do this, thou also the man, not the woman only. Let the house be a Church, consisting of men and women. For think not because thou art the only man, or because she is the only woman there, that this is any hindrance. “For where two,” He saith, “are gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matt. xviii. 20.) Where Christ is in the midst, there is a great multitude. Where Christ is, there needs must Angels be, needs must Archangels also and the other Powers be there. Then ye are not alone, seeing ye have Him Who is Lord of all. Hear again the prophet also saying, “Better is one that doeth the will of the Lord, than ten thousand transgressors.” (comp. Ecclus. xvi. 3.) Nothing more weak than a multitude of unrighteous men, nothing more strong than one man who lives according to the law of God. If thou hast children wake up them also, and let thy house altogether become a Church through the night: but if they be tender, and cannot endure the watching, let them stay for the first or second prayer, and then send them to rest: only stir up thyself, establish thyself in the habit. Nothing is better than that storehouse which receives such prayers as these. Hear the Prophet speaking: “If I remembered Thee upon my bed, I thought upon Thee in the dawn of the morning.” (Ps. lxiii. 7.) But you will say: I have labored much during the day, and I cannot. Mere pretext this and subterfuge. For however much thou hast labored, thou wilt not toil like the smith, who lets fall such a heavy hammer from a great height upon the (metal flying off in) sparks, and takes in the smoke with his whole body: and yet at this work he spends the greater part of the night. Ye know also how the women, if there is need for us to go into the country, or to go forth unto a vigil, watch through the whole night. Then have thou also a spiritual forge, to fashion there not pots or cauldrons, but thine own soul, which is far better than either coppersmith or goldsmith can fashion. Thy soul, waxen old in sins, cast thou into the smelting-furnace of confession: let fall the hammer from on high: that is, the condemnation of thy words (τὥν ῥημάτων τὴν κατάγνωσιν): light up the fire of the Spirit. Thou hast a far mightier craft (than theirs). Thou art beating into shape not vessels of gold, but the soul, which is more precious than all gold, even as the smith hammers out his vessel. For it is no material vessel that thou art working at, but thou art freeing thy soul from all imaginations belonging to this life. Let a lamp be by thy side, not that one which we burn, but that which the prophet had, when he said, “Thy law is a lamp unto my feet.” (Ps. cxix. 105.) Bring thy soul to a red heat, by prayer: when thou seest it hot enough, draw it out, and mould it into what shape thou wilt. Believe me, not fire so effectual to burn off rust, as night prayer to remove the rust of our sins. Let the night-watchers, if no one else, shame us. They, by man’s law, go their rounds in the cold, shouting loudly, and walking through lanes (στενωπὥν) and alleys, oftentimes drenched with rain and (all) congealed with cold, for thee and for thy safety, and the protection of thy property. There is he taking such care for thy property, while thou takest none even for thy soul. And yet I do not make thee go thy rounds in the open air like him, nor shout loudly and rend thy sides: but in thy closet itself, or in thy bedchamber, bend thy knees, and entreat thy Lord. Why did Christ Himself pass a whole night on the mountain? Was it not, that He might be an ensample to us? Then is it that the plants respire, in the night, I mean: and then also does the soul take in the dew even more than they. What the sun has parched by day becomes cool again at night. More refreshing than all dew, the tears of the night descend upon our lusts and upon all heat and fever of the soul, and do not let it be affected in any such way. But if it do not enjoy the benefit of that dew, it will be burnt up in the daytime. But God forbid (it should be so638)! Rather, may we all, being refreshed, and enjoying the mercy of God, be freed from the burden of our sins, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XII. 18, 19

“Now as soon as it was day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of Peter. And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death. And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there abode.”

Some persons, it is likely, are at a loss how to explain it, that God should quietly look on while (His) champions639 are put to death, and now again the soldiers on account of Peter: and yet it was possible for Him after (delivering) Peter to rescue them also. But it was not yet the time of judgment, so as to render to each according to his deserts. And besides, it was not Peter that put them into his hands. For the thing that most annoyed him was the being mocked; just as in the case of his grandfather when he was deceived by the wise men, that was what made him (feel) cut to the heart—the being (eluded and) made ridiculous.640 “And having put them to the question,” it says, “he ordered them to be led away to execution.” (Matt. ii. 16.) And yet he had heard from them—for he had put them to the question—both that the chains had been left, and that he had taken his sandals, and that until that night he was with them. “Having put them to the question:” but what did they conceal?641 Why then did they not themselves also flee? “He ordered them to be led away to execution:” and yet he ought to have marvelled, ought to have been astonished at this. The consequence is, by the death of these men (the thing), is made manifest to all: both his wickedness is exposed to view, and (it is made clear that) the wonder (is) of God. “And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there abode: and Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king’s country. And 639 περιεῖδεν τοὺς ἀθλητὰς ἀπολλυμένους: i.e. those (as St. Stephen, St. James) engaged in contending for the heavenly prize. The mod. t. substitutes, “Many are quite at a loss, how God could quietly look on while his children (or servants? τοὺς παῖδας, Ben. infantes) were put to death because of Him, and now again,” etc. After this sentence, the same inserts from the recapitulation: “But—if the Angel,” etc. to…..“why did He not rescue him? and besides”— 640 μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἐποίει διαπρίεσθαι (as in ch. vii. 54, cut to the heart with passion) καὶ καταγέλαστον εἶναι. The last words are either misplaced, or something is wanting; perhaps (after διαπρίεσθαι), τὸ διακρούεσθαι καὶ καταγέλαστον εἶναι. 641 i.e. what was to be drawn from them by the torture? Had they let him out, they would have contrived appearances, or would themselves have fled. But the reporter’s notes of what St. Chrys. said, seem to be very defective, and the arrangement much confused. upon a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people gave a shout, saying, ‘It is the voice of a god, and not of a man,’ And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.” (v. xx. 23.) * * But see how (the writer) here does not hide these things.642 Why does he mention this history? Say, what has it to do with the Gospel, that Herod is incensed with the Tyrians and Sidonians? It is not a small matter, even this, how immediately justice seized him; although not because of Peter, but because of his arrogant speaking. And yet, it may be said, if those shouted, what is that to him? Because he accepted the acclamation, because he accounted himself to be worthy of the adoration. Through him those most receive a lesson, who so thoughtlessly flattered him (al. οἱ κολακεύοντες). Observe again, while both parties deserve punishment, this man is punished. For this is not the time of judgment, but He punishes him that had most to answer for, leaving the others to profit by this man’s fate.643 “And the word of God,” it says, “grew,” i.e. in consequence of this, “and multiplied.” (v. 24.) Do you mark God’s providential management? “But Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.” (v. 25.) “Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaën, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.”644 (ch. xiii. 1.) He still mentions Barnabas first: for Paul was 642 ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα πῶς οὗτος οὐ κρύπτει ταῦτα. In the recapitulation (see note 3, p. 175) he says, that the death of Herod was regarded as a judgment for his having slain James and the soldiers. Here, it seems, he must have said something to that effect; then, “but observe how St. Luke does not conceal the true state of the case, viz. that he was punished not for this, but for the sin which he proceeds to mention.” We have transposed the text v. 20–23. mss. and Edd. place it before οὐ μικρὸν οὐδὲ τοῦτό ἐστιν, thus separating these words from their connection with the preceding question. 643 Josephus’ narrative of the death of Herod (Ant. xix. 8, 2) is of peculiar interest here on account of its substantial agreement with that of Luke. The following points of agreement may be noted: (1) The place was Cæsarea. (2) He was attacked by disease in a public assembly when, arrayed in gorgeous apparel, he received the impious flatteries of the people. (3) His disease and death were a penalty for accepting the flattery of those who accorded to him divine honors. Thus the main outlines are the same. Josephus introduces some historical notices, such as that the occasion was a celebration in honor of the Emperor Claudius, which are wanting in Luke. He also relates that after receiving the people’s flattery, Herod observed an owl perched on a rope above him, which he interpreted at once as an omen of the fate which soon befell him. The supernatural element—“an angel smote him”—is wanting in Josephus. The Jewish historian is less specific in describing the disease which he speaks of as violent pains in the bowels and adds that after the attack, Herod lingered five days and died in the fifty-fourth year of his age and the seventh of his reign.—G.B.S. 644 At this point (ch. xiii.) begins the second part of the Book of Acts which has chiefly to do with the missionary labors of Paul. It is a reasonable supposition that the previous chapters rest upon different documents not yet famous, he had not yet wrought any sign. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” (v. 2, 3.) What means, “Ministering?” Preaching. “Separate for Me,” it says, “Barnabas and Saul.” What means, “Separate for Me?” For the work, for the Apostleship. See again by what persons he is ordained (γυμνοτέρα. Cat. σεμνοτέρα, “more awful.”) By Lucius the Cyrenean and Manaën, or rather, by the Spirit. The less the persons, the more palpable the grace. He is ordained henceforth to Apostleship, so as to preach with authority. How then does he himself say, “Not from men, nor by man?”645 (Gal. i. 1.) Because it was not man that called or brought him over: this is why he says, “Not from men. Neither by man,” that is, that he was not sent by this (man), but by the Spirit. Wherefore also (the writer) thus proceeds: “So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.” (v. 4.) But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “And when it was day,” etc. (v. 18.) For646 if the Angel had brought out the soldiers also, along with Peter, it would have been thought a case of flight. Then why, you may ask, was it not otherwise managed? Why, where is the harm? Now, if we see that they who have suffered unjustly, take no harm, we shall not raise these questions. For why do you not say the same of James? Why did not (God) rescue him? “There was no small stir among the soldiers.” So (clearly) had they perceived nothing (of what had happened). Lo, I take up the plea in their defence. The chains were there, and the keepers within, and the prison shut, nowhere a wall broken through, all told the same tale: the man had been carried off:647 why dost thou condemn them? Had they wished to let him off, they would from those which follow. From chapter xvi. onward occur the so-called “we” passages (e.g. xvi. 10; xx, 6. xxi. 1; xxvii. 1) in which the writer, identifying himself with his narratives, indicates that he writes from personal knowledge and experience. The appointment of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch for missionary service, marked an epoch in the history of the early church and practically settled the questions relating to the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian community.—G.B.S. 645 mss. and Edd. δἰ ἀνθρώπων, but the singular is implied below in οὐχ ὑπὸ τοῦδε. In the old text, B. C. Cat. “Not from men nor by men? Because not man called nor brought him over: that is, neither by men; therefore he says, that he was not sent (B., I was not sent) by this,” etc. The mod. text “Not from men neither by men. The one, not from men, he uses to show that not man, etc.: and the other, neither by men, that he was not sent by this (man), but by the Spirit. Wherefore,” etc. 646 Here he further answers the question raised in the opening of the discourse. The mod. text transposes it to that place, beginning the recapitulation with, “‘And when it was day there was no small stir among the soldiers because of Peter, and having put the keepers to the question, he ordered them to be led away to execution.’ So senseless was he, οὕτως οὐκ ᾔσθετο, that he even sets about punishing them unjustly.” The latter clause is added by the innovator. For ᾔσθετοCat. has preserved the true reading, ᾔσθοντο. 647 ἀνάρπαστος ὁ ἄνθρωπος γέγονε. Ben. homo ille raptus non est. have done it before, or would have gone out with him. “But he gave them money?” (ch. iii. 6.) And how should he, who had not to give even to a poor man, have the means to give to these? And then neither had the chains been broken, nor were they loosed. He ought to have seen, that the thing was of God, and no work of man. “And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there abode. And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon,” etc. (v. 19.) He is now going to mention (a matter of) history: this is the reason why he adds the names, that it may be shown how he keeps to the truth in all things. “And,” it says, “having made Blastus the king’s chamberlain their friend, they desired peace; because their country was nourished by the king’s country.” (v. 20, 21.) For probably there was a famine. “And on a set day,” etc. (Joseph. Ant. xix.) Josephus also says this, that he fell into a lingering disease. Now the generality were not aware of this,648 but the Apostle sets it down: yet at the same time their ignorance was an advantage, in regard that they imputed what befell (Agrippa) to his putting James and the soldiers to death. Observe, when he slew the Apostle, he did nothing of this sort but when (he slew) these; in fact he knew not what to say about it:649 as being at a loss, then, and feeling ashamed, “he went down from Judea to Cæsarea.” I suppose it was also to bring those (men of Tyre and Sidon) to apologize, that he withdrew (from Jerusalem): for with those he was incensed, while paying such court to these. See how vainglorious the man is: meaning to confer the boon upon them, he makes an harangue. But Josephus says, that he was also arrayed in a splendid robe made of silver. Observe both what flatterers those were, and what a high spirit was shown by the Apostles: the man whom the whole nation so courted, the same they held in contempt. (v. 24.) But observe again a great refreshing granted to them, and the numberless benefits accruing from the vengeance inflicted upon him. But if this man, because it was said to him, “It is the voice of God and not of a man (v. 22) although he said nothing himself, suffered such things: much more should Christ, had He not Himself been God (have suffered) for saying always as He did, “These words of mine are not Mine” (John xiv. 10; xviii. 36) and, “Angels minister to Me,” and such like. But that man ended His life by a shameful and miserable death, and 648 i.e. of the circumstances related v. 22, 23.—Below, πλὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἄγνοια ὠφέλει, i.e. to the believers: and yet, as he says above, the writer does not conceal the facts: see note 3, p. 174. 649 mss. and Edd. οὐδὲν τοιοῦτον εἰπγάσατο· ὅτε δὲ τούτους, λοιπὸν ἐν ἀφασίU+0026 139· ἦν: what this means, is very obscure, only the last clause seems to be explained by the following, ἅτε οὖν ἡπορηκὼς καὶ αἰσχυνόμενος, i.e. not knowing what to think of it, he withdrew from Jerusalem. Ben. quando illos, nihil dicebat. Erasm., et quando alios, nihil de illis traditur.—Below, ᾽Εμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ ἐκείνους πρὸς τὴν ἀπολογίαν ἐνάγων ἀπαγαγεῖν ὠργίζετο γὰρ ἐκείνοις, τούτους οὕτω θεραπεύων. By ἐκείνους, ἐκείνοις, he means the Tyrians and Sidonians: ἀπαγαγεῖν, sc. ἑαυτόν, to have withdrawn himself from Jerusalem, to Cæsarea, nearer to Tyre and Sidon. The innovator substitutes, ᾽Εμοὶ δοκεῖ καὶ ἐκείνους ἀπαγαγεῖν βουλόμενος, πρὸς ἀπολογίαν ἦλθε τούτων· ὠργίζετο γὰρ κ. τ. λ. which Ben. renders Mihi videtur, cum illos abducere vellet, ad hos venisse ut sese purgaret. thenceforth no more is seen of him. And observe him also, easily talked over even by Blastus, like a poor creature, soon incensed and again pacified, and on all occasions a slave of the populace, with nothing free and independent about him. But mark also the authority of the Holy Ghost: “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul.” (ch. xiii. 2.) What being would have dared, if not of the same authority, to say this? “Separate,” etc. But this is done, that they may not keep together among themselves. The Spirit saw that they had greater power, and were able to be sufficient for many. And how did He speak to them? Probably by prophets: therefore the writer premises, that there were prophets also. And they were fasting and ministering: that thou mayest learn that there was need of great sobriety. In Antioch he is ordained, where he preaches. Why did He not say, Separate for the Lord, but, “For me?” It shows that He is of one authority and power. “And when they had fasted,” etc. Seest thou what a great thing fasting is? “So they being sent forth by the Holy Ghost:” it shows that the Spirit did all.

A great, yes a great good is fasting: it is circumscribed by no limits. When need was to ordain, then they fast: and to them while fasting, the Spirit spake. Thus much only do I enjoin: (I say) not fast, but abstain from luxury. Let us seek meats to nourish, not things to ruin us; seek meats for food, not occasions of diseases, of diseases both of soul and body: seek food which hath comfort, not luxury which is full of discomfort: the one is luxury, the other mischief; the one is pleasure, the other pain; the one is agreeable to nature, the other contrary to nature. For say, if one should give thee hemlock juice to drink, would it not be against nature? if one should give thee logs and stones, wouldest thou not reject them? Of course, for they are against nature. Well, and so is luxury. For just as in a city, under an invasion of enemies when there has been siege and tumult, great is the uproar, so is it in the soul, under invasion of wine and luxury. “Who hath woe? who hath tumults? who hath discomforts and babblings? Are they not they that tarry long at the wine? Whose are bloodshot eyes?” (Prov. xxiii. 29, 30.) But yet, say what we will, we shall not bring off those who give themselves up to luxury, unless650 we bring into conflict therewith a different affection. And first, let us address ourselves to the women. Nothing uglier than a woman given to luxury, nothing uglier than a woman given to drink. The bloom of her complexion is faded: the calm and mild expression of the eyes is rendered turbid, as when a cloud intercepts the rays of the sunshine. It is a vulgar, (ἀνελεύθερον) slave-like, thoroughly low-lived habit. How disgusting is a woman when from her breath you catch sour whiffs of fetid wine: a woman belching, giving out a fume (χυμὸν) of decomposing meats; herself weighed down, unable to keep 650 οὐκ ἀποστήσομεν…ἂν μὴ ἑτερον ἀντιστήσωμεν πάθος (Mod. text πρὸς ἕτ. and τὸ πάθος), i.e. unless, as Solomon does in the last clause of the text cited, we set against this lust a different affection, viz. vanity, especially female vanity, regard to personal appearance. Hence that last clause might be better transposed to the end of this sentence. upright; her face flushed with an unnatural red; yawning incessantly, and everything swimming in a mist before her eyes! But not such, she that abstains from luxurious living: no (this abstinence makes her look) a more beautiful, well-bred (σωφρονεστέρα) woman. For even to the body, the composure of the soul imparts a beauty of its own. Do not imagine that the impression of beauty results only from the bodily features. Give me a handsome girl, but turbulent (τεταραγμένην), loquacious, railing, given to drink, extravagant, (and tell me) if she is not worse-looking than any ugly woman? But if she were bashful, if she would hold her peace, if she learnt to blush, if to speak modestly (συμμέτρως), if to find time for fastings; her beauty would be twice as great, her freshness would be heightened, her look more engaging, fraught with modesty and good breeding (σωφροσύνης καὶ κοσμιότητος). Now then, shall we speak of men? What can be uglier than a man in drink? He is an object of ridicule to his servants, of ridicule to his enemies, of pity to his friends; deserving condemnation without end: a wild beast rather than a human being; for to devour much food is proper to panther, and lion, and bear. No wonder (that they do so), for those creatures have not a reasonable soul. And yet even they, if they be gorged with food more than they need, and beyond the measure appointed them by nature, get their whole body ruined by it: how much more we? Therefore hath God contracted our stomach into a small compass; therefore hath He marked out a small measure of sustenance, that He may instruct us to attend to the soul.

Let us consider our very make, and we shall see there is in us but one little part that has this operation—for our mouth and tongue are meant for singing hymns, our throat for voice—therefore the very necessity of nature has tied us down, that we may not, even involuntarily, get into much trouble (πραγματείαν) (in this way). Since, if indeed luxurious living had not its pains, nor sickness and infirmities, it might be tolerated: but as the case is, He hath stinted thee by restrictions of nature, that even if thou wish to exceed, thou mayest not be able to do so. Is not pleasure thine object, beloved? This thou shalt find from moderation. Is not health? This too thou shalt so gain. Is not easiness of mind? This too. Is not freedom? is not vigor and good habit of body, is not sobriety and alertness of mind? (All these thou shalt find); so entirely are all good things there, while in the other are the contraries to these, discomfort, distemper, disease, embarrassment—waste of substance (ἀνελευθερία). Then how comes it, you will ask, that we all run eagerly after this? It comes of disease. For say, what is it that makes the sick man hanker after the thing that does him harm? Is not this very hankering a part of his disease? Why is it that the lame man does not walk upright? This very thing, does it come of his being lazy, and not choosing to go to the physician? For there are some things, in which the pleasure they bring with them is temporary, but lasting the punishment: others just the contrary, in which the endurance is for a time, the pleasure perpetual. He, therefore, that has so little solidity and strength of purpose as not to slight present sweets for future, is soon overcome. Say, how came Esau to be overcome? how came he to prefer the present pleasure to the future honor? Through want of solidity and firmness of character. (Gen. xxv. 33.) And this fault itself, say you, whence comes it? Of our ownselves: and it is plain from this consideration. When we have the mind, we do rouse ourselves, and become capable of endurance. Certain it is, if at any time necessity comes upon us, nay, often only from a spirit of emulation, we get to see clearly what is useful for us. When therefore thou art about to indulge in luxury, consider how brief the pleasure, consider the loss—for loss it is indeed to spend so much money to one’s own hurt—the diseases, the infirmities: and despise luxury. How many shall I enumerate who have suffered evils from indulgence? Noah was drunken, and was exposed in his nakedness, and see what evils came of this. (Gen. ix. 20.) Esau through greediness abandoned his birthright, and was set upon fratricide. The people of Israel “sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.” (Ex. xxxii. 6.) Therefore saith the Scripture, “When thou hast eaten and drunken, remember the Lord thy God.” (Deut. vi. 12.) For they fell over a precipice, in failing into luxury. “The widow,” he saith, “that liveth in pleasure, is dead while she liveth” (1 Tim. v. 6): and again, “The beloved waxed sleek, grew thick, and kicked” (Deut. xxxii. 15): and again the Apostle, “Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” (Rom. xiii. 14.) I am not enacting as a law that there shall be fasting, for indeed there is no one who would listen; but I am doing away with daintiness, I am cutting off luxury for the sake of your own profit: for like a winter torrent, luxury overthrows all: there is nothing to stop its course: it casts out from a kingdom: what is the gain of it (τί τὸ πλέον)? Would you enjoy a (real) luxury? Give to the poor; invite Christ, so that even after the table is removed, you may still have this luxury to enjoy. For now, indeed, you have it not, and no wonder: but then you will have it. Would you taste a (real) luxury? Nourish your soul, give to her of that food to which she is used: do not kill her by starvation.—It is the time for war, the time for contest: and do you sit enjoying yourself? Do you not see even those who wield sceptres, how they live frugally while abroad on their campaigns? “We wrestle not against flesh and blood” (Eph. vi. 12); and are you fattening yourself when about to wrestle? The adversary stands grinding his teeth, and are you giving a loose to jollity, and devoting yourself to the table? I know that I speak these things in vain, yet not (in vain) for all. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Luke viii. 8.) Christ is pining through hunger, and are you frittering yourself away (διασπᾅς) with gluttony? Two inconsistencies (Δύο ἀμετρίαι). For what evil does not luxury cause? It is contrary to itself: so that I know not how it gets its name: but just as that is called glory, which is (really) infamy, and that riches, which in truth is poverty, so the name of luxury is given to that which in reality is nauseousness. Do we intend ourselves for the shambles, that we so fatten ourselves? Why cater for the worm that it may have a sumptuous larder? Why make more of their humors (ἰχὥρας)? Why store up in yourself sources of sweat and rank smelling? Why make yourself useless for everything? Do you wish your eye to be strong? Get your body well strung? For in musical strings, that which is coarse and not refined, is not fit to produce musical tones, but that which has been well scraped, stretches well, and vibrates with full harmony. Why do you bury the soul alive? why make the wall about it thicker? Why increase the reek and the cloud, with fumes like a mist steaming up from all sides? If none other, let the wrestlers teach you, that the more spare the body, the stronger it is: and (then) also the soul is more vigorous. In fact, it is like charioteer and horse. But there you see, just as in the case of men giving themselves to luxury, and making themselves plump, so the plump horses are unwieldy, and give the driver much ado. One may think one’s self (ἀγαπητὸν) well off, even with a horse obedient to the rein and well-limbed, to be able to carry off the prize: but when the driver is forced to drag the horse along, and when the horse falls, though he goad him ever so much, he cannot make him get up, be he ever so skilful himself, he will be deprived of the victory. Then let us not endure to see our soul wronged because of the body, but let us make the soul herself more clear-sighted, let us make her wing light, her bonds looser: let us feed her with discourse, with frugality, (feeding) the body only so much that it may be healthy, that it may be vigorous, that it may rejoice and not be in pain: that having in this sort well ordered our concerns, we may be enabled to lay hold upon the highest virtue, and to attain unto the eternal good things by the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and Holy Ghost together, be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XIII. 4, 5

“So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. And when they were at Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews: and they had also John to their minister.”

As soon as they were ordained they went forth, and hasted to Cyprus, that being a place where was no ill-design hatching against them, and where moreover the Word had been sown already. In Antioch there were (teachers) enough, and Phoenice too was near to Palestine; but Cyprus not so. However, you are not to make a question of the why and wherefore, when it is the Spirit that directs their movements: for they were not only ordained by the Spirit, but sent forth by Him likewise. “And when they were come to Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.” Do you mark how they make a point of preaching the word to them first, not to make them more contentious?651 The persons mentioned before “spake to none but to Jews only” (ch. xi. 19), and so here they betook them to the synagogues. “And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus: which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.” (v. 6–8.) Again a Jew sorcerer, as was Simon. And observe this man, how, while they preached to the others, he did not take it much amiss, but only when they approached the proconsul. And then in respect of the proconsul the wonder is, that although prepossessed by the man’s sorcery, he was nevertheless willing to hear the Apostles. So it was with the Samaritans: and from the competition (συγκρίσεως) the victory appears, the sorcery being worsted. Everywhere, vainglory and love of power are a (fruitful) source of evils! “But Saul, who is also 651 That Barnabas and Saul preached first to the Jews for the reason mentioned by Chrysostom is wholly improbable. The mission to the Gentiles entrusted to them never cancelled, in their minds, their obligation to the Jews as having in the plan of God an economic precedence. Paul not only maintained throughout his life an ardent love and longing for his people (Rom. ix.) and a confident hope of their conversion (Rom. xi.), but regarded them as still the people of privilege, on the principle: “To the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Rom. i. 16.) This view, together with the fact that they were Jews, constitutes a sufficient explanation for their resort to the synagogues. Additional reasons may be found in the fact that in the synagogues might be found those who were religiously inclined—of both Jewish and Gentile nationality—and who were therefore most susceptible to the influence of Christian truth, and in the fact that the freedom of speech in the synagogue-service offered the most favorable opportunity to expound the Gospel.—G.B.S. Paul,”—(v. 9) here his name is changed at the same time that he is ordained, as it was in Peter’s case,652—“filled with the Holy Ghost, looked upon him, and said, O full of all guile and all villany, thou child of the devil:” (v. 10) and observe, this is not abuse, but accusation: for so ought forward, impudent people to be rebuked “thou enemy of all righteousness;” here he lays bare what was in the thoughts of the man, while under pretext of saving he was ruining the proconsul: “wilt thou not cease,” he says, “to pervert the ways of the Lord?” (He says it) both confidently (αξιοπίστως), It is not with us thou art warring, nor art thou fighting (with us), but “the ways of the Lord” thou art perverting, and with praise (of these, he adds) “the right” ways. “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind.” (v. 11.) It was the sign by which he was himself converted, and by this he would fain convert this man. As also that expression, “for a season,” puts it not as an act of punishing, but as meant for his conversion: had it been for punishment, he would have made him lastingly blind, but now it is not so, but “for a season” (and this), that he may gain the proconsul. For, as he was prepossessed by the sorcery, it was well to teach him a lesson by this infliction (and the sorcerer also), in the same way as the magicians (in Egypt) were taught by the boils.653 (Ex. ix. 11.) “And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness: and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand. Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.” (v. 12.) But observe, how they do not linger there, as (they might have been tempted to do) now that the proconsul was a believer, nor are enervated by being courted and honored, but immediately keep on with their work, and set out for the country on the opposite coast. “Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem. But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.” (v. 13, 14.) And here again they entered the synagogues, in the character of Jews, that they 652 Chrysostom here hints at the most probable explanation of the change of name in the Acts from Saul to Paul, although that change is not strictly simultaneous with his ordination which occurred at Antioch (v. 3), whereas the first use of the name “Paul” is in connection with his labors at Paphos, after he had preached for a time in Salamis. It seems probable that, as in so many cases, Paul, a Hellenist, had two names, in Hebrew Saul, and in Greek Paul, and that now when he enters distinctively upon his mission to the Gentiles, his Gentile name comes into exclusive use. (So, among recent critics, De Wette, Lechler, Alford, Neander, Gloag.) Other opinions are: (1) that he took the name Paul—signifying little—out of modesty (Augustin); (2) that he was named Paul, either by himself (Jerome), by his fellow-Christians (Meyer) or by the proconsul (Ewald), in honor of the conversion of Sergius Paulus.—G.B.S. 653 It can hardly be meant that the smiting of Elymas with blindness was not a judicial infliction to himself; but that the proconsul should see it rather on its merciful side as being only ἄχρι καιροῦ. The Hebraistic use of Χεὶρ Κυρίου clearly implies a divine judgment upon Elymas as does the whole force of the narrative.—G.B.S. might not be treated as enemies, and be driven away: and in this way they carried the whole matter successfully. “And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” (v. 15.) From this point, we learn the history of Paul’s doings, as in what was said above we have learned not a little about Peter. But let us review what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “And when they were come to Salamis,” the metropolis of Cyprus, “they preached the word of God.” (v. 5.) They had spent a year in Antioch: it behooved that they should go hither also (to Cyprus) and not sit permanently where they were (the converts in Cyprus): needed greater teachers. See too how they remain no time in Seleucia, knowing that (the people there) might have reaped much benefit from the neighboring city (of Antioch): but they hasten on to the more pressing duties. When they came to the metropolis of the island, they were earnest to disabuse (διορθωσαι) the proconsul. But that it is no flattery that (the writer) says, “he was with the proconsul, a prudent man” (v. 7), you may learn from the facts; for he needed not many discourses, and himself wished to hear them. And654 he mentions also the names. * * * Observe, how he said nothing to the sorcerer, until he gave him an occasion: but they only “preached the word of the Lord.” Since (though Elymas) saw the rest attending to them, he looked only to this one object, that the proconsul might not be won over. Why did not (Paul) perform some other miracle? Because there was none equal to this, the taking the enemy captive. And observe, he first impeaches, and then punishes, him. He shows how justly the man deserved to suffer, by his saying, “O full of all deceit” (v. 10): (“full of all,”) he says: nothing wanting to the full measure: and he well says, of all “deceit,” for the man was playing the part of a hypocrite.—“Child of the devil,” because he was doing his work: “enemy of all righteousness,” since this (which they preached) was the whole of righteousness (though at the same time): I suppose in these words he reproves his manner of life. His words were not prompted by anger, and to show this, the writer premises, “filled with the Holy Ghost,” that is, with His operation. “And now behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee.” (v. 11.) It was not vengeance then, but healing: for it is as though he 654 Καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα δὲ λέγει· ἐπειδὴ προσφάτως ἔγραφον· U+0026 234·ρα κ. τ. λ. A. B. C. N. Cat. It is not clear whether this relates to the two names, Barjesus and Elymas, (if so we might, read ἔγραφεν, “since he wrote just before, (whose name was Barjesus, but now Elymas, for so is his name interpreted,”) or to the change of the Apostle’s name “Then Saul, who is also called Paul,” (and then perhaps the sense of the latter clause may be, Since the change of name was recent: ἐπειδἡ προσφάτως μετεγράφη or the like.) The mod. text substitutes, “But he also recites the names of the cities: showing that since they had but recently received the word, there was need (for them) to be confirmed, to continue in the faith: for which reason also they frequently visited them.” said: “It is not I that do it, but the hand of God.” Mark how unassuming! No “light,”655 as in the case of Paul, “shone round about him.” (ch. ix. 3.) “Thou shalt be blind,” he says, “not seeing the sun for a season,” that he may give him opportunity for repentance: for we nowhere find them wishing to be made conspicuous by the more stern (exercise of their authority), even though it was against enemies that this was put forth: in respect of those of their own body (they used severity), and with good reason, but in dealing with those without, not so; that (the obedience of faith) might not seem to be matter of compulsion and fear. It is a proof of his blindness, his “seeking some to lead him by the hand.” (ch. v. 1. ff.) And656 the proconsul sees the blindness inflicted, “and when he saw what was done, he believed:” and both alone believed not merely this, but, “being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord” (v. 12): he saw that these things were not mere words, nor trickery. Mark how he loved to receive instruction from his teachers, though he was in a station of so high authority. And (Paul) said not to the sorcerer, “Wilt thou not cease to pervert” the proconsul?657 What may be the reason of John’s going back from them? For “John,” it says, “departing from them returned to Jerusalem” (v. 13): (he does it) because they are undertaking a still longer journey: and yet he was their attendant, and as for the danger, they incurred it (not he).—Again, when they were come to Perga, they hastily passed by the other cities, for they were in haste to the metropolis, Antioch. And observe how concise the historian is. “They sat down in the synagogue,” he says, and, “on the sabbath day” (v. 14, 15): that they might prepare the way beforehand for the Word. And they do not speak first, but when invited: since as strangers, they called upon them to do so. Had they not waited, there would have been no discourse. Here for the first time we have Paul preaching. And observe his prudence: where the word was already sown, he passes on: but where there was none (to preach), he makes a stay: as he himself writes: “Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named.” (Rom. xv. 20.) Great courage this also. Truly, from the very outset, a wonderful man! crucified, ready for all encounters (παρατεταγμένος), he knew how great grace he had obtained, and he brought to it zeal equivalent. He was not angry with John: for this was not for him:658 but he kept to the work, he quailed not, he was unappalled, when shut up in the 655 Mod. text omits this sentence. The connection is: Paul inflicts this blindness upon him, not in vengeance, but in order to his conversion, remembering how the Lord Himself had dealt with him on the way to Damascus. But it was not here, as then—no “light shown round about him from heaven.” 656 Καὶ (Εἶτα mod.) (ὁρᾷ C. N. Cat.) τὴν πήρωσιν (Cat. πύρωσιν) ὁ ἀνθ. καὶ (om. Cat.) μόνος ἐπίστευσεν (mod. εὐθὺς πιστεύει). The reading in Cat. is meant for emendation: “And mark the fervor (or kindling, viz. of the proconsul’s mind): the proc. alone believed” etc. 657 Mod. text adds, “but, the ways of the Lord, which is more: that he may not seem to pay court.” 658 οὐ γὰρ τούτου ἦν. “Down. renders it non enim iræ deditus erat, he was not the man for this (anger): or perhaps, For he (John) was not his, not associated by him, but by Barnabas.” Ben. But the meaning should rather be, “So great a work was not for him (Mark); he was not equal to it.” The connection is of this kind: “Paul knew midst of a host. Observe how wisely it is ordered that Paul should not preach at Jerusalem: the very hearing that he is become a believer, this of itself is enough for them; for him to preach, they never would have endured, such was their hatred of him: so he departs far away, where he was not known. But659 it is well done, that “they entered the synagogue on the sabbath day” when all were collected together. “And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word or exhortation for the people, say on.” (v. 15.) Behold how they do this without grudging, but no longer after this. If ye did wish this (really), there was more need to exhort.

He first convicted the sorcerer (and showed), what he was; and that he was such, the sign showed: “thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun” this was a sign of the blindness of his soul: “for a season” (v. 11): he says, to bring him to repentance. But, oh that love of rule! oh, that lust of vainglory! how it does overturn and ruin everything; makes people stand up against their own, against each other’s salvation; renders them blind indeed, and dark, insomuch that they have even to seek for some to lead them by the hand! Oh that they did even this, oh that they did seek were it but some to lead them by the hand! But no, they no longer endure this, they take the whole matter into their own hands. (This vice) will let no man see: like a mist and thick darkness it spreads itself over them, not letting any see through it. What pleas shall we have to offer, we who for one evil affection, overcome another evil affection (supra p. 176), but not for the fear of God! For example, many who are both lewd and covetous, have for their niggardliness put a bridle upon their lust, while other such, on the contrary, have for pleasure’s sake, despised riches. Again, those who are both the one and the other, have by the lust of vainglory overcome both, lavishing their money unsparingly, and practising temperance to no (good) purpose; others again, who are exceedingly vainglorious, have despised that evil affection, submitting to many vile disgraces for the sake of their amours, or for the sake of their money: others again, that they may satiate their anger, have chosen to suffer losses without end, and care for none of them, provided only they may work their own will. And yet, what passion can do with us, the fear of God is impotent to effect! Why speak I of passion? What shame before men can do with us, the fear of God has not the strength to effect! Many are the things we do right and wrong, from a feeling of how great grace had been bestowed on him, and on his own part he brought corresponding zeal. When Mark withdrew, Paul was not angry with him, knowing that the like grace was not bestowed on him, therefore neither could there be the like σπουδὴ on his part.” 659 In mss. and Edd. this portion, to the end of the paragraph, is placed after the part relating to Elymas, “He first convicted,” etc. and immediately before the Morale, as if the occasion of the invective against φιλαρχία and κενοδοξία were furnished by the conduct of the rulers of the synagogue: but see above, p. 178, in the expos. of v. 8, πανταχοῦ ἡ κενοδοξία καὶ ἡ φιλαρχία αἴτιαι τῶν κακῶν, and below, the allusion to the blindness of Elymas. shame before men; but God we fear not. How many have been shamed by regard to the opinions of men into flinging away money! How many have mistakenly made it a point of honor to give themselves up to the service of their friends (only), to their hurt! How many from respect for their friendships have been shamed into numberless wrong acts! Since then both passion and regard for the opinion of men are able to put us upon doing wrong things and right, it is idle to say, “we cannot:” we can, if we have the mind: and we ought to have the mind. Why canst not thou overcome the love of glory, when others do overcome it, having the same soul as thou, and the same body; bearing the same form, and living the same life? Think of God, think of the glory that is from above: weigh against that the things present, and thou wilt quickly recoil from this worldly glory. If at all events thou covet glory, covet that which is glory, indeed. What kind of glory is it, when it begets infamy? What kind of glory, when it compels one to desire the honor of those who are inferior, and stands in need of that? Real honor is the gaining the esteem of those who are greater than one’s self. If at all events thou art enamoured of glory, be thou rather enamoured of that which comes from God. If enamoured of that glory thou despisest this world’s glory, thou shalt see how ignoble this is: but so long as thou seest not that glory, neither wilt thou be able to see this, how foul it is, how ridiculous. For as those who are under the spell of some wicked, hideously ugly woman, so long as they are in love with her, cannot see her ill-favoredness, because their passion spreads a darkness over their judgment: so is it here also: so long as we are possessed with the passion, we cannot perceive what a thing it is. How then might we be rid of it? Think of those who (for the sake of glory) have spent countless sums, and now are none the better for it:660 think of the dead, what glory they got, and (now) this glory is nowhere abiding, but all perished and come to naught: bethink thee how it is only a name, and has nothing real in it. For say, what is glory? give me some definition. “The being admired by all,” you will say. With justice, or also not with justice? For if it be not with justice, this is not admiration, but crimination (κατηγορία), and flattery, and misrepresentation (διαβολή). But if you say, With justice, why that is impossible: for in the populace there are no right judgments; those that minister to their lusts, those are the persons they admire. And if you would (see the proof of this), mark those who give away their substance to the harlots, to the charioteers, to the dancers. But you will say, we do not mean these, but those who are just and upright, and able to do great and noble good acts. Would that they wished it, and they soon would do good: but as things are, they do nothing of the kind. Who, I ask you, now praises the just and upright man? Nay, it is just the contrary. Could anything be 660 καὶ οὐδὲν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῆς καρπουμένους, i.e. reaping no fruit from it (the glory which they sought here) where they are now. Mod. text οὐδὲν ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν καρπωσαμένους: “reaped no fruit while here, from their money which they squandered”—mistaking the meaning of the passage, which is, “They got what they sought, but where is it now?” more preposterous than for a just man, when doing any such good act, to seek glory of the many—as if an artist of consummate skill, employed upon an Emperor’s portrait, should wish to have the praises of the ignorant! Moreover, a man who looks for honor from men, will soon enough desist from the acts which virtue enjoins. If he will needs be gaping for their praises, he will do just what they wish, not what himself wishes. What then would I advise you? You must look only to God, to the praise that is from Him, perform all things which are pleasing to Him, and go after the good things (that are with Him), not be gaping for anything that is of man: for this mars both fasting and prayer and alms-giving, and makes all our good deeds void. Which that it be not our case, let us flee this passion. To one thing alone let us look, to the praise which is from God, to the being accepted of Him, to the commendation from our common Master; that, having passed through our present life virtuously, we may obtain the promised blessings together with them that love Him, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XIII. 16, 17

“Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with his hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience. The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought He them out of it.”

Behold Barnabas giving place to Paul—how should it be otherwise?—to him whom he brought from Tarsus; just as we find John on all occasions giving way to Peter: and yet Barnabas was more looked up to than Paul: true, but they had an eye only to the common advantage. “Then Paul stood up,” it says;—this661 was a custom of the Jews—“and beckoned with his hand.” And see how he prepares the way beforehand for his discourse: having first praised them, and showed his great regard for them in the words, “ye that fear God,” he so begins his discourse. And he says not, Ye proselytes, since it was a term of disadvantage.662 “The God of this people chose our fathers: and the people”—See, he calls God Himself their God peculiarly, Who is the common God of men; and shows how great from the first were His benefits, just as Stephen does. This they do to teach them, that now also God has acted after the same custom, in sending His own Son; (Luke xx. 13): as (Christ) Himself (does) in the parable of the vineyard—“And the people,” he says, “He exalted when it sojourned in the land of Egypt”—and yet the contrary was the case:663 true, but they increased in numbers; moreover, the miracles were wrought on their account: “and with an high arm brought He them out of it.” Of these things (the wonders) which were done in Egypt, the prophets are continually making mention. And observe, how he passes over the times of their calamities, and nowhere brings forward their faults, but only God’s kindness, leaving 661 i.e. for one of the congregation to expound or preach: or perhaps rather, to preach standing, not sitting, as Christian bishops did for their sermons. We have transposed the comment to its proper place.—Mod. text adds, “Wherefore he too in accordance with this discourses to them.” 662 ὅπερ ἦν συμφορᾶς ὄνομα, in regard that a proselyte might be deemed inferior to a Jew of genuine descent, “a Hebrew of the Hebrews.” 663 καὶ μὴν τοὐναντίον γέγονεν. Here also we have transposed the comment to the clause to which it belongs. In the Edd. it comes after “And with a high arm,” etc. whence Ben. mistaking its reference says, “i.e., if I mistake not, God brought them out of Egypt, that he might bring them into the Land of Promise: but, for their wickedness, the contrary befell: for the greatest part of them perished in the wilderness.” It plainly refers to ὕψωσεν—i.e. how is it said, that He exalted them in Egypt, where, on the contrary, they were brought low? This is true—but He did exalt them by increasing them into a great multitude, and by the miracles which He wrought on their behalf. those for themselves to think over. “And about the time of forty years suffered He their manners in the wilderness.” (v. 18.) Then the settlement. “And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He divided their land to them by lot.” (v. 19.) And the time was long; four hundred and fifty years. “And after that He gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.”664 (v. 20.) Here he shows that God varied His dispensations towards them (at divers times). “And afterward they desired a king:” and (still) not a word of their ingratitude, but throughout he speaks of the kindness of God. “And God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.” (v. 21.) “And when he had removed him, He raised up unto them David to be their king: to whom also He gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after Mine own heart, which shall fulfil all My will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” (v. 22, 23.) This was no small thing that Christ should be from David. Then John bears witness to this: “When John had first preached before His coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not He. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of His feet I am not worthy to loose.” (v. 24, 25.) And John too not merely bears witness (to the fact), but (does it in such sort that) when men were bringing the glory to him, he declines it: for it is one thing (not to affect) an honor which nobody thinks of offering; and another, to reject it when all men are ready to give it, and not only to reject it, but to do so with such humility. “Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause of death in 664 Upon the reading of the T. R. (A.V.) the period of the Judges is here stated to have been 450 years. This agrees with the chronology of the book of Judges and of Josephus, but conflicts with 1 Kings vi. 1 where we are told that “in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, he began to build the house of the Lord.” This would give but 331 years for the period of the Judges. It is the view of many critics that Paul has here followed a different chronology from that of 1 Kings which was also in use among the Jews and was followed by Josephus (so Meyer.) But if the reading of Tischendorf, Lechler, and Westcott and Hort (R.V.) is adopted—and it is sustained by A. B. C. 􀀀—the difficulty, so far as Acts xiii. 21 is concerned, disappears. This reading places μετὰ ταῦτα after ὡς ἔτεσιν sq. and inserts a period after πεντήκοντα. Then the translation would be, “He gave them their land for an inheritance for about four hundred and fifty years. And after these things He gave them judges,” etc. On this reading the 450 years is the period of their inheritance, approximately stated, up to the time of the judges. The point from which Paul reckoned is not stated and is uncertain. This is the preferable reading and explanation.— G.B.S. Him, yet desired they Pilate that He should be slain.” (v. 26–28.) On all occasions we find them making a great point of showing this, that the blessing is peculiarly theirs, that they may not flee (from Christ), as thinking they had nothing to do with Him, because they had crucified Him. “Because they knew Him not,” he says: so that the sin was one of ignorance. See how he gently makes an apology even on behalf of those (crucifiers). And not only this: but he adds also, that thus it must needs be. And665 how so? “By condemning Him, they fulfilled the voices of the prophets.” Then again from the Scriptures. “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took Him down from the tree, and laid Him in a sepulchre. But God raised Him from the dead. And He was seen many days of them which came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses unto the people—”(v. 29–31) that He rose again. “And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee. And as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another Psalm, Thou shalt not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but He, Whom God raised again, saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (v. 32–39.) Observe666 how Paul here is more vehement in his discourse: we nowhere find Peter saying this. Then too he adds the terrifying words: “Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.” (v. 40, 41.)

Acts XIII. 42

“And as they were going out (text rec. ‘from the syn. of the Jews,’) they besought (the Gentiles) that these words might be spoken unto them on the following sabbath.”

Do you mark Paul’s wisdom? He not only gained admiration at the time, but put into them a longing desire for a second hearing, while in what he said he dropped some seeds (εἰπών τινα σπέρματα) as it were, and forbore to solve (the questions raised), or to follow out the subject to its conclusion, his plan being to interest them and engage their good-will to himself,680 and not make (people) listless and indifferent by casting all at once into the minds of those (who first heard him). He told them the fact, that “through this Man is remission of sins announced unto you,” but the how, he did not declare. “And when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and worshipping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas”—after this point he puts Paul first681—“who, speaking unto them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.” (v. 43.) Do you observe the eagerness, how great it is? They “followed” them, it says. Why did they not baptize them immediately? It was not the proper time: there was need to persuade them in order to their steadfast abiding therein. “And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” (v. 44.) “But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and contradicted the things spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.” (v. 45.) See malice wounded in wounding others: this made the Apostles more conspicuous—the contradiction which those offered. In the first instance then they of their own accord besought them to speak (and now they opposed them): “contradicting,” it says, “and blaspheming.” O recklessness! “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” (v. 46.) Do you mark how by their contentious behavior they the more extended the preaching, and (how the Apostles here) gave themselves the more to the Gentiles, having (by this very thing) pleaded their justification, and made 680 mss. and Edd. ἀπάρτισαι καὶ οἰκειῶσαι ἑαυτῷ. The Catena has preserved the true reading ἀναρτῆσαι. in the sense, to make them hang upon (him for further communications).—Below, τῷ πάντα ἀθρόον εἰς τὰς ἐκείνων ῥU+0026 178·ψαι ψυχάς, the ἐκείνων distinguishes the first hearers from the people generally: if he had spoken all at once to those, the consequence would have been χαυνοτέρους ἐργάσασθαι, not that “nearly the whole city” should assemble on the following sabbath. 681 Edd. from E .F. αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ instead of τοῦ Παυλοῦ. We have restored the comments to their proper clauses in the Scripture text. themselves clear of all blame with their own people (at Jerusalem)? (c) See682 how by their “envy” they bring about great things, other (than they looked for): they brought it about that the Apostles spake out boldly, and came to the Gentiles! For this is why he says, “And speaking out boldly, Paul and Barnabas said.” They were to go out to the Gentiles: but observe the boldness coming with measure:683 for if Peter pleaded in his justification, much more these needed a plea, none having called them there. (ch. xi. 4.) But by saying “To you first,” he showed that to those also it was their duty (to preach), and in saying “Necessary,” he showed that it was necessary to be preached to them also. “But since ye turn away from it”—he does not say, “Woe unto you,” and “Ye are punished,” but “We turn unto the Gentiles.” With great gentleness is the boldness fraught! (a) Also he does not say, “Ye are unworthy,” but “Have judged yourselves unworthy. Lo, we turn unto the Gentiles. For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have sent thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” (v. 47.) For that the Gentiles might not be hurt at hearing this, as684 if the case were so that, had the Jews been in earnest, they themselves would not have obtained the blessings, therefore he brings in the prophecy, saying, “A light of the Gentiles,” and, “for salvation unto the ends of the earth. And hearing” (this) “the Gentiles” (v. 48)—this, while it was more cheering to them, seeing the case was this, that whereas those were of right to hear first, they themselves enjoy the blessing, was at the same time more stinging to those—“and the Gentiles,” it says, “hearing” (this) “were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and believed, as many as were ordained unto eternal life”: i.e., set apart for God.685 Observe how he shows the speediness of the benefit: 682 The order of the exposition in the mss. and Edd. marked by the letters a, b, etc. is much confused, but not irremediably. The matter falls into suitable connection, when the parts are taken in the order c, a, d, b. 683 ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα τὴν παρρησίαν μετὰ μέτρου γινομένην. Α. μετὰ τὸ μέτρου. Mod. text μέτρῳ. If this be not corrupt, it may be explained by the clause at the end of c, πολλῆς ἐπιεικείας ἡ παρρ. γέμουσα, but then the connection with the following εἰ γὰρ Πέτρος κ. τ. λ. is obscure. Perhaps from A. we may restore μετὰ το Πέτρου: “the boldness coming to them after the affair of Peter.” 684 ὡς ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνων σπουδῆς μὴ (om. A. B. ) τυγχάνοντα τῶν ἀγαθῶν. 685 The expression: “As many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” has been both minimized and exaggerated. Chrys. points the way to its correct interpretation in saying: “set apart for God” and adding later: “not in regard of necessity.” The writer is by no means seeking to define a doctrine of the divine plan in its bearing upon human self-determination, but pointing out a historical sequence. Those who became believers were as truly so in God’s plan as they are so in fact. The passage says nothing of the relation of God’s ordainment to the believer’s choice. It is an example of the Pauline type of thought which grounds salvation upon the eternal purpose of God. Whoever are saved in fact, were saved in God’s purpose. If as matter of fact they are saved on condition of faith and not through the enforcement of a decretum absolutum, then it is certain that their salvation as foreseen in God’s purpose does not exclude their self-determination and personal acceptance.—G.B.S. “And the word of the Lord was borne through all the region,” (v. 49) διεφέρετο,686 instead of διεκομίζετο, “was carried or conveyed through (it).” (d) “But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.” (v. 50.) “The devout women,” (b)687 instead of the proselyte-women. They did not stop at “envy,” but added deeds also. (e) Do you see what they effected by their opposing the preaching? to what dishonor they brought these (“honorable women”)? “But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.” (v. 51.) Here now they used that terrible sign which Christ enjoined, “If any receive you not, shake off the dust from your feet” (Matt. x. 14; Mark vi. 11); but these did it upon no light ground, but because they were driven away by them. This was no hurt to the disciples; on the contrary, they the more continued in the word: “And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost” (v. 52) for the suffering of the teacher does not check his boldness, but makes the disciple more courageous.

“And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews.” (ch. xiv. 1.) Again they entered into the synagogues. See how far they were from becoming more timid! Having said, “We turn unto the Gentiles,” nevertheless688 (by going into the synagogues) they superabundantly fortify their own justification (with their Jewish brethren). “So that,” it says, “a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks believed.” For it is likely they discoursed as to Greeks also. “But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds evil affected against the brethren.” (v. 2.) Together (with themselves) now they took to stirring up the Gentiles too, as not being themselves sufficient. Then why did the Apostles not go forth thence? Why, they were not driven away, only attacked. “Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of His grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” (v. 3.) This caused 686 διεφέρετο, was published, E.V. διαφέρειν ἀγγελίας, “to bear tidings,” and διαφέρεται ὁ λόγος, “the saying is bruited,” are classical, but perhaps the expression was not familiar to Chrysostom’s hearers. 687 ᾽Αντὶ τοῦ, οὐκ ἔστησαν μεχρὶ τοῦ ζῆλου. As in the mss. this clause follows that at the end of a, ἀντὶ τοῦ, διεκομίζετο, the ἀντὶ τοῦ may be only an accidental repetition. At the end of this clause, the mss. have ὅρα πάλιν πῶς (om. A. C. Cat.) διωκόμενοι, and then, πῶς (C. Cat.) ἕτερα κατασκ. (beginning of c.) The former clause, as the conclusion of b, may be completed with “they extend the preaching,” or the like. But probably διωκόμενοι is due to the scribes, who seem to have understood by ζήλου here the zeal of the Apostles, not the envy of the Jews, v. 45. 688 ἐκ πολλῆς περιουσίας ὅμως ἀναιροῦσιν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀπολογίαν. The sense is evidently as above, but ἀναιρ. will hardly bear this meaning, and perhaps was substituted for some other word by the copyist, who took it to mean, “They leave the Jews no excuse.”—The connection is, It was not because they were less bold than when they said, “We turn unto the Gentiles,” that they still went to the Jews first: but ex abundanti they enabled themselves to say to their brethren at Jerusalem, We did not seek the Gentiles, until repulsed by the Jews. their boldness; or rather, of their boldness indeed their own hearty good-will was the cause—therefore it is that for a long while they work no signs—while the conversion of the hearers was (the effect) of the signs,689 though their boldness also contributed somewhat. “But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with the Jews, and part with the Apostles.” (v. 4.) No small matter this dividing. And this was what the Lord said, “I am not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt. x. 34.) “And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them, they were ware of it, and fled unto Lystra and Derbe, cities of Lycaonia, and unto the region that lieth round about: and there they preached the Gospel.” (v. 5–7.) Again, as if they purposely wished to extend the preaching after it was increased, they once more sent them out. See on all occasions the persecutions working great good, and defeating the persecutors, and making the persecuted illustrious. For having come to Lystra, he works a great miracle, by raising the lame man.690 “And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother’s womb, who never had walked: the same heard Paul speak: who steadfastly beholding him, and perceiving that he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice”—why with a loud voice? that the multitude should believe—“Stand upright on thy feet.” (v. 8, 9.) But observe, he gave heed, it says, to the things spoken by Paul.691 Do you mark the elevation of the man’s mind (φιλοσοφίαν)? He was nothing defeated (παρεβλάβη) by his lameness for earnestness of hearing. “Who fixing his eyes upon him, and perceiving,” it says, “that he had faith to be made whole.” He was already predisposed in purpose of mind.692 And yet in the case of the others, it was the reverse: for first receiving healing in their bodies, they were then taken in hand for cure of their souls, but this man not so. It seems to me, that Paul saw into his soul. “And he leaped,” it says, “and walked.” (v. 10.) It was a proof of his perfect cure, the leaping. “And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men. And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, 689 τῶν σημείων ἦν. A. has σημεῖον ἦν. In the preceding clause, C. μεχρὶ πολλοῦ σημεῖα ποιοῦσι, the rest οὐ ποιοῦσι. The antithesis τὴν μὲν (om. A.) παρρησίαν…τὸ δὲ πιστεῦσαι must be rendered as above: not as Ben. immo fiduciam addebat ipsorum alacritas.…Quod autem auditores crederent inter signa reputandum. 690 Here all the mss. have καὶ μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ (to which mod. text adds καὶ πῶς, ἄκουε.) then the text 8, 9, 10, followed by Διὰ τί, μεγ. τῇ φ. and so all the Edd. But in fact that clause is only the reporter’s abbreviation of the Scripture text, καὶ [ἐν Λύστροις.…to] μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ, followed by its comment. 691 Mod. text adds, τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τὸ ἤκουσεν.—Below παρεβλάβη is an expression taken from the footrace: this was a race in which his lameness was no hindrance. 692 ῎Ηδη ᾠκείωτο τὴν προαίρεσιν. Strangely rendered by Erasmus, Jam præelectione assumptus familiariter erat, and Ben. Jam præelectionem in familiaritatem assumserat. brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people.” (v. 11–13.) But this purpose was not yet manifest, for they spake in their own tongue, saying, “The gods in the likeness of men are come down to us:” therefore the Apostle said nothing to them as yet. But when they saw the garlands, then they went out, and rent their garments, “Which when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you.” (v. 14, 15.) See how on all occasions they are clean from the lust of glory, not only not coveting, but even repudiating it when offered: just as Peter also said, “Why gaze ye on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made him to walk” (ch. iii. 12)? so these also say the same. And Joseph also said of the dreams, “Is not their interpretation of God?” (Gen. lx. 8.) And Daniel in like manner, “And to me also, not through the wisdom that is in me was it revealed.” (Dan. ii. 30.) And Paul everywhere says this, as when he says, “And for these things who is sufficient? Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think (aught) as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God.” (2 Cor. ii. 16; iii. 5.) But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “And when they were gone out,” etc. (v. 42). Not merely were the multitudes drawn to them, but how? they besought to have the same words spoken to them again, and by their actions they showed their earnestness. “Now when the congregation,” etc. (v. 43.) See the Apostles on all occasions exhorting, not merely accepting men, nor courting them, but, “speaking unto them,” it says, “they persuaded them to continue in the grace of God. But when the Jews,” etc. (v. 45.) Why did they not contradict before this? Do you observe who on all occasions they were moved by passion? And they not only contradicted, but blasphemed also. For indeed malice stops at nothing. But see what boldness of speech! “It was necessary,” he says, “that the word should have been spoken first to you, but since ye put it from you,”—(v. 46) it693 is not put as affronting (though) it is in fact what they did in the case of the prophets: “Talk not to us,” said they, “with talk”—(Is. xxx. 10): “but since ye put it from you”—it, he saith, not us: for the affront on your part is not to us. For that none may take it as an expression of their piety (that he says,) “Ye judge not yourselves worthy,” therefore he first says, “Ye put it from you,” and then, “We turn unto the Gentiles.” The expression is full of gentleness. He does not say, We abandon you, but so that it is possible—he would say—that we may also turn hither again: and this too is not 693 οὐδὲν ὑβριστικόν, ὃ δὴ καὶ ἐπι τῶν προφ. ἐποίουν. The meaning appears from the context to be: he speaks throughout with much ἐπιεικεία. When he says ἀπωθεῖσθε, he does not upbraid them with this as ὕβρις, a personal outrage to himself and Barnabas, though in fact he might have done so, being just what their fathers did to the prophets: but he does not say, Ye repulse us, for the affront is not to us. And he says it to show that in what he is going to say, “Ye judge yourselves not worthy of eternal life,” he does not mean that they do this of humility. In short, he says it not by way of complaint, but to justify what he adds, “Lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” the consequence of the affront from you, “for so hath (the Lord) commanded us.”—(v. 47.) “Then why have ye not done this?”694 It was indeed needful that the Gentiles should hear, and this not before you: it is your own doing, the “before you.” “For so hath the Lord commanded us: I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation,” i.e. for knowledge which is unto salvation, and not merely of the Gentiles, but of all men, “unto the ends of the earth—As many as were ordained unto eternal life” (v. 48.): this is also a proof, that their having received these Gentiles was agreeable with the mind of God. But “ordained,” not in regard of necessity: “whom He foreknew,” saith the Apostle, “He did predestinate.” (Rom. viii. 29.) “And the word of the Lord,” etc. (v. 49.) No longer in the city (only) were (their doctrines) disseminated, but also in the (whole) region. For when they of the Gentiles had heard it, they also after a little while came over. “But the Jews stirred up the devout women, and raised persecution”—observe even of what is done by the women, they are the authors—“and cast them,” it says, “out of their coasts” (v. 50), not from the city merely. Then, what is more terrible, “they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. But the disciples, it says, were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.” (v. 51, 52.) The teachers were suffering persecution, and the disciples rejoiced.

“And so spake, that a great multitude,” etc. (ch. xiv. 1.) Do you mark the nature of the Gospel, the great virtue it has? “Made their minds evil-affected,” it says, “against the brethren:” (v. 2.) i.e. slandered the Apostles, raised numberless accusations against them: (these people, being simple,695 they “made evil-affected,” disposed them to act a malignant part. And see how on all occasions he refers all to God. “Long time,” he says, “abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of His grace.” (v. 3.) Think 694 Mod. text omits this clause, which we take as an interlocution: q. d. “If the Lord ordered you to go to the Gentiles, why did ye not do this in the first instance.” In the next sentence, A. C. καὶ τοῦτο οὐ παῤ ἡμῶν παῤ ὑμῶν δὲ γέγονε τὸ, πρὸ ὑμῶν (B., with accidental omission, καὶ τοῦτο πρὸ ὑμῶν. Οὕτω γὰρ), meaning, “And this is not our doing, but yours, the ‘before you:’ i.e. the Gentiles hearing the word before you. But Cat., καὶ τοῦτο οὐ πρὸ ὑμῶν, παῤ ὑμῶν δὲ κ. τ. λ. (attested by the mutilated reading in B.) which we have expressed in the translation.—The mod. text has πλὴν τοῦτο οὐ παῤ ἡμῶν, παῤ ὑμῶν δὲ γέγονε τὸ πρὸ ὑμῶν ὀφεῖλον: which Ben. takes to be corrupt, but leaves in the text, only adopting in the translation τὸ παῤ ἡμῶν ὀφεῖλον, which interpres legisse videtur. Downe ap. Sav. proposes τὸ πρὸ τούτων ὑμῖν ὀφειλόμενον vel ὁφεῖλον. Sed præstare videtur lectio quam propono, quamque secutus est vetus Interpres Latinus, Ben. forgetting that the Latin version is Erasmus’s (Veruntamen hoc non ex nobis facimus. A vobis autem factum est, quod a nobis oportebat, Erasm.) and was made from E. which has no such reading here. Ed. Par. Ben. 2. expresses the sense of E. thus, Quod nos oporteat ante vos gentes erudire,’ it is your doing that it is become our duty to teach the Gentiles before you. 695 ἀπλάστους ὄντας (i.e. the Gentiles who would otherwise have received the Apostles) κακούργως διέθηκαν, evidently the interpretation of ἐκάκωσαν: not evil-treated the Apostles, etc. not this (expression, “Gave testimony,”) hath aught derogatory696 (to the Lord’s Divine Majesty): “Who witnessed,” it is said, “before Pontius Pilate.” (1 Tim. vi. 13.) Then the boldness—“and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.” Here he speaks it as concerning their own nation. “And the multitude of the city,” etc. (v. 4, 5.) Accordingly they did not wait for it, but saw the intention of attacking them,697 and fled, on no occasion kindling their wrath,698 “to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra, and Derbe, and the adjacent region.” (v. 6.) They went away into the country, not into the cities only.—Observe both the simplicity of the Gentiles, and the malignity of the Jews. By their actions they showed that they were worthy to hear: they so honored them from the miracles only. The one sort honored them as gods, the other persecuted them as pestilent fellows: and (those) not only did not take offence at the preaching, but what say they? “The gods, in the likeness of men, are come down to us;” but the Jews were offended. “And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius.” (v. 11, 12.) I suppose Barnabas was a man of dignified appearance also. Here was a new sort of trial, from immoderate zeal, and no small one: but hence also is shown the virtue of the Apostles, (and) how on all occasions they ascribe all to God.

Let us imitate them: let us think nothing our own, seeing even faith itself is not our own, but more God’s (than ours).699 “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and this,” saith he, 696 Μὴ τοῦτο ἐλαττώσεως εἶναι νομίσῃς. The innovator (Edd.), mistaking the meaning, connects this and the following clauses thus: “For when they said, ὅτε γὰρ ἔλεγον, “Which witnessed,” saith it, “before Pontius P., then the (His?) boldness was shown, but here he speaks concerning the people:” what he meant is not easy to see, nor does it much matter. Below, ἐνταῦθα περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ φησιν, i.e. the παρρησία is in reference to their own nation (Israel): they spake boldly to the Gentiles, fearless of the reproaches of the Jews. 697 It seems clear from the fact that the apostles are said to have been aware (v. 6) of what the Jews had done against them, that the word ὁρμή (v. 5) can hardly mean an “assault” (A.V.) or even “onset” (R.V.) in the sense of any open violence. There would be no propriety in Luke adding that they became aware of an attack upon them. ῾Ορμή must have here the sense of appetitus animi—a strong movement of mind, an intention to attack them—“Trieb” “Drang.” (Meyer.) The word occurs in but one other passage (Jas. iii. 4) where the ὁρμή of the pilot is spoken of as directing the ship, evidently, meaning the “purpose” or “intention.” (So Trench, Gloag, Meyer, Lechler, Alford.)—G.B.S. 698 οὐδαμοῦ τὸν θυμὸν αὐτῶν ἐκκαίοντες (restored to its fitting-place after κατέφυγον), i.e. as on all occasions we find them forbearing to kindle the wrath of their enemies, so here, seeing the intended assault, they fled. Mod. text ἔνθα οὐδαμοῦ and ἐκκαίειν ἦν, “fled to Derbe,” etc. where (the enemies) had nowhere power to let their wrath blaze against them: so that they went away into the country-parts, etc. 699 So the order must be restored instead of, καὶ τοῦτό φησι διὰ πίστεως οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν· ἀλλὰ τὸ πλέον τοῦ Θεοῦ· Θεοῦ γὰρ φησι τὸ δῶρον. The mod. text, “And that it is not ours, but the more (part) God’s:” hear Paul saying, “And this not of ourselves, it is the gift of God:” omitting διὰ πίστεως, which is essential to the sense.—Perhaps we may read, καὶ τοῦτο, φησί, τὸ “διὰ π.” “not of ourselves; it is the gift of God.” (Eph. ii. 8.) Then let us not think great things of ourselves, nor be puffed up, being as we are, men, dust and ashes, smoke and shadow. For say, Why dost thou think great things of thyself? Hast thou given alms, and lavished thy substance? And what of that? Think, what if God had chosen not to make thee rich? think of them that are impoverished, or rather, think how many have given (not their substance only, but) their bodies moreover, and after their numberless sacrifices, have700 felt still that they were miserable creatures! Thou gavest for thyself, Christ (not for Himself, but) for thee: thou didst but pay a debt, Christ owed thee not.—See the uncertainty of the future, and “be not high-minded, but fear” (Rom. xi. 20); do not lessen thy virtue by boastfulness. Wouldest thou do something truly great? Never let a surmise of thy attainments as great enter thy mind. But thou art a virgin? So were those in (the Gospel) virgins, but they got no benefit from their virginity, because of their cruelty and inhumanity.701 (Matt. xxv. 12.) Nothing like humility: this is mother, and root, and nurse, and foundation, and bond of all good things: without this we are abominable, and execrable, and polluted. For say—let there be some man raising the dead, and healing the lame, and cleansing the lepers, but with702 proud self-complacency: than this there can be nothing more execrable, nothing more impious, nothing more detestable. Account nothing to be of thyself. Hast thou utterance and grace of teaching? Do not for this account thyself to have aught more than other men. For this cause especially thou oughtest to be humbled, because thou hast been vouchsafed more abundant gifts. For he to whom more was forgiven, will love more (Luke vii. 47): if so,703 then oughtest thou to be humbled also, for that God having passed by others, took notice of thee. Fear thou because of this: for often this is a cause of destruction to thee, if thou be not watchful. Why thinkest thou great things of thyself? Because thou teachest by words? But this is easy, to philosophize in words: teach me by thy life: that is the best teaching. Sayest thou that it is right to be moderate, and dost thou make a long speech about this thing, and play the orator, pouring forth thy eloquence without a check? But “better than thou is he” shall one say to thee, “who teaches me this by his deeds”—for not so much are those lessons wont to be fixed in the mind which consist in words, as those which teach by things: since if thou hast not the deed, thou not only hast not profited him by thy words, 700 ἑαυτοὺς ἐταλάνισαν, “not as thou, ἑαυτοὺς ἐμακάρισαν.” 701 διὰ τὴν ὠμότητα καὶ τὴν ἀπανθρωπίαν. A strong expression, but so in the Homily on the Parable of the Virgins, Matt. p. 751, Am. Ed. p. 470, he interprets that the oil is charity (alms-giving), and that even virgins, lacking this, “are cast out with the harlots:” καὶ τὸν ἀπάνθρωπον καὶ τὸν ἀνελεήμονα ἵστησι μετ᾽ αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν πόρνων). 702 μετὰ ἀπονοίας, so Hom. xxxi. p. 196, οὐκ ἀπενοήθησαν, “they did not bear themselves proudly.” 703 οὐκοῦν καὶ ταπεινοῦσθαι χρή. “if he to whom most is forgiven, loveth most, so ought he to whom more is given, to humble himself more.” but hast even hurt him the more—“better thou wert silent.” Wherefore? “Because the thing thou proposest to me is impossible: for I consider, that if thou who hast so much to say about it, succeedest not in this, much more am I excusable.” For this cause the Prophet says, “But unto the sinner said God. Why declarest thou My statutes?” (Ps. lx. 16.) For this is a worse mischief, when one who teaches well in words, impugns the teaching by his deeds. This has been the cause of many evils in the Churches. Wherefore pardon me, I beseech you, that my discourse dwells long on this evil affection (πάθει). Many take a deal of pains to be able to stand up in public, and make a long speech: and if they get applause from the multitude, it is to them as if they gained the very kingdom (of heaven): but if silence follows the close of their speech, it is worse than hell itself, the dejection that falls upon their spirits from the silence! This has turned the Churches upside down, because both you desire not to hear a discourse calculated to lead you to compunction, but one that may delight you from the sound and composition of the words, as though you were listening to singers and minstrels (κιθαρῳδὥν καὶ κιθαριστὣν, supra p. 68): and we too act a preposterous and pitiable part in being led by your lusts, when we ought to root them out. And704 so it is just as if the father of a poor cold-blooded child (already, more delicate than it ought to be), should, although it is so feeble, give it cake and cold (drink) and whatever only pleases the child, and take no account of what might do it good; and then, being reproved by the physicians, should excuse himself by saying, “What can I do? I cannot bear to see the child crying.” Thou poor, wretched creature, thou betrayer! for I cannot call such a one a father: how much better were it for thee, by paining him for a short time, to restore him to health forever, than to make this short-lived pleasure the foundation of a lasting sorrow? Just such is our case, when we idly busy ourselves about beautiful expressions, and the composition and harmony of our sentences, in order that we may please, not profit: (when) we make it our aim to be admired, not to instruct; to delight, not prick to the heart; to be applauded and depart with praise, not to correct men’s manners! Believe me, I speak not other than I feel—when as I discourse I hear myself applauded, at the moment indeed I feel it as a man (for why should I not own the truth?): I am delighted, and give way to the pleasurable feeling: but when I get home, and bethink me that those who applauded received no benefit from my discourse, but that whatever benefit they ought to have got, they lost it while applauding 704 καὶ ταὐτὸν γίνεται, οἷον ἂν εἰ τις πατὴρ ψυχροῦ (mod. text om.) καὶ πέρα τοῦ δέοντος μαλθακοῦ παιδίου κ. τ. λ. πλακοῦντα ἐπιδῷ καὶ ψυχρὸν καὶ ὅσα τέρπει μόνον κ. τ. λ. Erasmus translates loosely, videns puerum, quem supra modum tenere amat, ægrotum, illi frigida et quæcumque oblectant, porrigat. Ben., si pater nimis molli puero, etsi infirmanti, frigidam placentam et quæ solum oblectant porrigat. If the text be not corrupt, πέρα τοῦ δ. μαλθ. may mean, “brought up more tenderly than need be although ill,” and ψυχροῦ, “silly.” But the ψυχρὸν following may rather imply the physical sense as above expressed: the child is a poor creature, with no warmth or life in it, yet the father instead of warm and nourishing food, gives it cake and cold drink, etc. and praising, I am in pain, and groan, and weep, and feel as if I had spoken all in vain. I say to myself: “What profit comes to me from my labors, while the hearers do not choose to benefit by what they hear from us?” Nay, often have I thought to make a rule which should prevent all applauding, and persuade you to listen with silence and becoming orderliness. But bear with me, I beseech you, and be persuaded by me, and, if it seem good to you, let us even now establish this rule, that no hearer be permitted to applaud in the midst of any person’s discourse, but if he will needs admire, let him admire in silence: there is none to prevent him: and let all his study and eager desire be set upon the receiving the things spoken.—What means that noise again?705 I am laying down a rule against this very thing, and you have not the forbearance even to hear me!—Many will be the good effects of this regulation: it will be a discipline of philosophy. Even the heathen philosophers—we hear of their discoursing, and nowhere do we find that noisy applause accompanied their words: we hear of the Apostles, making public speeches, and yet nowhere do the accounts add, that in the midst of their speeches the hearers interrupted the speakers with loud expressions of approbation. A great gain will this be to us. But let us establish this rule: in quiet let us all hear, and speak the whole (of what we have to say). For if indeed it were the case that we departed retaining what we had heard, what I insist upon is, that even so the praise is not beneficial706—but not to go too much into particulars (on this point); let none tax me with rudeness —but since nothing is gained by it, nay, it is even mischievous, let us loose the hindrance, let us put a stop to the boundings, let us retrench the gambollings of the soul. Christ spoke publicly on the Mount: yet no one said aught, until He had finished His dis- course. I do not rob those who wish to be applauded: on the contrary, I make them to be more admired. It is far better that one’s hearer, having listened in silence, should by his memory throughout all time applaud, both at home and abroad, than that having lost all he should return home empty, not possessed of that which was the subject of his applauses. For how shall the hearer be otherwise than ridiculous? Nay, he will be deemed a flatterer, and his praises no better than irony, when he declares that the teacher spoke beautifully, but what he said, this he cannot tell. This has all the appearance of adulation. For when indeed one has been hearing minstrels and players, it is no wonder if such be the case with him, 705 Διὰ τί ἐκροτήσατε; even now while he was protesting against this evil custom, derived from the theatres, some of the hearers could not refrain from expressing their approbation by applause.—Comp. de Sacerdot. lib. v. init. Hom. xv. in Rom. fin, Hom, vii. in Laz. §I. xvii. in Matt. §7. 706 μάλιστα μὲν οὐδὲ οὕτω χρήσιμος ὁ ἔπαινος. i.e. as appears from the context, “to the preacher:” it does him no good, it is even a harm, both by hindering him (κώλυμα) and by elating his mind (σκιρτήματα καὶ πηδήματα τῆς ψυχῆς). In the intermediate clause, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἂν ἠκριβολογησάμην, μὴ μέ τις ἀγροικίας γραφέτω, the meaning implied seems to be—“as it would be easy to show, were it not ungracious to point out to you how little your praise is worth.” seeing he knows not how to utter the strain in the same manner: but where the matter is not an exhibition of song or of voice, but the drift and purport of thoughts and wise reflection (φιλοσοφίας), and it is easy for every one to tell and report what was said, how can he but deserve the accusation, who cannot tell what the matter was for which he praised the speaker? Nothing so becomes a Church as silence and good order. Noise belongs to theatres, and baths, and public processions, and market-places: but where doctrines, and such doctrines, are the subject of teaching, there should be stillness, and quiet, and calm reflection, and a haven of much repose (φιλοσοφία καὶ πολὺς ὁ λιμήν). These things I beseech and entreat: for I go about in quest of ways707 by which I shall be enabled to profit your souls. And no small way I take this to be: it will profit not you only, but us also. So shall we not be carried away with pride (ἐκτραχηλίζεσθαί), not be tempted to love praises and honor, not be led to speak those things which delight, but those which profit: so shall we lay the whole stress of our time and diligence not upon arts of composition and beauties of expression, but upon the matter and meaning of the thoughts. Go into a painter’s study, and you will observe how silent all is there. Then so ought it to be here: for here too we are employed in painting portraits, royal portraits (every one of them), none of any private man, by means708 of the colors of virtue—How now? Applauding again? This is a reform not easy, but (only) by reason of long habit, to be effected.—The pencil moreover is the tongue, and the Artist the Holy Spirit. Say, during the celebration of the Mysteries, is there any noise? any disturbance? when we are baptizing (βαπτιζώμεθα), when we are doing all the other acts? Is not all Nature decked (as it were) with stillness and silence?709 Over all the face of heaven is scattered this charm (of repose).—On this account are we evil spoken of even among the Gentiles, as though we did all for display and ostentation. But if this be prevented, the love of the chief seats also will be extinguished. It is sufficient, if any one be enamoured of praise, 707 Περίειμι γὰρ τούτους ζητῶν. Read τρόπους. Mod. text adds πάντας εἰδένα to the former sentence, and here ΙΙ. γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς τρόπους παντοίους ἐπιζητῶν. 708 διὰ τῶν χρωμάτων τῆς ἀρετἡς. Erasm. and Ben. ungrammatically, propter (ob) coloris virtutem; as meaning that such is the virtue or value of the colors, that they are fit to be employed only on imperial portraits. But the connection is plainly this: “the colors are the hues of virtue, the pencil is the tongue, the Artist the Holy Spirit.” In the next sentence the old text has: οὐκ εὔκολον τοῦτο ἀλλὰ τὸ μὴ πολλῇ συνηθεία κατορθωθῆναι, which is corrupt, unless indeed it may be construed, “but (it is) the not being, by reason of long habit, successfully achieved: i.e. it only shows that I have not, such is the force of long habit, succeeded in carrying my point.” The mod. text Οὐκ εὐκ. τὸ πρᾶγμα δοκεῖ, καὶ τοῦτο οὐ φύσει ἀλλὰ τῷ συνηθείU+0026 139· πολλῇ μήπω κατορθοῦν αὐτὸ μεμαθηκέναι. “It seems to be no easy matter, this: and this, not naturally, but by reason that from long habit you have not yet learnt to effect this reformation.” 709 οὐκ ἡσυχίU+0026 139· καὶ σιγῇ (mss. ἡσυχία καὶ σιγὴ) τὰ πάντα κεκόσμηται (mod. text κατέχει). We alter the punctuation, and understand by τὰ πάντα not “all the proceedings in Church,” but “all nature.” that he should obtain it after having been heard, when all is gathered in.710 Yea, I beseech you, let us establish this rule, that doing all things according to God’s will, we may be found worthy of the mercy which is from Him, through the grace and compassion of His only begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen. 710 ὅταν πάντα συλλέγῃ, when all (that he has spoken) is gathered in by diligent attention of the hearers. Mod. text ὅταν τοὺς κάρπους συλλέγῃ, “when he collects the fruits.”

Acts XIV. 14, 15

“Which when the Apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out and saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein.”

Mark the vehemence with which all this is done by the Apostles: “rent their clothes, ran in, cried out,” all from strong affection of the soul, revolted711 by the things that were done. For it was a grief, indeed a grief inconsolable, that they should needs be thought gods, and introduce idolatry, the very thing which they came to destroy! This also was a contrivance of the devil—but he did not prevail.712 But what say they? “We also are men of like passions with you.” At the very outset they overthrew the evil. They said not simply, “Men,” but “As ye.” Then, that they may not seem to honor the gods, hear what they add: “Preaching unto you, that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, Who made heaven, the sea, and all things that are therein.” Observe how they nowhere mention things invisible.713 (b) For714 they had learnt that one should study not so much to say somewhat worthy of 711 A. B. C. Cat. ἀποστρεφομένης Mod. text ἀποστρεφόμενοι, and adds καὶ πένθους σημεῖα ποιοῦντες, and so OEcumen. 712 A. B. C. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡσύχασαν. The true reading is preserved by Cat. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν. Mod. text ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡσυχάζουσιν. 713 All our mss. τῶν προφητῶν. From the recapitulation we restore τῶν ἀοράτων. The meaning may be, He abstains from the mention of things invisible, because he would recall them from their polytheism, therefore avoids whatever would seem to favor the notion of inferior gods. With the restoration ἀοράτων we obtain a suitable connection for the part b, both grammatically (in respect of the plur. ἔμαθον), and in respect of the sense: they spoke only of things visible, for they had learned not always to speak according to the dignity of the subject, but according to the needs of the hearers. In the next sentence (a) in A. B. C. τί οὖν; εἰ πάντων ἐστὶ δημιουργὸς, διὰ τί μὴ καὶ εἰς ταῦτα προνοεῖ; we may understand by εἰς ταῦτα “the nations of the world, or their doings:” but the sense perhaps would be improved by supplying εἷς after εἰ, and restoring εἷς for εἰς. Perhaps also ταῦτα is a corruption of πάντα. “If One be the Maker of all, why not One also direct all by His Providence:” i.e. if One Creator, why not One Providence? Why imagine a number of inferior Providences?—Mod. text “nowhere mentioning the Prophets, nor, saying for what reason, being Maker of all, He left the Gentiles independent, τὰ ἔθνη ἀφῆκεν αὐτόνομα.” 714 From this point to the end of the recapitulation the matter required to be rearranged. The letters show the sequence of the parts in the old text: in the mod. text a partial restoration of the order has been attempted. The “method” of the derangement explains itself thus—the true order being denoted by the figures 1, 2, 3, etc. God, as to say what is profitable for the hearers. (a) What then? if He be Maker of all things, why does He not also attend to these things by His Providence?—“Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” (v. 16)—but wherefore He suffered them, this he does not say, for at present he keeps to the matter of immediate importance, nowhere bringing in the name of Christ. Observe, he does not wish to swell the accusation against them, but715 rather that they themselves should refer all to God. “Nevertheless, He left not Himself without witness, in that He did good, giving you rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling your hearts with food and gladness.” (v. 17.) (c) See how covertly he puts the accusation “in that He did good,” etc. And yet if God did this, He could not have “let them alone;” on the contrary, they ought to be punished, for that, enjoying so great benefits, they had not acknowledged Him, not even as their feeder.716 “From heaven,” he says, “giving you rain.” Thus also David said, “From the fruit of their corn and wine and oil were they made to abound”

Acts XV. 1

“And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”

Mark734 how at every step of the right progress in respect of the Gentiles, the beginning is brought in as matter of necessity. Before this (Peter) being found fault with, justified himself, and said all that he said in the tone of apology, which was what made his words acceptable: then, the Jews having turned away, upon this (Paul) came to the Gentiles. Here again, seeing another extravagance coming in, upon this (the apostle) enacts the law. For as it is likely that they, as being taught of God, discoursed to all indifferently, this moved to jealousy them of the Jews (who had believed). And they did not merely speak of circumcision, but they said, Ye cannot even be saved. Whereas the very opposite to this was the case, that receiving circumcision they could not be saved. Do you mark how closely the trials succeed each other, from within, from without? It is well ordered too, that this happens when Paul is present, that he may answer them. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (v. 2.) And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? but he complied for their sakes. “And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.” (v. 3.) And observe, the consequence is that all the Samaritans also, learn what has come to the Gentiles: and they rejoiced. “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.” (v. 4.) See what a providence is here! “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, 734 ῞Ορα πανταχοῦ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἔθνη διορθώσεως (the putting things right, the introduction of the right and proper course: mod. text μεταβάσεως) ἀναγκαίαν τὴν ἀρχὴν εἰσαγομένην. Mod. text ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰσαγ. which Ben. renders, vide ubique transitum ad Gentes necessario a Judæis inductum. But the meaning is: “Throughout, it is so ordered by the Providence of God, that the Apostles do not seem to act spontaneously in this matter, but to be led by the force of circumstances.” The persons (Peter, Paul, James) are not specified, the sense being: First, upon fault being found, there is apologizing and self-justifying: then, upon the Jews’ open aversion, the preaching comes to the Gentiles: now, upon a new emergency, a law is enacted.—In the next sentence, B. C. διαφόρως: A. and mod. text ἀδιαφόρως, which we retain. Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that of old days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe.” (v. 5–7.) Observe Peter from the first standing aloof (κεχωρισμένον) from the affair, and even to this time judaizing. And yet (says he) “ye know.” (ch. x. 45; xi. 2.) Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him (on that occasion): for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. “From old days,” he says, “did choose among you.” What means, “Among you?” Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. “By my mouth.” Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. “And God, that knoweth the hearts, gave testimony unto them:” he refers them to the spiritual testimony: “by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us.” (v. 8.) Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. “And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith.” (v. 9.) From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewish believers) also to abandon the Law. However, at present this is not said. “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?” (v. 10.) What means, “Tempt ye God?” As if He had not power to save by faith. Consequently, it proceeds from a want of faith, this bringing in the Law. Then he shows that they themselves were nothing benefited by it, and he turns the whole (stress of his speech) against the Law, not against them, and (so) cuts short the accusation of them: “which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved, even as they.” (v. 11.) How full of power these words! The same that Paul says at large in the Epistle to the Romans, the same says Peter here. “For if Abraham,” says (Paul), “was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.” (Rom. iv. 2.) Do you perceive that all this is more a lesson for them than apology for the Gentiles? However, if he had spoken this without a plea for speaking, he735 would have been suspected: an occasion having offered, he lays hold of it, and speaks out fearlessly. See on all occasions how the designs of their foes are made to work with them. If those had not stirred the question, these things would not have been spoken, nor what follows.736

Acts XV. 13, 15

“And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Symeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets.”

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Deut. xvii. 6; Matt. xviii. 16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old.752 For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.753 (b) “Men and brethren,” he says, “hearken unto me.” Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under discussion. (a) “Symeon,” he says, “declared:” (namely,) in Luke, in that he prophesied, “Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all nations, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.”754 (c) “How God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name.” (Luke ii. 25.) Then, 752 All our mss. and the Cat. ἀπό τε νέων ἀπό τε παλαιῶν βεβαιουμένου τῶν προφητῶν τὸν λόγον, which must be rendered, “Confirming the word of the prophets:” so Ed. Par. Ben. 2, where the other Edd. have παλ. προφ. βεβ. κ. τ. λ., which is in fact what the sense requires: “from the prophets, new (as Symeon) and old.” 753 This was James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19), who, according to the uniform tradition of the early church, was the Bishop of Jerusalem. He evidently was the chief pastor, as he presides at this conference, and when Judaizing teachers afterwards went down to Antioch from Jerusalem they are spoken of as coming “from James” (Gal. ii. 12). From this it has been inferred that he was the leader of a Judaistic party, but this view is inconsistent with his address here and also with Paul’s testimony who says that the “pillar” apostles “imparted nothing” to him, that is, did not correct or supplement his teaching. He was no doubt of a conservative tendency respecting the questions in dispute and may not have been always self-consistent, as Peter certainly was not, but there can be no doubt of his substantial agreement with Paul. His doctrine of justification by works as well as by faith in his epistle is not against this view, since he uses both the words “faith” and “works” in a different sense from Paul, meaning by the former “belief” and by the latter the deeds which are the fruit of the Christian life, instead of meritorious obedience to the Mosaic law.—G.B.S. 754 Edd. ἐπιχωριάζειν, Cat. ἐγχρονίζειν, substituted for the less usual ἐγχωρίαζειν of A. B. C. Sav.—Below, Συμεὼν, φησὶν, ἐξηγήσατο ἐν τῷ Λουκᾷ προφητεύσας. Cat. “He who in Luke prophesied, Lord, now lettest since that (witness), though755 from the time indeed he was manifest, yet had not authority by reason of his not being ancient, therefore he produces ancient prophecy also, saying, “And to this agree the words of the Prophets, as it is written: After this I wilt return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up.” (v. 16.) What? was Jerusalem raised up? Was it not rather thrown down? What756 sort of raising up does he call that which took place after the return from Babylon? “That the residue of men,” he says, “may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called.” (v. 17.) Then, what makes his word authoritative—“Saith the Lord, which doeth all these things:” and, for that this is no new thing, but all was planned from the beginning, “Known unto God are all His works from everlasting.”757 (v. 18.) And then again his authority (καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα πάλιν) (as Bishop): “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” (v. 19–21.) Since758 then they had Thou Thy servant depart.”—It is remarkable that it does not occur to Chrys. that Symeon is Simon Peter, though 2 Pet. i. 1 has Συμέων Πέτρος in the Cod. Alexandr., and many other mss. In the Mod. text Chrys. is made to say: “Some say that this is he who is mentioned by Luke: others, that he is some other person of the same name. (Acts xiii. 1?) But whether it be the one or the other is a point about which there is no need to be particular; but only to receive as necessary the things which the person declared.” 755 ἀπὸ μὲν τοῦ χρόνου δῆλος ἦν, τὸ δὲ ἀξιόπιστον οὐκ εἶχε: the former clause seems to be corrupt. The sense in general is, He was manifestly (a prophet), but had not the same authority as the old prophets. Probably the form of opposition was this: ἐπειδὴ ἐκεῖνος ἀπο μὲν * * δῆλος ἦν, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ χρόνου τὸ ἀξιόπιστον οὐκ εἶχε διὰ τὸ μὴ παλαιὸς εἶναι. “Since Symeon, though from * * he was manifestly (a prophet), yet from time had not the like authority because he was not ancient.” 756 Mod. text, “But it is not of these things that he speaks. And what raising up, you will say, does he mean? That after Babylon.” We point it, ποίαν λέγει ἔγερσιν τὴν μετὰ Βαβυλῶνα; “Was it raised up? was it not rather razed to the ground (by the Romans)? True it was rebuilt after the return from Babylon, but what sort of raising up does he call that?” For the answer to these questions, not given here, see the Recapitulation (note 4, p. 207). 757 Most modern texts omit πάντα at the end of v. 17 and then join directly to it γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ ἀιῶνος only, dropping out the words of the T. R.: ἐστι τῷ θεῷ πάντα τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ. This reading yields the following translation: “the Gentiles upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the beginning of the world.” (So Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Westcott and Hort, Gloag. R.V.). This reading encounters the difficulty that the words γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽ αἰU+0026 242·νος are considered as a part of the quotation which, in reality, they are not. It is probable that this fact may have led to their expansion into an independent sentence.—G.B.S. 758 All our mss. ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἦσαν ἀκηκοότες τοῦ νόμου, which contradicts v. 21. We restore ἐπειδὴ οὖν. In B. C. v. 21, with the words ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἦσαν ἀκ. τοῦ νόμου is repeated after, “We have judged.” heard of the Law, with good reason he enjoins these things from the Law, that he may not seem to make it of no authority. And (yet) observe how he does not let them be told these things from the Law, but from himself, saying, It is not that I heard these things from the Law, but how? “We have judged.” Then the decree is made in common. “Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose men of their own company”— do you observe they do not merely enact these matters, and nothing more?—“and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner.” (v. 22.) And observe, the more to authenticate the decree, they send men of their own, that there may be no room for regarding Paul and his company with suspicion. “The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” (v. 23.) And mark759 with what forbearance of all harsh vituperation of those (brethren) they indite their epistle. “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law: to whom we gave no such commandment.” (v. 24.) Sufficient was this charge against the temerity of those men, and worthy of the Apostles’ moderation, that they said nothing beyond this. Then to show that they do not act despotically, that all are agreed in this, that with deliberation they write this—“It seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send men of ours whom we have chosen” (v. 25)—then, that it may not look like disparagement of Paul and Barnabas, that those men are sent, observe the encomium passed upon them—“together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas; who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”—it is not man’s doing, it says—“to lay upon you no greater burden”—again it calls the Law a burden: then apologizing even for these injunctions—“save these necessary things” (v. 26–28): "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. (v. 29.) For these things the New Testament did not enjoin: we nowhere find that Christ discoursed about these matters; but these things they take from the Law. “From things strangled,” it says, “and from blood.” Here it prohibits murder. (Comp. Gen. ix. 5.) “So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.” (v. 30, 31.) Then those (brethren) also exhorted them: and having established them, for towards Paul they were contentiously disposed, so departed from them in peace. “And 759 mss. and Edd. Καὶ ὅρα πῶς φορτικῶς ἐκείνους διαβάλλοντες ἐπιστέλλουσιν. The sense absolutely requires πῶς οὐ φορτ. It would be strange if Chrys. made τὸ φορτικὸν and τὸ διαβάλλειν matter of commendation: moreover in his very next remark he says just the contrary, and below, p. 209. Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles.” (v. 32, 33.) No more factions and fightings, but thenceforth Paul taught.760

(Recapitulation.) “Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up761 (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part. (a) But what means it, “How God first (πρὥτον) did visit?” (v. 14.) (It means) from the beginning (ἐξ ἀρχἥς).762 (c) Moreover he well says, “Symeon expounded” (ἐξηγήσατο) (or, interpreted), implying that he too spake the mind of others. “And to this agree,” etc. Observe how he shows that this is a doctrine of old time. “To take out of the Gentiles,” he says, “a people for His Name.” (v. 15.) Not simply, Chose, but, “for His Name,” that is for His glory. His Name is not shamed by the taking (προλήψει) the Gentiles first, but it is even a greater glory.—Here some even great thing is hinted at: that these are chosen before all.763 “After this I will return, 760 Παῦλος δὲ λοιπὸν ἐδίδασκεν. Perhaps this may belong to the Recapitulation, v. 12.—In the mod. text the matter is a good deal transposed, without any necessity, and the Recapitulation is made to begin after the sentence ending, “love of glory.”—This seems to be the proper place for the first of the sentences following the Recapitulation, p. 210, note 3, viz. “No more faction. On this occasion I suppose it was that they received the right hand, as he says himself, ‘They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.’ On this (same) occasion he says, ‘They added nothing to me.’ For they confirmed his view: they praised and admired it.” 761 ἐπιπηδᾳ N. Cat. (ἐπηπιδᾷ sic A. B. C ) mod. text ἀποπηδᾶ, “recoils” from hearing Paul. 762 The scribes did not perceive that ἐξ ἀρχῆς is the answer to the question, Τί ἐστιν, καθὼς πρῶτον κ. τ. λ.therefore transposed this sentence and gave ἐξ ἀρχῆς to the sentence (a) (Cat. omits them.) Mod. text, the question being thus left unanswered, substitutes “Symeon hath declared”—καθὼς πρ. κ. τ. λ. ᾽Εξ ἀρχῆς σφοδρότερον μέν. 763 ὅτι πρὸ πάντων οὗτοι. Here also, and in τῇ προλήψει τῶν ἐθνῶν, there seems to be a reference to πρῶτον, as if the meaning were, God “looked upon the Gentiles first to take from them,” before the Jews, etc.—After the text, the questions left unanswered above (see note 2, p. 206) might be advantageously introduced. “How could that restoration (after Babylon) be called an ἔγερσις, especially as the city was eventually razed to the ground by the Romans? True: but the kingdom of David is in fact more gloriously raised up, in the reign of David’s offspring throughout the world. As for the buildings and city, what loss is that? Nay, David himself is more glorious now than he was before, sung as he is in all parts of the world. If then this which the Prophet foretold is come to pass—this is put as St. James’s arguments—namely that the city was raised from its ruins (and the and rebuild the tabernacle of David which is fallen down.” (v. 16.) But if one would look into the matter closely, the kingdom of David does in fact now stand, his Offspring reigning everywhere. For what is the good of the buildings and the city, with none obeying there? And what is the harm arising from the destruction of the city, when all are willing to give their very souls? There is that come which is more illustrious than David: in all parts of the world is he now sung. This has come to pass: if so, then must this also come to pass, “And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:” to what end? “that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called.” (v. 17.) If then it was to this end that the city rose again (namely) because of Him (that was to come) of them, it shows that of the building of the city the cause is, the calling of the Gentiles. Who are “the residue?” those who are then left.764 “And all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called:” but observe, how he keeps the due order, and brings them in second. “Saith the Lord, which doeth these things.” Not “saith” (only), but “doeth.” Why then, it was God’s work.—“But the question is other than this (namely), what Peter spoke more plainly, whether they must be circumcised. Then why dost thou harangue about these matters?” For what the objectors asserted, was not that they must not be received upon believing, but that it must be with the Law. And upon this Peter well pleaded: but then, as this very thing above all others troubled the hearers, therefore he sets this to rights again (θεραπεύει). And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law, this Peter introduced: but the milder part,765 the truth which was received of old, this James saith, and dwells upon that concerning which nothing is766 written, in order that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may opportunely introduce this likewise. “Wherefore,” saith he, “my sentence is, not to trouble them which from among the Gentiles do turn unto God” (v. 19), that is, not to subvert: for, if God called them, and these observances subvert, we fight against God. And767 again, “them which from the subsequent overthrow, when the end of that restoration was attained, does not invalidate the fulfilment), then must the διά τι of this restoration also come to pass, namely, that the residue shall seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom that Name is called. The city, was raised up for the sake of Christ, to come of them, and to reign over all nations. Consequently, the Prophet shows that the αἴτιον (i.e. the διά τι, or final clause) of the building of the city is—the calling of the Gentiles, τὸ τὰ ἔθνη κληθῆναι.” 764 οἱ ὑπολειπόμενοι τότε, the Jews whom that (the Babylonian) judgment leaves. 765 mss. and Edd. τὸ δὲ ἡμέτερον. We must read τὸ δὲ ἡμερώτερον, as above: in the preceding clause something is wanted for antithesis, probably καὶ ὅρα, τὸ μὲν φορτικώτερον, ὅπερ κ. τ. λ. 766 ὑπὲρ οὗ οὐδὲν γέγραπται. This also requires emendation. The sense demands, “About which there is no dispute.” The γέγραπται may have come in from the text referred to: “to wit, Καθὼς γέγραπται,” etc. 767 The report seems to be defective here; and in fact N. (Sav. marg.) inserts after the text, “showing both God’s care towards them and mercy, and their ready mind and piety in obeying: and he says well,” etc. But this addition is unknown to A. B. C. Cat., and N. frequently adds to or otherwise alters the original text, where the Gentiles,” he saith, “do turn.” And he says well, with authority, the “my sentence is. But that we write unto them that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication”—(b) and yet they often insisted upon these points in discoursing to them768—but, that he may seem also to honor the Law (he mentions), these also, speaking (however) not as from Moses but from the Apostles, and to make the commandments many, he has divided the one into two (saying), “and from things strangled, and from blood.” (v. 20.) For these, although relating to the body, were necessary to be observed, because (these things) caused great evils, “For Moses hath of old times in every city,” etc. (v. 21.) This above all quieted them. (ἀνέπαυσεν) (a) For this cause I affirm that it is good (so “to write to them.”) Then why do we not write the same injunctions to Jews also? Moses discourses unto them. See what condescension (to their weakness)! Where it did no harm, he set him up as teacher, and indulged them with a gratification which hindered nothing, by permitting Jews to hear him sense or connection is obscure.—Perhaps however these two sentences may be better transposed to follow the part (b), so that the connection would be, “And again, observe he has been speaking concerning the Gentile converts, not openly of the Jewish believers, and yet in fact what he says is no less for them.”—Mod. text with partial transposition, “And he well says, To them, etc. declaring both the purpose of God from the beginning with respect to them, and their obedience and readiness for the calling. What means it? I judge? Instead of, With authority I say that this is so. ‘But that we write to them,’ he says, ‘to abstain from’ etc. For these, though bodily, etc. (as below.) And that none may object, why then do we not enjoin the same thing to the Jews? He adds, ‘For Moses,’ etc.: i.e. Moses discourses to them continually: for this is the meaning of, ‘Being read every Sabbath day.’ See what condescension!” 768 καίτοι γε πολλάκις αὐτοῖς ὐπὲρ (not περὶ as Ben. renders, de his) διελεχθῆσαν mod. text διελέχθη, referred perhaps to Moses or the Law, as in the trajection this sentence follows the last of (a). The clause seems to refer to “pollutions of idols and fornication.” q. d. “Why mention these in the decree? The Apostles, especially Paul, often discoursed to them on behalf of these points of Christian duty, i.e. the abstaining from all approach to idolatry, as in the matter of εἰδωλόθυτα, and from fornication.” The answer is: “He mentions them, for the purpose of seeming to maintain the Law, (though at the same time he does not rest them on the authority of the Law, but on that of the Apostles: still the Jewish believers would be gratified by this apparent acknowledgment of the Law), and (with the same view) to make a greater number of ἐντολαὶ, for which reason also he divides the one legal prohibition of blood into the two, ἀπὸ τῶν πνικτῶν καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος. The latter, he says, though σωματικαὶ, are necessary to be observed because the non-observance of this law on which the Jews laid so much stress led to great evils—especially made it impossible for Jewish and Gentile believers to eat at the same table. For in every city Moses is preached to Jews and proselytes. Therefore I say it is good that we charge them by letter to abstain from these things.” Then, giving a different turn to the reason, “for Moses of old times,” etc. he adds. “this is for them which from the Gentiles,” etc., as for the Jewish believers, they have Moses to teach them. Thus again seeming to uphold Moses, while in fact he shows, what they might learn from Moses himself, that the Law is come to an end for the Jews also. in regard of these matters, even while leading away from him them of the Gentiles. See what wisdom! He seems to honor him, and to set him up as the authority for his own people, and by this very thing he leads away the Gentiles from him!769 “Being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.” Then why do they not learn (what is to be learnt) out of him, for instance ?770 Through the perversity of these men. He shows that even these (the Jews) need observe no more (than these necessary things). And if we do not write to them, it is not that they are bound to observe anything more, but only that they have one to tell them. And he does not say, Not to offend, nor to turn them back,771 which is what Paul said to the Galatians, but, “not to trouble them:” he shows that the point (κατόρθωμα) if carried is nothing but a mere troubling. Thus he made an end of the whole matter;772 and while he seems to preserve the Law by adopting these rules from it, he unbinds it by taking only these. (c)773 There was a design of Providence in the disputation also, that after the disputation the doctrine might be more firm. “Then pleased it the Apostles to send chosen men of their own company,” etc., no ordinary persons, but the “leading men; having written” (letters) “by them after this manner. To those in Antioch,” it says, “and Syria and Cilicia.” (v. 22, 23) where the disease had its birth. Observe how they say nothing harsher (φορτικώτερον) against those men, but look to one thing only, namely, to undo (the mischief) which has been done. For this would make even the movers of the faction there to confess (that they were wrong). They 769 The prohibitions imposed by the council upon the Gentiles were chiefly concessions to Jewish prejudice and opinion. Abstinence from meat which had been offered in idols’ temples and from things strangled and from blood was forbidden in the Mosaic law (Ex. xxxiv. 15; Lev. xvii. 10–14). Failure to abstain from these would expose the Gentile converts needlessly to the suspicions of the Jewish Christians. The prohibition of fornication must rest upon another ground. It is a warning against the custom among Gentiles, which had become so prevalent as to provoke little rebuke or comment. The ground assigned for requiring these abstinences is that Moses is read every Sabbath in the synagogues of the Jews and therefore these very points are kept prominently before the people and therefore unless these indulgences were abandoned, the synagogue preaching would constantly stimulate in the Jews and Judeo-Christians a dislike of the Gentile believers. There is less ground for the view of Chrys. that v. 21. means that the Jewish Christians have no need of instruction on these points because they hear the law read every Sabbath, an explanation, however, which is adopted by such modern scholars as Wordsworth and Neander.—G.B.S. 770 A. B. ἀπήγ. τὰ ἔθνη ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Διὰ τί οὖν μὴ παῤ αὐτοῦ μανθ.; C. ἀπήγ. τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντα, οἷον τὰ ἔθνη. Διὰ τί κ. τ. λ. Cat. ἀπήγ. τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ μανθ. Hence we read, ἀπήγαγε τὰ ἔθνη. Διὰ τί οὖν μὴ τὰ ἐξ αὐτοῦ μανθάνουσιν, οἷον (τὰ ἔθνη?) * * *; 771 καταστρέφειν, mss. Perhaps, μεταστρέψαι from Gal. i. 7. 772 ἐξέλυσε τὸ πᾶν, “untied the whole knot,” or perhaps “took out of the Law all its strength,” as below λύει. 773 Perhaps the sentence, τοῦτο μάλιστα αὐτοὺς ἀνέπαυσεν, retained above as the end of (b), may belong here, in the sense, “This was conclusive; this made the Judaizers desist, if anything could.” do not say, The seducers, the pestilent fellows, or suchlike: though where need is, Paul does this, as when he says, “O full of all guile” (ch. xiii. 10): but here, the point being carried, there was no need. And observe, they do not put it, That certain from us ordered you to keep the Law, but, “Troubled you with words, subverting your souls,”—nothing could be more proper (κυριώτερον) than that word: none (of the other speakers) has so spoken of the things done by those men. “The souls,” he says, already strongly established, these persons are ἀνασχευάζοντες as in speaking of a building, “taking them down again:” displacing them (μετατιθέντες) from the foundation).774 “To whom,” he says, “we gave no such commandment. It seemed good therefore to us being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (v. 25, 26.) If “beloved,” they will not despise them, if they “have hazarded their lives,” they have themselves a right to be believed. “We have sent,” it saith, “Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by word of mouth.” (v. 27.) For it was necessary that there should be not merely the Epistle there by itself, lest they should say that Paul and Barnabas had suppressed775 (the real purport), that they said one thing instead of another. The encomium passed upon Paul stopped their mouths. For this is the reason why neither Paul comes alone nor Barnabas (with him), but others also from the Church; that he may not be suspected, seeing it was he that advocated that doctrine: nor yet those from Jerusalem alone. It shows that they have a right to be believed. “For it seemed good,” say they, “to the Holy Ghost and to us” (v. 28): not making themselves equal (to Him776)—they are not so mad. But why does it put this (so)? Why did 774 καθάπερ ἐπὶ οἰκοδομῆς τὰ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων γεγενημένα μετατιθέντες. Mod. text from E. τιθέντες, “putting, as in respect of a building, the things done by those (Judaizers).” We have transposed τὰ ὑπ᾽ ἐκ γεγ. to its proper place. He interprets ἀνασκ. with reference to Gal. i. 6. μετατίθεσθε. 775 συνήρπασαν Ben. ipsos extorsisse: but the word is used in the Greek of Chrysostom’s time, in the sense “conceal,” for which Schneider s. v. refers to Valesius on Harpocrat. p. 145. Gronov. in which sense we have rendered it above. Or perhaps, “had wrested it” to make it speak in their favor. Τὸ ζητούμενον συναρπάζειν is a logical phrase, used of one who commits a petitio principii. St. Chrys. however can hardly be correctly reported here: for the letter itself would show, if it were believed to be genuine, that Paul and Barnabas neither συνήρπασαν nor ἄλλα ἀντ᾽ ἄλλων εἰπαν. He may rather be supposed to have said in substance as follows: “Had Paul and Barnabas returned alone as the bearers of an oral communication, it might be suspected that they gave their own account of the matter: had they come alone, bearing the Epistle, its genuineness might have been called in question: but by sending the Epistle by the hands of men of their own and of high consideration, they left no room for doubt as to the fact of their decision. On the other hand, to have sent these men alone, would have looked like putting a slight upon Barnabas and Paul: but by sending the messengers with them, they showed ὅτι ἀξιόπιστοι εἰσιν, and by the eulogy expressed in the Epistle itself they stopped the mouths of the gainsayers.” 776 The innovator completely mistakes the meaning of this clause: not having the text to guide him, he supposes it to refer to Silas and Judas, and alters thus: “It shows how worthy of credit they are: not making themselves they add, “And to us,” and yet it had sufficed to say, “To the Holy Ghost?” The one, “To the Holy Ghost,” that they may not deem it to be of man; the other, “To us,” that they may be taught that they also themselves admit (the Gentiles), although themselves being in circumcision. They have to speak to men who are still weak and afraid of them: this is the reason why this also is added. And it shows that it is not by way of condescension that they speak, neither because they spared them, nor as considering them weak, but the contrary; for great was the reverence of the teachers also.777 “To lay upon you no greater burden”—they778 are ever calling it a burden—and again, “save these necessary things:” for that was a superfluous burden. See here a brief Epistle, with nothing more in it (than was needed), neither arts of persuasion (κατασκευὰς) nor reasonings, but simply a command: for it was the Spirit’s legislating. “So when they were dismissed they came to Antioch, and having gathered the multitude together, they delivered to them the epistle.” (v. 30.) After the epistle, then (Judas and Silas) also themselves exhort them by word (v. 31): for this also was needful, that (Paul and Barnabas) might be quit of all suspicion. “Being prophets also themselves,” it says, exhorted the brethren “with many words.” It shows here the right that Paul and Barnabas have to be believed. For Paul also might have done this, but it behooved to be done by these.779 “And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace. (v. 33.)

No780 more faction. On this occasion, I suppose, it was that they received the right hand, as he says himself, “They gave to me and Barnabas right hands of fellowship.” (Gal. ii. 9.) equal, ‘it says: they are not so mad. In fact, this is why it adds that expression, Which have hazarded their lives, etc. And why does it say, “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” and yet it had sufficed.” etc.—Below, he has “‘To lay upon you no greater burden.’ This they say, because they have to speak,” etc. But all this belongs to ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν q.d. “You need not fear us, neither is it of condescension that we speak, or to spare you as being weak—quite the contrary—it seems good to the Holy Ghost “and to us.” 777 πολλὴ γὰρ καὶ τῶν διδασκάλων αἰδὼς ἦν. It is not clear whether this means, Great was the reverence shown by the teachers also towards them—as in St. Peter’s ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνοι—and therefore they did not treat them as “weak;” or, great was their reverence towards their teachers, so that had they laid upon them a greater burden, they would have borne it. 778 mss. and Edd. have this clause, ἄνω κάτω βάρος καλοῦσι after Πνεύματος γάρ ἦν νομοθεσία, and give the καὶ πάλιν to συναγαγόντες. After the clause “For that was a superfluous burden” seems to be the proper place for these sentences from below, see note 3, infra. “It shows that the rest are not necessary but superfluous, seeing these things are necessary. “From which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well.” It shows that nothing is lacking to them, but this is sufficient.” 779 Here insert from below: “For it might have been done also without letters—they did this.” 780 What follows consists of notes which the redactor did not bring to their proper places. “No more faction— admired it,” see note 1, p. 207. “It shows—the Spirit,” may belong either to the comment on κρίνω ἐγὼ, or to that on “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.”—“It shows that the rest—sufficient,” see note 1. These parts being removed, the remainder forms the continuation of the sentence, “it behooved to be done by There he says, “They added nothing to me.”781 (ib. 6.) For they confirmed his view: they praised and admired it.—It shows that even from human reasonings it is possible to see this, not to say from the Holy Ghost only, that they sinned a sin not easy to be corrected. For such things need not the Spirit.—It shows that the rest are not necessary, but superfluous, seeing these things are necessary. “From which if ye keep yourselves,” it saith, “ye shall do well.” It shows that nothing is lacking to them, but this is sufficient. For it might have been done also without letters, but that there may be a law in writing (they send this Epistle): again, that they may obey the law (the Apostles), also told those men (the same things), and they did this, “and confirmed them, and having tarried a space were let go in peace.”

Let us not then be offended on account of the heretics. For look, here at the very outset of the preaching, how many offences there were: I speak not of those which arose from them that were without; for these were nothing: but of the offences which were within. For instance, first Ananias, then the “murmuring,” then Simon the sorcerer; afterwards they that accused Peter on account of Cornelius, next the famine,782 lastly this very thing, the chief of the evils. For indeed it is impossible when any good thing has taken place, that some evil should not also subsist along with it. Let us not then be disturbed, if certain are offended, but let us thank God even for this, because it makes us more approved. For not tribulations only, but even temptations also render us more illustrious. A man is no such great lover of the truth, only for holding to it when there is none to lead him astray from it: to hold fast to the truth when many are drawing him away, this makes the proved man. What then? Is this why offences come? I am not speaking as if God were the author of them: God forbid! but I mean, that even out of their wickedness He works good to us: it was never His wish that they should arise: “Grant to them,” He saith, “that they may be one” (John xvii. 21): but since offences do come, they are no hurt, to these, but even a benefit: just as the persecutors unwillingly benefit the Martyrs by dragging them to martyrdom, and yet they are not driven to this by God; just so is it here. Let us not look (only at this), that men are offended: this very thing is itself a proof of the excellence of the doctrine—that many stimulate and counterfeit it: for it would not be so, if it were not good. And this I will now show, and make on all hands plain to you. Of perfumes, the fragrant spices are they which people adulterate and counterfeit; as, for instance, the amomum leaf. For because these are rare and of necessary these,” note 2. The concluding words καὶ μετ᾽εἰρήνης are the reporter’s abridgment of the text “καὶ [ἐπεστήριξαν, ποιήσαντες δὲ χρόνον ἀπελυθησαν] μετ᾽ εἰρήνης. 781 The author here assumes the identity of the two visits of Paul to Jerusalem contained in Acts xv. and Gal i. and ii. This has always been the prevailing view. For a full discussion of this and other views, see Gloat, Com. on the Acts ii. 80–84.—G.B.S. 782 The famine is mentioned among the offences within, perhaps because it may have led some to question the Providence of God: see above, p. 159. use, therefore there come to be spurious imitations likewise. Nobody would care to counterfeit any common article. The pure life gets many a false pretender to it: no man would care to counterfeit the man of vicious life; no, but the man of monastic life.—What then shall we say to the heathen? There comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts, ‘I speak the truth.’” (b) No783 doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. (a) “But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for themselves. What then (c)if the other come, and say that the Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own way)?” And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no judgment? “And how should I be able (to decide),” says he, “I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher.” If he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge. Let us ask whether he has decided (κατέγνωκε) against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact784 he will assuredly affirm, for of course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will say, “Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the uncreated God.” Good. If then he find this in the other parties (αἰρέσεις), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this truth), and who not. Now we, affirming Him to be God speak of Him things worthy of God, that He hath power, that He is not a slave, that He is free, that He doeth of Himself: whereas the other says the reverse. Again I ask: if you would learn (to be) a physician,785 * * *? And yet among them are many (different) doctrines. For if you accept 783 mss. and Edd. transpose the parts marked a and b. The old text, however, by retaining τί οὖν at the end of a, as well as at the beginning of c, enables us to restore the order, so that then the clause μηδὲν ὅλως εἰδὼς ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς, no longer disturbs the sense. 784 Edd. πάντως τι ἐρεῖ. A. B. C. πάντως ὅτι ἐρεῖ. “In any wise he will affirm the ὅτι, therefore let us ask the αἰτίας δἰ ἅς.” 785 εἰ ἰατρὸς μέλλοις μανθάνειν. Mod. text adds, “Say, Do you accept out of hand and as it chances, whatever you are told?” The connection is: “Apply your mind to what you hear, whether from us or from them, and see whether of us is consistent. Just as you would if you wished to learn medicine: there also you would find conflicting opinions and you would exercise your judgment upon them, not accept all without examination. Do so here; and in the instance which has been taken, you will see that we, affirming the Son to be God, carry out our affirm- without more ado just what you are told, this is not acting like a man: but if you have judgment and sense, you shall assuredly know what is good. We affirm the Son to be God, we verify (ἐπαληθεύομεν) what we affirm: but they affirm indeed, but (in fact) confess not.—But786 to mention (something) even plainer: those have certain persons from whom they are called, openly showing the name of the heresiarch himself, and each heresy in like manner: with us, no man has given us a name, but the faith itself. However, this (talk of yours) is mere pretence and subterfuge. For answer me: how is it that if you would buy a cloak, though ignorant of the art of weaving, you do not speak such words as these—“I do not know how to buy; they cheat me”—but do all you can to learn, and so whatever else it be that you would buy: but here you speak these words? For at this rate, you will accept nothing at all. For let there be one that has no (religious) doctrine whatever: if he should say what you say about the Christians—“There is such a multitude of men, and they have different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian: no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a judge”787—but if you have yielded (so far as) to pronounce against (καταγινώσκειν) one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you. For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. For he that has not pronounced against any doctrine at all, may easily say this: but he that has pronounced against any, though he have chosen none, by going on in the same way, will be able to see what he ought to do. Then let us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy. For, to show you that all this is mere excuse, answer me this: Do you know what you ought to do, and what to leave undone? Then why do you not what you ought? Do that, and by right reason seek of God, and He will assuredly reveal it to thee. “God,” it saith, “is no respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him.” (ch. x. 34, 35.) It cannot be that he who hears without prejudice should not be persuaded. For just as, if there were a rule, by which everything behooved to be put straight, it would not need much consideration, but it would be easy to detect the person who measures falsely (τὸν παραμετροὕντα λαβἕιν), so is it here. ation consistently; whereas they (the Arians) say indeed that He is God but in fact deny Him the essential properties of Deity.”—Edd. and all our mss. ΥἱU+0026 232·ν λέγομεν ἡμεῖς ἐπαληθεύομεν κ. τ. λ. We must read either Θεὸν or ΥἱU+0026 232·ν Θεὸν. 786 Connection: I have mentioned one simple criterion: here is another palpable and visible mark. Heretics take their names from men, the founders of their sects, τοῦ αιρεσιάρχου δηλοῦντος A. B. καλοῦντος C., τὸ ὅνομα Sav. marg. δηλοῦντες, which we adopt. But indeed the reasons you allege are mere pretence, etc. 787 The sentence is left unfinished: “it would be no wonder,” “this would be at least consistent,” or the like: then εἴ δὲ εἴξω B. C. ἤξω(sic) A., ἥξω D. Mod. text οὐδὲ ἕξω: all corrupt. The sense seems to require, “If you have thought fit,” or “gone so far as.” “Then how is it they do not see it at a glance?” Many things are the cause of this: both preconceived opinion, and human causes (αἰτίαι). The others, say you, say the same thing about us. How? For are we separated from the Church? have we our heresiarchs? Are we called after men—as one of them has Marcion,788 another Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)? Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that presided over us, and governed the Church. We have no “masters upon the earth”—God forbid—we have “One Master that is in heaven.” (Matt. xxiii. 9, 10.) “And those also,” says he, “say the same.” But there stands the name set over them, accusing them, and stopping their mouths.—How789 is it, there have been many heathen, and none of them asked these questions: and among the philosophers there were these (differences), and yet none of those holding the right party (αἵρεσιν) was hindered (thereby)?—Why did not (those believers) say, when (the others) raised these questions, “Both these and those are Jews: which must we believe?” But they believed as they ought. Then let us also obey the laws of God, and do all things according to His good pleasure,790 that having virtuously passed this life present, we may be enabled to attain unto the good things promised to them that love Him, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together, be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XV. 35

“Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.”

Observe again their humility, how they let others also take part in the preaching. “And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good (ἡξίου see note 3, p. 213) to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention (or exasperation) was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other.” (v. 36–39.) And already indeed Luke has described to us the character of the Apostles,791 that the one was more tender and indulgent, but this one more strict and austere. For the gifts are diverse—(the gifts, I say), for that this is a gift is manifest—but the one befitting one, the other another set of characters, and if they change places, harm results instead of good. (b) In the Prophets792 too we find this: diverse minds, diverse characters: for instance, Elias austere, Moses meek. So here Paul is more vehement. And observe for all this, how gentle he is. “Thought not good,” it says, “to take him with them that had departed from them from Pamphylia.” (a) And there seems indeed to be exasperation (παροξυσμός), but in fact the whole matter is a plan of the Divine Providence, that each should receive his proper place: and it behooved that they should not be upon a par, but the one should lead, and the other be led. “And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches.” (v. 39–41.) And this also is a work of Providence. For the Cyprians had exhibited nothing of the like sort as they at Antioch and the rest: and those needed the softer character, but these needed such a character as Paul’s. “Which793 then,” say you, “did well? he that 791 mss. and Edd. after τῶν ἀποστόλων add τῶν λοιπῶν, which we omit as evidently out of place: for “the Apostles” here are Paul and Barnabas. Possibly it should be διὰ τῶν λοιπῶν, “by the rest of the particulars related on former occasions,” but if so, this must be placed after τῶν ἀπ. τὸ ἦθος. 792 The notes of this Homily have fallen into extreme confusion, and we have but partially succeeded in restoring the true order. 793 Mod. text omits this question: C. for ἀφεὶς has ἀφεθεὶς, “he that was left, or, dismissed.” Part of the answer has dropped out, “Paul did well: for” etc. The interlocutor rejoins: “Then if Paul did well, Barnabas did ill?” Here Edd. and all our mss. οὐκοῦν, φησὶ, κακὸς ὁ Βαρνάβας; to which mod. text adds, “By no means: but it is even exceedingly absurd to imagine this. And how is it not absurd to say, that for so small a matter this man became evil?” We restore οὐκοῦν κακῶς ὁ Βαρνάβας; took, or he that left?” (c) For just as a general would not choose to have a low person always to his baggage-bearer, so neither did the Apostle. This corrected the other’s, and instructed (Mark) himself. “Then did Barnabas ill?” say you. “And how is it not amiss (ἄτοπον), that upon so small a matter there should arise so great an evil?” In the first place then, no evil did come of it, if, sufficing each for whole nations, they were divided the one from the other, but a great good. And besides, they would not readily have chosen to leave each other. But admire, I pray you, the writer, how he does not conceal this either. “But at any rate,” say you, “if they must needs part, let it be without exasperation.” Nay, but if nothing more, observe this, that in this too is shown what was of man794 (in the preaching of the Gospel). For if the like behooved to be shown (even) in what Christ did, much more here. And besides, the contention cannot be said to be evil, when each disputes for such objects (as here) and with just reason. I grant you, if the exasperation were in seeking his own, and contending for his own honor, this might well be (reproved): but if wishing, both the one and the other, to instruct and teach, the one took this way and the other that, what is there to find fault with? For in many things they acted upon their human judgment; for they were not stocks or stones. And observe how Paul impeaches (Mark), and gives the reason. For of his exceeding humility795 he reverenced Barnabas, as having been partner with him in so great works, and being with him: but still he did not so reverence him, as to overlook (what was necessary). Now which of them advised best, it is not for us to pronounce: but thus far (we may affirm), that it was a great arrangement of Providence, if these796 were to be vouchsafed a second visitation, but those were not to be visited even once.797

Acts XVI. 13, 14

“And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont (Chrys. “was thought likely”) to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.”

See again Paul judaizing. “Where818 it was thought,” it says, both from the time and from the place, “that prayer would be.—Out of the city, by a river side:” for it is not to be supposed that they prayed only where there was a synagogue; they also prayed out of synagogue, but then for this purpose they set apart, as it were, a certain place, because as Jews they were more corporeal—and, “on the sabbath-day,” when it was likely that a multitude would come together.819 “And we sat down, and spake to the women which resorted thither.” Mark again the freedom from all pride. “And a certain woman:” a woman and she of low condition, from her trade too: but mark (in her) a woman of elevated mind (φιλόσοφον). In the first place, the fact of God’s calling her bears testimony to her: “And when she was baptized,” it says, “she and her household”—mark how he persuaded all of them—“she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us820” (v. 15): then look at her wisdom, how she importunes (δυσωπεἵ), the Apostles how full of humility her words are, how full of wisdom. “If ye have judged me faithful,” she says. Nothing could be more persuasive. Who would not have been softened by these words? She did not request (or, “claim”) did not entreat simply: but she left them to decide, and (yet) exceedingly forced them: “And she 818 mss. and Edd. place οὗ ἐν. προσευχὴ εἶναι after ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου, so that it reads, “See Paul again judaizing both from the time and from the place.” Chrys. here explains the ἐνομίζετο (in the sense “was thought”): viz. St. Paul expected to find a congregation assembled for prayer, both because the place was set apart for that purpose, and because it was the sabbath. 819 Two variations of text occur in v. 13, which materially affect the meaning. Modern critics read πύλης St. πόλεως—“they went outside the gate” and ἐνομίζομεν instead of ἐνομίζετο—“where we supposed there was a place of prayer.” (So B. C. א, R.V., Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort.) If the reading ἐνομίζετο is retained, it more probably means; “where a place of prayer was wont to be” rather than (as Chrys.) “where, it was thought, that prayer would be.” The προσευχαι were places of prayer situated often in the open air, and chosen in the neighborhood of streams on account of the custom of washing the hands before prayer. They served the purposes of synagogues in places where they did not exist.—G.B.S. 820 ἀλλ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἀφῆκε κυρίους εἶναι, καὶ. Mod. text, οὐκ ἀφῆκε κ. ἐ. ἀλλὰ καὶ. constrained us,” it says, by those words. And again in a different way: for see how she straightway bears fruit, and accounts it a great gain. “If ye have judged me,” that is, That ye did judge me is manifest, by your delivering to me such (holy) mysteries (i.e. sacraments, see p. 225, note 3): and she did not dare to invite them before this. But why was there any unwillingness on the part of Paul and those with them, that they should need to be constrained? It was either by way of calling her to greater earnestness of desire, or because Christ had said, “Enquire who is worthy, and there abide.” (Luke x. 8.) (It was not that they were unwilling), but they did it for a purpose.821—“And it came to pass,” it says, “as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us,822 which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: the same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.” (v. 16, 17.) What may be the reason that both the demon spoke these words, and Paul forbade him? Both the one acted maliciously, and the other wisely: the demon wished in fact to make himself credible.823 For if Paul had admitted his testimony, he would have deceived many of the believers, as being received by him: therefore he endures to speak what made against himself, that he may establish what made for himself: and so the demon himself uses accommodation (συγκαταβάσει) in order to destruction. At first then, Paul would not admit it, but scorned it, not wishing to cast himself all at once upon miracles; but when it continued to do this, and pointed to their work (καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἐδείκνυ) “who preach unto us the way of salvation,” then he commanded it to come out. For it says, “Paul being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And 821 ᾽Αλλὰ δἰ οἰκονομίαν ἐποίουν, B. Cat. “their seeming reluctance was ‘economy.’” A. C., ῞Ολα δἰ οἰκ. ἐπ. Mod. text, ῞Ωστε πάντα δἰ οἰκ. ἐπ. 822 Most critical editions read in v. 16. πύθωνα st. πύθωνος (following A. B. C. א). In this case the word is in apposition with πνεῦμα and has the force of an adjective, “having a Pythonic spirit,” in allusion to the serpent which was said to have guarded Delphi and to have been slain by Apollo. From this feat the God was called Pythius, and in his temple the priestess was called “the Pythian,” as being inspired by Apollo. Hence the term became equivalent to a δαιμονίον μαντικόν. In later times the power of the ventriloquist was attributed to such a Pythonic spirit (as by Plutarch) and the LXX. render the word אוב by ἐγγαστρίμυθος in accordance with this view. Meyer maintains that this damsel had the power of ventriloquism which the people attributed to a πνεῦμα πύθωνα. The apostle did not share this opinion but treated the case as one of demoniacal possession.—G.B.S. 823 B. and Cat. ἐβούλετο λοιπὸν ἀξιόπιστον ἑαυτὸν (B. αὐτὸν) ποιεῖν. The other mss. ἐβούλετο (ἐβουλεύετο A.C.) γὰρ μὴ ἀξ. αὐτὸν ποιεῖν: wished to make him (Paul) not credible. That the former is the true reading, is shown by what follows: ἵνα στήσῃ τὰ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ: i.e., to gain credit with the believers in order to deceive them afterwards. In the next clause, we read with Cat. and Sav. τὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, our mss. ἑαυτοὺς, and so the other Edd. he came out the same hour. (a)824 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas.” (v. 18, 19.) (d) So then Paul did all, both miracles and teaching, but of the dangers Silas also is partaker. And why says it, “But Paul being grieved?” It means, he saw through the malice of the demon, as he saith, “For we are not ignorant of his devices.” (2 Cor. ii. 11.) (b) “And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone.” Everywhere money the cause of evils. O that heathen cruelty! they wished the girl to be still a demoniac, that they might make money by her. “They caught Paul and Silas,” it says, “and dragged them into the marketplace unto the rulers, and brought them unto the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city!” (v. 20): by doing what? Then why did you not drag them (hither) before this? “Being Jews:” the name was in bad odor. “And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans.” (v. 21.) They made a charge of treason of it (εἰς καθοσίωσιν ἤγαγον). (e) Why did they not say, Because they cast out the demon, they were guilty of impiety against God? For this was a defeat to them: but instead of that, they have recourse to a charge of treason (ἐπὶ καθοσίωσιν): like the Jews when they said, “We have no king but Cæsar: whoso maketh himself a king speaketh against Cæsar.” (John xix. 14, 12.) (c) “And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat them.” (v. 22.) O the irrational conduct! They did not examine, did not allow them to speak. And yet, such a miracle having taken place, ye ought to have worshipped them, ought to have held them as saviors and benefactors. For if money was what ye wished, why, having found so great wealth, did ye not run to it? This makes you more famous, the having power to cast out demons than the obeying them. Lo, even miracles, and yet love of money was mightier. (f) “And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison.”—great was their wrath—“charging the jailer to keep them safely” (v. 23): “who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.” (v. 24.) Observe, he also again thrust them into the “inner” prison: and this too was done providentially, because825 there was to be a great miracle.826

(Recapitulation.) “Out of the city.” (v. 13.) The place was convenient for hearing the word, aloof from troubles and dangers. (b) “On the sabbath.” As there was no work going 824 The scribe has copied the parts in the order 1, 3, 5: 2, 4, 6. See p. 213, note 5. 825 Edd. have ᾽Επειδὴ γὰρ, and join this sentence with the following. The compiler of the Catena perceived that the Recapitulation begins with the next sentence, which he therefore gives to v. 13, though he repeats it wrongly under v. 24.—Mod. text, inserts the ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν κ. τ. λ. before Γνύη, φ., πορφυρόπωλις. 826 This is the first recorded instance of the persecution of Christians by the Roman power. Hitherto the persecutions have proceeded from the Jews and here it is inflicted upon the Christians because they are considered to be Jews who were now under special disfavor, having been shortly before banished from Rome by Claudius.— G.B.S. on, they were more attentive to what was spoken. (a) “And a certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple” (v. 14): observe how the writer of the history is not ashamed of the occupations (of the converts): (c) moreover neither was this city of the Philippians a great one. Having learnt these things, let us also be ashamed of no man. Peter abides with a tanner (ch. ix. 43): (Paul) with a woman who was a seller of purple, and a foreigner. Where is pride? “Whose heart the Lord opened.” Therefore we need God, to open the heart: but God opens the hearts that are willing: for there are hardened hearts to be seen.827 “So that she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul.” The opening, then, was God’s work, the attending was hers: so that it was both God’s doing and man’s. And she was baptized (v. 15), and receives the Apostles with such earnestness of entreaty; with more than that used by Abraham. And she speaks of no other token than that whereby she was saved (Gen. xviii. 3): she says not, “If ye have judged me” a great, a devout woman; but what? “faithful to the Lord:” if to the Lord, much more to you. “If ye have judged me:” if ye do not doubt it. And she says not, Abide with me, but, “Come into my house and abide:” with great earnestness (she says it). Indeed a faithful woman!—“A certain damsel possessed with a spirit of Python.” (v. 16.) Say, what is this demon? The god, as they call him, Python: from the place he is so called. Do you mark that Apollo also is a demon? And (the demon) wished to bring them into temptation: (therefore) to provoke them, “the same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation.” (v. 17.) O thou accursed, thou execrable one! if then thou knowest that it is “His way of salvation” that “they show,” why dost thou not come out freely? But just what Simon wished, when he said, “Give me, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost” (ch. viii. 19), the same did this demon: since he saw them becoming famous, here also he plays the hypocrite: by this means he thought to be allowed to remain in the body, if he should preach the same things. But if Christ “receive not testimony from man,” (John v. 34), meaning John, much less from a demon. “Praise is not comely in the mouth of a sinner” (Ecclus. xv. 9), much less from a demon. For828 that they preach is not of men, but of the Holy Ghost. Because they did not act in a spirit of boasting. “And Paul being grieved,” etc. By their clamor and shouting they thought to alarm them (the magistrates): saying, “These men do exceedingly trouble our city.” (v. 18–20.) What sayest thou? Dost thou believe the demon? Why not here also? He saith, They are “servants of the most high God;” thou sayest, “They exceedingly trouble our city:” he saith, “They show us the way of salvation;” thou 827 Here mod. text. “But let us look over again what has been said. ‘A woman,’ it says, ‘a seller of purple,’” etc. 828 mss. and Edd. τὸ γὰρ κηρύττειν οὐκ ἀνθρώπων ἀλλὰ Πν. ᾽Επεὶ οὖν ἀλαζονικῶς ἐποίουν βοῶντες κ. τ. λ. The passage needs emendation. We read οὐκ for οὖν. “They did not catch at praise, least of all from a demon: for they were no braggarts, knowing that the power to preach was not of men,” etc. sayest, “They teach customs which are not lawful for us to receive.” (v. 21.) Observe, how they do not attend even to the demon, but look only to one thing, their covetousness. But observe them (Paul and Silas), how they do not answer, nor plead for themselves; (b) “For when,” saith he, “I am weak, then am I strong. My grace is sufficient for thee, for My strength is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor. xii. 9): so that by reason of their gentleness also they should be admired. (a) “And the magistrates,” etc., “charging the jailer to keep them safely” (v. 22): that they may be the means829 of a greater miracle. (c) The stricter the custody, the greater the miracle. It was probably from the wish to cut short the disturbance, that the magistrates did these things; because they saw the crowd urgent, and wished to stay their passion at the instant, therefore they inflicted the stripes: at the same time it was their wish to hear the matter, and that was why they cast them into prison and gave charge “to keep them safely.” And, it says, “he made them fast in the stocks” (v. 24), (το ξύλον) as we should say, the nervum (νέρβον).

What tears do not these things call for! (Think) what they suffer, while we (live) in luxury, we in theatres, we perishing and drowning (in dissolute living), seeking always idle amusement, not enduring to suffer pain for Christ, not even as far as words, not even as far as talk. These things I beseech you let us ever call to mind, what things they suffered, what things they endured, how undismayed they were, how unoffended. They were doing God’s work, and suffered these things! They did not say, Why do we preach this, and God does not take our part? But even this was a benefit to them, even apart830 from the truth, in the thing itself; it made them more vigorous, stronger, intrepid. “Tribulation worketh endurance.” (Rom. v. 4.) Then let us not seek loose and dissolute living. For as in the one case the good is twofold, that the sufferers are made strong, and that the rewards are great; so in the other the evil is twofold, that such are rendered more enervated, and that it is to no good, but only evil. For nothing can be more worthless than a man who passes all his time in idleness and luxury. For the man untried, as the saying is, is also unapproved; unapproved not only in the contests, but also in everything else. Idleness is a useless thing, and in luxury itself nothing is so unsuited to the end proposed as the leading a luxurious life: for it palls with satiety, so that 829 ἵνα μείζονος θαύματος αἴτιοι γένωνται. B. Cat. Sav. marg. The other mss. read ἵνα μείζονος ἄξιοι θαύμ. γ., “They forbear to answer, so as to become worthy of more admiration.” Hence this clause has been transposed. We refer it to v. 23. “The magistrates give order for their safe custody, thereby becoming the means of a greater miracle.” 830 B. C , καὶ χωρὶς τῆς ἀληθειας, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πράγματι. A. and mod. text, καὶ χ. τῆς βοηθείας αὐτῷ. τῷ. πρ., “even without the Divine succour, even though that had been withheld, yet their sufferings were ipso facto a benefit.” But this alteration is not necessary. “Even apart from the Truth which they preached,—irrespectively of the fact that they were preachers of the Truth—their sufferings were a benefit. Even though they were deceived, and not preachers of the Truth, they gained by suffering: it made them strong,” etc. neither the enjoyment of the viands is so great, nor the enjoyment of relaxation, but all becomes vapid, and runs to waste.

Then let us not seek after this. For if we will consider which has the pleasanter life, he that is toiled and hardworked, or he that lives in luxury, we shall find it to be the former. For in the first place,831 the bodily senses are neither clear nor sound, but dull (χαὕναι) and languid; and when those are not right, even of health there is plainly no enjoyment. Which is the useful horse, the pampered or the exercised? which the serviceable ship, that which sails, or that which lies idle? which the best water, the running or the stagnant? which the best iron, that which is much used, or that which does no work? does not the one shine bright as silver, while the other becomes all over rusty, useless, and even losing some of its own substance? The like happens also to the soul as the consequence of idleness: a kind of rust spreads over it, and corrodes both its brightness and everything else. How then shall one rub off this rust? With the whetstone of tribulations: so shall one make the soul useful and fit for all things. Else, how, I ask, will she be able to cut off the passions, with her edge turned (ἀνακλώσης) and bending like lead? How shall she wound the devil?—And then to whom can such an one be other than a disgusting spectacle—a man cultivating obesity, dragging himself along like a seal? I speak not this of those who are naturally of this habit, but of those who by luxurious living have brought their bodies into such a condition, of those who are naturally of a spare habit. The sun has risen, has shot forth his bright beams on all sides, and roused up each person to his work: the husbandman goes forth with his spade, the smith with his hammer, and each artisan with his several instruments, and you will find each handling his proper tools; the woman also takes either her distaff or her webs: while he, like the swine, immediately at the first dawn goes forth to feed his belly, seeking how he may provide sumptuous fare. And yet it is only for brute beasts to be feeding from morning to night; and for them, because their only use is to be slaughtered. Nay, even of the beasts, those which carry burdens and admit of being worked, go forth to their work while it is yet night. But this man, rising from his bed, when the (noon-tide) sun has filled the market-place, and people are tired of their several works, then this man gets up, stretching himself out just as if he were indeed a hog in fattening, having wasted the fairest part of the day in darkness. Then he sits there for a long time on his bed, often unable even to lift himself up from the last evening’s debauch, and having wasted (still) more time in this (listlessness), proceeds to adorn himself, and issues forth, a spectacle of unseemliness, with nothing human about him, but with all the appearance of a beast with a human shape: 831 As no “secondly” follows this “first,” the scribes have supplied the seeming deficiency: thus N. (Sav. marg.) πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὸ σῶμα ἀνεπιτήδειον πρὸς πάντα καὶ ἐκνενευρισμένον ἐστί· δευτέρον δὲ ὅτι καὶ—. Mod. text Πρ. μὲν γὰρ τοῦ τοιούτου τὸ σῶμα αὐτὸ ἔκλυτον καὶ πεπλαδηκός· ἔπειτα καὶ—. his eyes rheumy from the effect of wine,832 while the miserable soul, just like the lame, is unable to rise, bearing about its bulk of flesh, like an elephant. Then he comes and sits in (various) places, and says and does such things, that it were better for him to be still sleeping than to be awake. If it chance that evil tidings be announced, he shows himself weaker than any girl; if good, more silly than any child; on his face there is a perpetual yawn. He is a mark for all that would do harm, if not for all men, at least for all evil passions; and wrath easily excites such a man, and lust, and envy, and all other passions. All flatter him, all pay court to him, rendering his soul weaker than it is already: and each day he goes on and on, adding to his disease. If he chance to fall into any difficulty of business, he becomes dust and ashes,833 and his silken garments are of no help to him. We have not said all this without a purpose, but to teach you, that none of you should live idly and at random. For idleness and luxury are not conducive to work, to good reputation, to enjoyment.834 For who will not condemn such a man? Family, friends, kinsfolk (will say), He is indeed a very encumbrance of the ground. Such a man as this has come into the world to no purpose: or rather, not to no purpose, but to ill purpose against his own person, to his own ruin, and to the hurt of others. But that this is more pleasant—let us look to this; for this is the question. Well then, what can be less pleasant than (the condition of) a man who has nothing to do; what more wretched and miserable? Is it not worse than all the fetters in the world, to be always gaping and yawning, as one sits in the market-place, looking at the passers by? For the soul, as its nature is to be always on the move, cannot endure to be at rest. God has made it a creature of action: to work is of its very nature; to be idle is against its nature. For let us not judge of these things from those who are diseased, but let us put the thing itself to the proof of fact. Nothing is more hurtful than leisure, and having nothing to do: indeed therefore hath God laid on us a necessity of working: for idleness hurts everything. Even to the members of the body, inaction is a mischief. Both eye, if it perform not its work, and mouth, and belly, and every member that one could mention, falls into the worst state of disease: but none so much as the soul. But as inaction is an evil, so is activity in things that ought to be let alone. For just as it is with the teeth, if one eats not, one receives hurt to them, and if one eats things unfitting, it jars them, and sets them on edge:835 so it is here; both if 832 Mod. text, “his eyes watery, his mouth smelling of wine.” It is evident that Chrys. is very imperfectly reported here. 833 τέφρα καὶ κόνις γίνεται. Unless there be an hiatus here, the meaning is, he has no more solidity in him than so much ashes and dust. 834 Mod. text, πρὸς δόξαν μόνον, πρὸς ἡδονην: “but only to vainglory, to pleasure.” 835 ποιεῖ αὐτους βρύχειν καὶ ὠμοδιᾷν (r. ὠμωδιᾷν). In Jer. xxxi. (Gr. xxxviii.) 29, the phrase is ὀδόντες τῶν τέκνων ᾑμωδίασαν and so Hippocrat. uses the verb. αἱμωδιᾷν. But as Ed. Par. Ben. 2, remarks, the passage of Jer. is sometimes cited with ὠμωδίασαν; Synops. Athanas. t. ii. 167. Isidor. Pelus. iv. Ep. 4. the soul be inactive, and if inactive in wrong things, it loses its proper force. Then let us eschew both alike; both inaction, and the activity which is worse than inaction. And what may that be? Covetousness,836 anger, envyings, and the other passions. As regards these, let us make it our object to be inactive, in order that we may obtain the good things promised to us, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XVI. 25, 26

“And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken, and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed.”

What could equal these souls? These men had been scourged, had received many stripes, they had been misused, were in peril of their lives, were thrust into the inner prison, and set fast in the stocks: and for all this they did not suffer themselves to sleep, but kept vigil all the night. Do you mark what a blessing tribulation is? But we, in837 our soft beds, with none to be afraid of, pass the whole night in sleep. But belike this is why they kept vigil, because they were in this condition. Not the tyranny of sleep could overpower them, not the smart of pain could bow them, not the fear of evil east them into helpless dejection: no, these were the very things that made them wakeful: and they were even filled with exceeding delight. “At midnight,” it says, “and the prisoners listened to them:” it was so strange and surprising! “And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken, and immediately, all the doors were opened, and every one’s bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.” (v. 27.) There was an earthquake, that the keeper should be roused from sleep, and the doors flew open, that he should wonder at what had happened: but these things the prisoners saw not: otherwise they would all have fled:838 but the keeper of the prison was about to slay himself, thinking the prisoners were escaped. “But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here” (v. 28.) (b) “Then he called for lights, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (v. 29, 30.) Do you mark how the wonder overpowered him? (a) He wondered more at Paul’s kindness; he was amazed at his manly boldness, that he had not escaped when he had it in his power, that he hindered him 837 Mod. text ἡμεῖς δὲ οὐδὲ ἐν ἁπαλοῖς κ. τ. λ. but Sav. justly rejects οὐδὲ, and even Ben. omits it in the Latin. 838 The explanation of Chrys. that Paul and Silas could not have known that the doors were open, else they would have escaped, is clearly out of harmony with the narrative. The unwillingness of Paul (v. 37) to go forth from the prison without an explicit vindication from the authorities who had imprisoned him without just cause, shows that he was not bent upon an escape. This would be all the more true in view of the miraculous interposition in their behalf.—G.B.S. from killing himself.839 (c) “And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” (v. 31, 35) and (so) immediately gave proof of their kindness towards him. “And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” (v. 33.) He washed them, and was himself baptized, he and his house. “And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house. And when it was day, the magistrates sent the sergeants, saying, Let those men go.” (v. 34, 35.) It is likely the magistrates had learnt what had happened, and did not dare of themselves to dismiss them. “And the keeper of the prison told these words to Paul, saying, the magistrates have sent to let you go: now therefore depart, and go in peace. But Paul said unto them, they have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison; and now do they thrust as out privily? nay verily; but let them come themselves and fetch us out. And the sergeants told these words unto the magistrates: and they feared, when they heard that they were Romans. And they came and besought them, and brought them out, and desired them to depart out of the city. And they went out of the prison, and entered into the house of Lydia: and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed.” (v. 36–40.) Even840 upon the declaration of the magistrates Paul does not go out, but for the sake both of Lydia and the rest he puts them in fear: that they may not be supposed to have come out upon their own request, that they may set the rest in a posture of boldness. The impeachment was twofold: that “being Romans,” and “uncondemned,” they had openly cast them into prison. You see that in many things they took their measures as men.

(Recapitulation) “And at midnight,” etc. (v. 25.) Let us compare, beloved, with that night these nights of ours, with their revellings, their drunkenness, and wanton excesses, with their sleep which might as well be death, their watchings which are worse than sleep. 839 i.e. “The miracle amazed him, but he was more astonished at Paul’s boldness, was more moved to admiration by his kindness.” But besides the transposition marked by the letters, the clauses of (a) may perhaps be better re-arranged thus: “He more marvelled at Paul’s boldness, in not escaping etc., he was amazed at his kindness in hindering,” etc. 840 The report seems to be defective, but the meaning may be, that in taking this high tone with the magistrates the Apostle was not influenced by personal feelings; but acted thus for the assurance of Lydia and the other believers, by letting it be seen that they were not set at liberty upon their own request. In the recapitulation another consideration is mentioned, viz. in respect of the jailer.—Mod. text “perhaps for the sake of Lydia and the other brethren: or also putting them in fear that they may not, etc., and that they may set the others also in a posture of boldness.” Then, Τριπλοῦν, ἀγαπητοὶ, κ. τ. λ. the third point being καὶ δημοσίU+0026 139·. We reject this καὶ though all our mss. have it. We have also transferred the ἀγαπητοὶ, which is out of place here to the beginning of the recapitulation. For while some sleep without sense or feeling, others lie awake to pitiable and wretched purpose, plotting deceits, anxiously thinking about money, studying how they may be revenged upon those who do them wrong, meditating enmity, reckoning up the abusive words spoken during the day: thus do they rake up the smouldering embers of wrath, doing things intolerable.841 Mark how Peter slept. (ch. xii. 6.) Both there, it was wisely ordered (that he should be asleep); for the Angel came to him, and it behooved that none should see what happened; and on the other hand it was well ordered here (that Paul should be awake), in order that the keeper of the prison might be prevented from killing himself. “And suddenly there was a great earthquake.” (v. 26.) And why did no other miracle take place? Because this was, of all others, the thing sufficient for his conversion, seeing he was personally in danger: for it is not so much miracles that overpower us, as the things which issue in our own deliverance. That the earthquake should not seem to have come of itself, there was this concurrent circumstance, bearing witness to it: “the doors were opened, and all their bonds were loosed.” And it appears in the night-time; for the Apostles did not work for display, but for men’s salvation. “And the keeper of the prison,” etc. (v. 27.) The keeper was not an evil-disposed man that he “thrust them into the inner prison,” (v. 24) was because of his “having received such a command,” not of himself. The man842 was all in a tumult of perturbation. “What shall I do to be saved?” he asks. Why not before this? Paul shouted, until he saw, and is beforehand with him saying, “We are all here. And having called for lights,” it says, “he sprang in, and fell down at the feet” of the prisoner; he, the prison keeper, saying, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (v. 28–30.) Why, what had they said? Observe, he does 841 τὰ ἀφορητὰ ἐργαζόμενοι: perhaps, “in imagination wreaking upon their enemies an intolerable revenge.” 842 Mod. text “And why did not Paul shout before this? The man was all in a tumult of perturbation, and would not have received (what was said). Therefore when he saw him about to kill himself, he is beforehand with him, and shouts saying, “We are all here.” Therefore also, “Having asked,” it says, “for lights, he sprang in, and fell before Paul and Silas.” The keeper falls at the feet of the prisoner. And he brings them out, and says, “Sirs,” etc. But the question, Διὰ τί μὴ πρὸ τούτου; evidently cannot be meant for ἐβόησεν ὁ Παῦλος. The meaning is, “Why did he not sooner ask, ‘What shall I do to be saved?’ Observe his first impulse is to kill himself— such was the tumult of his thoughts. Suddenly awaked, he sees the doors open, and supposes the prisoners were escaped. Therefore Paul shouted to him, to reassure him on that point, until he could satisfy himself with his own eyes: as, it says, ‘He called for lights,’ for that purpose: and then indeed, relieved of that fear, he is overcome with awe: and falls down at the feet of his prisoner saying, ‘What shall I do to be saved?’ Why, what had they said? Nothing more: but the religious awe now seizes him: for he does not think all is right and no need to trouble himself any further, because he finds himself safe from the temporal danger.” For this is the meaning of ὅρα αὐπὸν οὐκ, ἐπειδὴ διεσώθη, ἐπὶ τούτῳ στέργοντα, ἀλλὰ τὴν δύναμιν ἐκπλαγέντα: not as Ben. vide illum non ab hoc diligere quod servatus esset, sed quod de virtute obstupesceret. not, on finding himself safe, think all is well; he is overcome with awe at the miraculous power.

Do you mark843 what happened in the former case, and what here? There a girl was released from a spirit, and they cast them into prison, because they had liberated her from the spirit. Here, they did but show the doors standing open, and it opened the doors of his heart, it loosed two sorts of chains; that (prisoner)844 kindled the (true) light; for the light in his heart was shining. “And he sprang in, and fell before them;” and he does not ask, How is this? What is this? but straightway he says, “What must I do to be saved?” What then answers Paul? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thine house.” (v. 31.) For this above all, wins men: that one’s house also should be saved. “And they spake the word to him, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes,” etc. (v. 32, 33), washed them and was washed: those he washed from their stripes, himself was washed from his sins: he fed and was fed.845 “And rejoiced,” it says: although there was nothing but words only and good hopes: “having believed in God with all his house (v. 34): this was the token of his having believed—that he was released of all. What worse than a jailer, what more ruthless, more savage? He entertained them with great honor. Not, because he was safe, he made merry, but, having believed God. (a) “Believe on the Lord,” said the Apostle: therefore it is that the writer here says, “Having believed.846—(d) Now therefore,” it says, “depart, and go in peace” (v. 36): that is, in safety, fearing no man. (b) “But Paul said unto them” (v. 37): that he may not seem to be receiving his liberty as one condemned, and as one that has done wrong: therefore it is that he says, “Having openly beaten us uncondemned,” etc.—that it may not be matter of grace on their part. (e) And besides, they wish the jailer himself to be out of danger, that he may not be called to account for this afterwards. And they do not say, “Having beaten us,” who have wrought miracles: for they (the magistrates) did not even heed these: but, that which was most effectual to shake their minds, “uncondemned, and being Romans.” (c) Observe how 843 This is the sequel to what was said above: “It is not so much miracles that overpower or convince us (αἱρεῖ), as the sense of benefits received.” For, they saw the miracle of dispossession wrought upon the girl, and they cast the doers of it into prison: whereas here the jailer sees but the doors open (the prisoners safe, the Apostle’s manliness in not escaping, and their kindness to himself), and he is converted. The doors were open, and the door of his heart (like Lydia’s) was opened: the prisoner’s chains were loosed, and worse chains were loosed from himself: he called for a light, but the true light was lighted in his own heart. 844 ἧψεν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς. Edd. (from D. F.) ἐκεῖνο. 845 ἔθρεψε καὶ ἐτράφη: probably meaning the Holy Eucharist immediately after the baptism. So above p. 219, τοσαῦτα μυστήρια, in the case of Lydia. 846 Edd. “Having believed, that he may not seem to be liberated,” etc., as if this (b) were said of the jailer. (Here again the method of the derangement is 1, 3, 5: 2, 4, 6: as in p. 213, note 5, 220, note 2). diversely grace manages things: how Peter went out, how Paul, though both were Apostles. “They feared,” (v. 38) it says: because the men were Romans, not because they had unjustly cast them into prison,847 “And besought them to depart out of the city” (v. 39): begged them as a favor. And they went to the house of Lydia, and having confirmed her, so departed. For it was not right to leave their hostess in distress and anxiety. But they went out, not in compliance with the request of those rulers, but hasting to the preaching: the city having been sufficiently benefited by the miracle: for it was fit they should not be there any longer. For in the absence of them that wrought it, the miracle appeared greater, itself crying out more loudly: the faith of the jailer was a voice in itself. What equal to this? He is put in bonds, and looses, being bound: looses a twofold bond: him that bound him, he looses by being bound. These are indeed works of (supernatural) grace.

(f) Let us constantly bear in mind this jailer,848 not the miracle: how, prisoner as he was (the Apostle), persuaded his jailer. What say the heathen? “And of what things,” say they, “was such a man as this to be persuaded—a vile, wretched creature, of no understanding, full of all that is bad and nothing else, and easily brought over to anything? For these, say they, are the things, a tanner, a purple-seller, an eunuch, slaves, and women believed.” This is what they say. What then will they be able to say, when we produce the men of rank and station, the centurion, the proconsul, those from that time to the present, the rulers them- 847 In two respects the treatment of Paul and Silas at Philippi was unjust. It was contrary to natural justice to punish them “uncondemned”—without a fair and impartial trial. Moreover the Lex Valeria (254 U. C.) forbade the punishment of Roman citizens with whips and rods. It was this last violation of law which, upon reflection, the magistrates wished to hush up. Hence their eager desire that Paul and Silas go free forthwith. Every hour of detention was an accusation against themselves.—G.B.S. 848 All our mss. δεσμοφύλακος, but Savile δεσμώτου. adopted by Ben. We retain the old reading—Mod. text “What say the heathen? how being a prisoner,” etc. Then: “Καὶ τίνα, φησὶ, πεισθῆναι ἐχρῆν, ἢ μιαρὸν κ. τ. λ. And what man (say they) was (more) to be persuaded than, etc. Moreover, they allege this also: for who but a tanner τίς γὰρ ἢ βυρσεὺς).…believed?”—We take τίνα to be acc. plur. sc. δόγματα. The heathen objection is this, You may see by the character of the first converts, such as this jailer, what is the character of the doctrines: “Since what doctrines behooved (a man like this) to be persuaded of?” St. Chrys. says, “Let us bear in mind this jailer—not to dwell upon the miracle, but to consider how his prisoner persuaded him: how he induced a man like this not only to receive the doctrines, but to submit to the self-denying rule of the Gospel. The heathen raise a prejudice against the Gospel from the very fact, that such men as these were converted. What, say they, must be the teaching to be received by a wretched creature like this jailer? The doctrines were well matched with their first converts, tanner, purple-seller, eunuch,” etc. (So in the remarkable argument on this same subject in the Morale of Hom. vii. in 1 Cor. p. 62, E. “but it is objected: Those who were convinced by them were slaves, women, nurses, eunuchs:” whence it seems, as here, that the case of the eunuch, Acts viii. was made a reproach, as if he must needs be a person of inferior understanding). selves, the emperors? But for my part, I speak of something else, greater than this: let us look to these very persons of no consideration. “And where is the wonder?” say you. Why, this, I say, is a wonder. For, if a person be persuaded about any common things, it is no wonder: but if resurrection, a kingdom of heaven, a life of philosophic self-command, be the subjects, and, discoursing of these to persons of mean consideration, one persuades them, it will be more wonderful than if one persuaded wise men. For when there is no danger attending the things of which one persuades people, then (the objector) might with some plausibility allege want of sense on their part: but when (the preacher) says—to the slave, as you will have it—“If thou be persuaded by me, it is at thy peril, thou wilt have all men for thine enemies, thou must die, thou must suffer evils without number,” and yet for all this, convinces that man’s soul, there can be no more talk here of want of sense. Since, if indeed the doctrines contained what was pleasant, one might fairly enough say this: but if, what the philosohers would never have chosen to learn, this the slave does learn, then is the wonder greater. And, if you will, let us bring before us the tanner himself, and see what were the subjects on which Peter conversed with him: or if you will, this same jailer. What then said Paul to him? “That Christ rose again,” say you; “that there is a resurrection of the dead, and a kingdom: and he had no difficulty in persuading him, a man easily led to anything.” How? Said he nothing about the mode of life; that he must be temperate, that he must be superior to money, that he must not be unmerciful, that he must impart of his good things to others? For it cannot be said, that the being persuaded to these things also was from the want of power of mind; no, to be brought to all this required a great soul. For be it so, that as far as the doctrines went, they were rendered more apt to receive these by their want of intelligence: but to accept such a virtuous, self-denying rule of life, how could that be owing to any defect of understanding? So that the less understanding the person may have, if nevertheless he is persuaded to things, to which even philosophers were unable to persuade their fellow-philosophers, the greater the wonder—when women and slaves are persuaded of these truths, and prove it by their actions, of which same truths the Platos and all the rest of them were never able to persuade any man. And why say I, “any man?” Say rather, not themselves even: on the contrary, that money is not to be despised, Plato persuaded (his disciples) by getting, as he did, such an abundance of property, and golden rings, and goblets; and that the honor to be had from the many is not to be despised, this Socrates himself shows, for all that he may philosophize without end on this point: for in everything he did, he had an eye to fame. And if you were conversant with his discourses, I might go at great length into this subject, and show what a deal of insincerity (εἰρωνείαν) there was in them,—if at least we may believe what his disciple says of him,—and how that all his writings have their ground-work in vainglory. But, leaving them, let us direct the discourse to our own selves. For besides the things that have been said, there is this also to be added, that men were persuaded of these things to their own peril. Be not thou therefore shameless, but let us think over that night, the stocks, and the hymns of praise. This let us also do, and we shall open for ourselves—not a prison, but—heaven. If we pray, we shall be able even to open heaven. Elias both shut and opened heaven by prayer. (James v. 17.) There is a prison in heaven also. “Whatsoever,” He saith, “ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.” (Matt. xvi. 19.) Let us pray by night, and we shall loose these bonds. For that prayers loose sins, let that widow convince us, let that friend convince us, who at that untimely hour of the night persists and knocks (Luke xi. 5): let Cornelius convince us, for, “thy prayers,” it says, “and thine alms are come up before God.” (ch. x. 4.) Let Paul convince us, who says, “Now she that is a widow indeed and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications night and day.” (1 Tim. v. 5.) If he speaks thus of a widow, a weak woman, much more would he of men. I have both before discoursed to you on this, and now repeat it: let us arouse ourselves during the night: though thou make not many prayers, make one with watchfulness, and it is enough, I ask no more: and if not at midnight, at any rate at the first dawn. Show that the night is not only for the body, but also for the soul: do not suffer it to pass idly, but make this return to thy Master: nay rather (the benefit) itself returns to thee. Say, if we fall into any difficult strait, to whom do we not make request? and if we soon obtain our request, we breathe freely again. What a boon were it for thee, to have a friend to go to with thy request, who shall be ready to take it as a kindness, and to be obliged to thee for thy asking? What a boon, not to have to go about and seek one to ask of, but to find one ready? to have no need of others through whom thou mayest solicit? What could be greater than this? Since here is One who then does most, when we make not our requests of others than Himself: just as a sincere friend then most complains of us for not trusting in his friendship, when we ask of others to make request to him. Thus also let us act.849 “But what,” you will ask, “if I should have offended Him?” Cease to give offence, and weep, and so draw near to Him, and thou wilt quickly render Him propitious as to thy former sins. Say only, I have offended: say it from thy soul and with a sincere mind, and all things are remitted to thee. Thou dost not so much desire thy sins to be forgiven, as He desires to forgive thee thy sins. In proof that thou dost not so desire it, consider that thou hast no mind either to practice vigils, or to give thy money freely: but He, that He might forgive our sins, spared not His Only-begotten and True Son, the partner of His throne. Seest thou how He more desires to forgive thee thy sins (than thou to be forgiven )? Then let us not be slothful, nor put off this any longer. He is merciful and good: only let us give Him an opportunity.

And (even) this (He seeks), only that we may not become unprofitable, since even without this He could have freed us from them: but like as we (with the same view) devise and arrange many things for our servants to do, so does He in the matter of our salvation. 849 οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς: which mod. text needlessly expands into: “(Thus also we) act in the case of those who ask of us: we then most oblige them, when they approach us by themselves not by others.” “Let us anticipate His face with thanksgiving.” (Ps. xcv. 2. “Let us come before His presence.” E.V.), since He is good and kind. But if thou call not upon Him, what will He do? Thou dost not choose to say, Forgive; thou wilt not say it from thy heart, but with thy mouth only. What is it, to call in truth? (To call) with purpose of heart, with earnestness, with a sincere mind; just as men say of perfumes, “This is genuine, and has nothing spurious,” so here. He who truly calls on Him, he who truly prays to Him, continually attends to it, and desists not, until he obtain (his request): but he who does it in a merely formal manner (ἀφοσιούμενος), and even this only by way of fulfilling a law, does not call in truth. Whosoever thou art, say not only, “I am a sinner,” but be earnest also to rid thyself of this character; say not this only, but also grieve. If thou grievest, thou art in earnest: if thou art not in earnest, thou grievest not: if thou grievest not, thou triflest. What sort of man is he who shall say, “I am sick,” and not to do all to be freed from his sickness? A mighty weapon is Prayer. “If ye,” saith the Lord, “know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more your Father?” (Luke xi. 13.) Then wherefore art thou unwilling to approach Him? He loves thee, He is of more power than all besides. Both willing is He and able, what is there to hinder? Nothing. But then, on our part, let us draw near with faith, draw near, offering the gifts that He desires, forgetfulness of wrongs, kindness, meekness. Though thou be a sinner, with boldness shalt thou ask of Him forgiveness of thy sins, if thou canst show that this has been done by thyself: but though thou be righteous, and possess not this virtue of forgetfulness of injuries, thou art none the better for it. It cannot be that a man who has forgiven his neighbor should not obtain perfect forgiveness: for God is beyond comparison more merciful than we. What sayest thou? If thou sayest, “I have been wronged, I have subdued my anger, I have endured the onset of wrath because of Thy command, and dost Thou not forgive?”850 Full surely He will forgive: and this is plain to all. Therefore let us purge our soul from all resentment. This is sufficient for us, in order that we may be heard; and let us pray with watching and much perseverance, that having enjoyed His bountiful mercy, we may be found worthy of the good things promised, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XVII. 1, 2, 3

“Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews: and Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.”

Again they haste past the small cities, and press on to the greater ones, since from those the word was to flow as from a fountain into the neighboring cities. “And Paul, as his manner was, went into the synagogue of the Jews.” Although he had said, “We turn to the Gentiles” (ch. xiii. 46), he did not leave these alone: such was the longing affection he had towards them. For hear him saying, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (Rom. x. 1): and, “I wished myself accursed from Christ for my brethren.” (ib. ix. 3.) But he did this851 because of God’s promise and the glory: and this, that it might not be a cause of offence to the Gentiles. “Opening,” it says, “from the Scriptures, he reasoned with them for three sabbaths, putting before them that the Christ must suffer.” Do thou mark how before all other things he preaches the Passion: so little were they ashamed of it, knowing it to be the cause of salvation. “And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.” (v. 4.) The writer mentions only the sum and substance of the discoursing: he is not given to redundancy, and does not on every occasion report the sermons. “But the Jews which believed not (the best texts omit “which believed not”), moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.” (v. 5–7.) Oh! what an accusation! again they get up a charge of treason against them, “saying, there is another king (one) Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things. And when they had taken 851 This seems meant to refer to the sequel of the passage cited, Rom. ix. 4. “who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory…and the promises:” then τοῦτο ἐποίει refers to ἐβουλόμην, indicatively, “I wished:” but καὶ τοῦτο (mod. text omits τοῦτο), “And this solicitude he showed for the sake of the Gentiles also, to whom the unbelief of the Jews might be a stumbling-block:”—unless καὶ τοῦτο refers to v. 3, the discourse of Christ’s death and resurrection—that the Cross might not be an offence to the devout Greeks. security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.” (v. 8, 9.) A man worthy to be admired, that he put himself into danger, and sent them away from it. “And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble,” it says, “than they of Thessalonica: more noble,” i.e. more gentle (ἐπιεικέστεροι) (in their behavior): “in that they received the word with all readiness,” and this not inconsiderately, but with a strictness wherein852 was no passion, “searching the Scriptures whether these things were so.” (v. 10, 11.) “Therefore many of them believed; also of honorable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea: but Silas and Timotheus abode there still.” (v. 12–14.) See how he at one time gives way, at another presses on, and in many things takes his measures upon human considerations. “And they that conducted Paul brought him unto Athens: and receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with speed, they departed.” (v. 15.) But let us look again at what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “Three sabbath-days,” it says, being the time when they had leisure from work, “he reasoned with them, opening out of the Scriptures” (v. 2): for so used Christ also to do: as on many occasions we find Him reasoning from the Scriptures, and not on all occasions (urging men) by miracles. Because to this853 indeed they stood in a posture of hostility, calling them deceivers and jugglers; but he that persuades men by reasons from the Scriptures, is not liable to this imputation. And on many occasions we find (Paul) to have convinced men simply by force of teaching: and in Antioch “the whole city was gathered together” (ch. xiii. 44): so854 great a thing is this also, for indeed this itself is no small miracle, nay, it is even a very great one. And that they might not think that they did it all by their 852 μετὰ ἀκριβείας ἔνθα πάθος οὐκ ἦν. It is not easy to see what else this can mean. Below in the Recapitulation οὐ ῥU+0026 192·μῃ οὐδὲ ζήλῳ.—Mod. text “With exactness they explored the Scriptures—for this is the meaning of ἀνέκρινον—wishing from them to derive assurance rather concerning the Passion: for they had already believed.” The last statement, like some other additions in the mod. text, seems to be borrowed from the Catena (Ammonius) whence it is adopted also by OEcumenius: but this was certainly not Chrysostom’s meaning. 853 πρὸς τοῦτο, i.e. the working of miracles. Not only it did not win them: they set themselves against it, taxing the doers of the miracles with imposture and magical art, etc.—Mod. text “For because to Him (τοῦτον, Christ) they were opposed, and slandered Him that He was a deceiver and juggler, therefore it is that He also reasons from the Scriptures. For he that attempts to persuade by miracles alone may well be suspected: but he that persuades from the Scriptures,” etc. 854 A. B. οὕτω μέγα τι καὶ τοῦτο ἐστι καὶ τὸ πᾶν. C. omits this: we place it after ἴσχυσανin the next sentence, where mod. text has it. This thought is brought out more fully below, p. 230. The persuading men by telling them that which even with miracles was hard to believe—a Messiah crucified!—was itself a miracle. own strength, but rather that God permitted it,855 two things resulted, namely, “Some of them were persuaded,” etc. (c) “And of devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few:”856 but those others did the contrary: “the Jews moved with envy,” etc. (v. 4, 5) (b) and, from the fact that the being called was itself a matter of God’s fore-ordering, (a) they neither thought great things of themselves as if the triumph were their own, nor were terrified as being responsible (for all). But how comes it that he said, “That we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” (Gal. ii. 9), and yet discoursed to the Jews? (α) He did this as a thing over and above. (β) For857 he did other things also more than he was obliged. For instance, Christ ordained that they should “live by the Gospel” (1 Cor. ix. 14; i. 17), but our Apostle did it not: Christ sent him not to baptize, yet he did baptize. Mark how he was equal to all. Peter to the circumcision, he to the Gentiles, to the greater part. (α) Since if it was necessary for him to discourse to Jews, how said he again: “For He that wrought effectually in him toward the circumcision, the same was mighty also in me toward the Gentiles” (Gal. ii. 8)? In the same way as those Apostles also had intercourse with the Gentiles, though they had been set apart for the circumcision, so likewise did our Apostle. The more part of his work indeed was with the Gentiles: still he did not neglect the Jews either, that they might not seem to be severed from them. And how was it, you will ask, that he entered in the first place into the synagogues, as if this were his leading object? True; but he persuaded the Gentiles through the Jews, and from the things which he discoursed of to the Jews. And he knew, that this was most suitable for the Gentiles, and most 855 ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Θεὸς συνεχώρησεν, if not corrupt, must mean “but that God permitted all: i.e. that all depended on God’s permission, not on their strength,—δύο ἐγένετο, i.e. some believed v. 4., others opposed, v. 5. The sense is confused in the mss. and Edd. by the transposition of the sentences marked c and a. In c, verse 2is substituted for v. 4, which we restore. In b, we read τῷ τε (A. B. τό τε) οἰκονομίαν εἶναι καὶ τὸ καλεῖσθαι for καὶ τῷ καλ. The meaning is, And so by reason of the fact that τὸ καλεῖσθαι is itself οἰκονομία—that is of God’s ordering, according to His own pleasure, who are called and who not—the preachers are not left either to think too much of themselves when they succeed, ὡς αὐτοὶ καθελόντες, nor to be terrified by failure ὡς, ὑπεύθυνοι, as if they were responsible for men’s unbelief.—Mod. text, “And that they may not think that they did it all by their own strength, God suffers them to be driven away (ἐλαύνεσθαι). For two things came of this: they neither etc. nor etc. So (much) was even the being called a matter of God’s ordering. ‘And of the devout Greeks,’” etc. 856 The “devout Greeks” would include such as were Jewish proselytes and such as were worshippers of the true God and attended the synagogue services, without being connected with Judaism. The “first women” were probably female proselytes to Judaism. These heard the Apostle with interest, but the more ardent and fanatical Jews, reinforced by the baser element—the loungers from the market place, made a tumult of opposition.—G.B.S. 857 Between the Exposition and the Moral, the original editor or transcriber has thrown together a set of disconnected notes. These are here inserted in what seems to be their proper connection. In the mss. and Edd, the parts lie in the order as shown by the letters α, β prefixed. conducive to belief. Therefore he says: “Inasmuch as I am the “Apostle of the Gentiles.” (Rom. xi. 13.) And his Epistles too all fight against the Jews.—“That the Christ,” he says, “must needs have suffered.” (v. 3.) If there was a necessity for His suffering, there was assuredly a necessity for His rising again: for the former858 was far more wonderful than the latter. For if He gave Him up to death Who had done no wrong, much rather did He raise Him up again. “But the Jews which believed not took unto them certain of the baser sort, and set all the city on an uproar (v. 5): so that the Gentiles were more in number. The Jews thought not themselves enough to raise the disturbance: for because they had no reasonable pretext, they ever effect such purposes by means of uproar, and by taking to themselves base men. “And when they found them not,” it says, “they haled Jason and certain brethren.” (v. 6.) O the tyranny! dragged them without any cause out of their houses. “These all,” say they, “do contrary to the decrees of Cæsar” (v. 7): for since they spoke nothing contrary to what had been decreed, nor made any commotion in the city, they bring them under a different charge: “saying that there is another king, one Jesus.859 And they troubled the people,” etc. (v. 8.) And what are ye afraid of, seeing He is dead? (β) “And when they had taken security,” etc. (v. 9.) See how by giving security Jason sent Paul away: so that he gave his life (to the hazard) for him.860 (α) “And brethren,” etc. (v. 10.) See how the persecutions in every case extend the preaching. “Now these,” it says, “were more noble than those in Thessalonica” (v. 11): i.e. they were not (men) practising base things, but some861 were convinced, and the others (who were not), did nothing (of that sort). (β) “Daily,” it says, “searching the Scriptures whether these things were so:” not merely upon a sudden impetus or (burst of) zeal. “More noble,” it says: i. e. in point of virtue(α)“Therefore many of them,” etc. (v. 12.) And here again are Greeks. (β) “But when the Jews of Thessalonica,” etc. (v. 13), because there were lewd persons there. And yet that city was greater. But it is no wonder in the 858 We adopt the reading of B. ἐκεῖνο, “the suffering;” τούτου, “the rising again.” The others, ἐκείνου, τοῦτο: reversing Chrysostom’s meaning. 859 The accusation is artfully made. They are accused of the crimen majestatis—treason against Cæsar. The Jews knew well that to accuse them of disturbing their worship or opposing their opinions would produce no effect. To arouse the Roman feeling against them it was necessary to prevent their teaching concerning the Kingship of Jesus so as to make it seem to the rulers of this free city as a treasonable doctrine against the Roman state.—G.B.S. 860 “When they had taken security”—λάβοντες τὸ ἱκανὸν, a legal term—satisfactionem accipere, it is doubtful if, as Chrys. supposes, Jason became surety in person. The surety was more probably a deposit of money and had for its object the guaranty that the peace should be kept, and nothing done contrary the Emperor and the state.—G.B.S. 861 Mod. text mistaking the meaning, has: “But they indeed were persuaded, but these do just the contrary, making an uproar among them.” greater city the people were worse: nay, of course to the greater city there go the worse men, where the occasions of disturbances are many. And as in the body, where the disease is more violent for having862 more matter and fuel, just so is it here. (α) But look, I beg you, how their fleeing was providentially ordered, not from cowardice: otherwise they would have ceased to preach, and would not have exasperated them still more. But from this (flight) two things resulted: both the rage of those (Jews) was quenched, and the preaching spread. But in terms befitting their disorderly conduct, he says, “Agitating the multitude.” (β) Just what was done at Iconium—that they may have the additional condemnation of destroying others besides themselves. (ch. xiv. 2, 19.) This is what Paul says of them: “Forbidding to preach to the Gentiles, to fill up their sins alway, for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.” (1 Thess. ii. 16.) Why did he not stay? for if (at Lystra, ch. xiv. 19, 21) there, where he was stoned, he nevertheless stayed a long time, much more here. Why? (The Lord) did not wish them to be always doing signs; for this is itself a sign, not less than the working of signs—that being persecuted, they overcame without signs. So that just as now He prevails without signs, so was it on many occasions His will to prevail then. Consequently neither did the Apostles run after signs: as in fact he says himself, “We preach Christ crucified” (1 Cor. i. 23)—to them that crave signs, to them that crave wisdom, we give that which cannot even after signs persuade, and yet we do persuade! So that this was a mighty sign. See then, how when the preaching is extended, they are not in a hurry to run after signs.863 For it was right that thenceforth the believers should be mighty signs to the rest. Howbeit, by retreating and advancing they did these things. (α) “And immediately,” it says, “the brethren sent away Paul.” (v. 14.) Here now they send Paul alone: for it was for him they feared, lest he should suffer some harm, the head and front of all being in fact none other than he. (β) “They sent him away,” it says, “as it were to the sea:” that it might not be easy for them to seize him. For864 at present they could not have done much by themselves; and with him they accomplished and achieved many things. For the present, it says, they wished to rescue him. (α) So far is it from being the case, that (supernatural) Grace worked all alike on all occasions: on the contrary, it left them to take their measures upon human judgment, (only) stirring them up and rousing them out of sleep, and making them to take pains.865 Thus, observe, 862 Edd. καθάπερ γὰρ ἐν σώματι, ὅταν ἡ νόσος χαλεπωτέρα ᾖ, πλείονα ἔχει τὴν ὕλην καὶ τὴν τροφήν. Neander, der heil. Chrysost. t. i. p. 2. note, corrects the passage thus, καθάπερ γὰρ ἐν σώματι ἡ νόσος χαλεπωτέρα, ὅταν πλ. ἔχοι τὴν ὕλην. But A. C. preserve the true reading ἔχουσα. 863 Of the Edd. Savile alone has adopted the true reading πῶς οὐ ταχέως ἐπιτρέχουσι τοῖς σημείοις, preserved by B. The other mss. and Edd. omit οὐ. 864 Here again Savile (with B.) has the true reading οὔπω γὰρ, the rest οὕτω. 865 Here (because it seems unsuitable to refer this to χάρις, i.e. supernatural grace, or special miraculous interposition,) B. substitutes, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα πεῖραν λάβωσι, διανιστῶσαν αὐτοὺς καὶ διυπνίζουσαν καὶ εἰς μέριμναν ἐμβάλλουσαν, ἐποίει αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπινα πάσχειν, “but in order that they may get experience, rousing and it brought them safe only as far as Philippi, but no more after that. “And receiving,” it says, “a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus for to come to him with all speed, they departed.” (v. 15.) For though he was a Paul, nevertheless he needed them. And with good reason are they urged by God to go into Macedonia, for there lay Greece moreover bright (before them). (ch. xvi. 9.)

See what zeal the rest of the disciples showed with respect to their leaders: not as it is now with us, who are separated and divided into great and small: some of us exalted, while others are envious: for this is the reason why those are envious, because we are puffed up, because we will not endure to be put upon a par with them. The reason why there is harmony in the body, is because there is no puffing up: and there is no puffing up, because the members are of necessity made to stand in need of each other, and the head has need of the feet. And God has made this to be the case with us, and, for all that, we will not endure it: although even without this, there ought to be love among us. Hear ye not how they that are without accuse us when they say, “Needs make friendships?” The laity have need of us; and we again exist for them. Since teacher or ruler would not exist, if there were not persons to be taught, nor would he perform his part, for it would not be possible. As the land has need of the husbandman, and the husbandman of the land, so is it here. What reward is there for the teacher to receive, when he has none to produce that he has taught? and what for the taught, who have not had the benefit of the best teaching? So that we need each other alike in turn, both the governed, them that govern,866 and leaders, them that obey: for rulers are for the sake of many. Since no one is sufficient to do anything by himself alone, whether need be to ordain (χειροτονἥσαι), or to examine men’s counsels and opinions, but they become more honorable by assembly and numbers. For instance, the poor need givers, the givers again need receivers. “Considering one another” he says, “to provoke unto love and to good works.” (Heb. x. 24.) On this account the assembly of the whole Church has more power: and what each cannot do by himself singly, he is able to do when joined with the rest. Therefore most necessary are the prayers offered up, here, for the world, for the Church, from the one end of the earth to the other, for peace, for those who are in adversities. And Paul shows this when he says, “That for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf” (2 Cor. i. 11); that is, that He might confer the favor on many. And often he asks for their prayers. See also what God says with regard to the Ninevites: “And shall not I spare that city, wherein dwell more than six score thousand persons?” (Jonah iv. 11.) For if, “where two or three,” He says, “are gathered together in My Name” (Matt. xviii. 20), they prevail much, how much more, being many? waking, and making them take pains, (the Lord) made them to suffer (or be affected) after the manner of men.”—Below, for “Philippi” the same has “Athens.” 866 mss. καὶ ἄρχοντες ἀρχομένων, καὶ ἡγουμενοι (mod. text ἡγούμενος) ὑπηκόων. And yet thou mayest prevail, though thou be but one; yet not equally so. For why art thou but one? Why dost thou not make many? Why dost thou not become the maker of love? Why dost thou not create (κατασκευάζεις) friendship? Thou lackest the chief excellence of virtue. For as men’s being bad by agreement together more provokes God; so for men to be good by unanimity delights Him more. “Thou shalt not follow a multitude,” He says, “to do evil.” (Ex. xxiii. 2.) “They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable” (Rom. iii. 12), and have become as it were men singing in concert in their wickedness. Make for thyself friends in preference to domestics, and all besides. If the peacemaker is a son of God, how much more he who makes friends also? (Matt. v. 9.) If he who reconciles only is called a son of God, of what shall not he be worthy, who makes friends of those who are reconciled? Let us engage ourselves in this trade, let us make those who are enemies to each other friends, and those who are not indeed enemies, but are not friends, them let us bring together, and before all, our own selves. For as he who is at enmity in his house, and has differences with his wife, carries no authority when reconciling others, but will be told, “Physician, heal thyself” (Luke iv. 23), so will a man be told in this case. What then is the enmity that is in us? That of the soul against the body, that of vice against virtue. This enmity let us put an end to, this war let us take away, and then being in peace we shall also address others with much boldness of speech, our conscience not accusing us. Anger fights against gentleness, love of money against contempt of it, envy against goodness of heart. Let us make an end of this war, let us overthrow these enemies, let us set up these trophies, let us establish peace in our own city. We have within us a city and a civil polity, and citizens and aliens many: but let us banish the aliens, that our own people may not be ruined. Let no foreign nor spurious doctrine enter in, no carnal desire. See we not that, if any enemy has been caught in a city, he is judged as a spy? Then let us not only banish aliens, but let us drive out enemies also. If we see one, let us deliver up to the ruler, (that is), to conscience (τᾥ νᾥ), that imagination which is indeed an alien, a barbarian, albeit tricked out with the garb of a citizen. For there are within us many imaginations of this kind, which are by nature indeed enemies, but are clad in sheep’s skins. Just as the Persians, when they have put off the tiara, and the drawers, and the barbarian shoes, and put on the other dress which is usual with us, and have shorn themselves close, and converse in our own tongue, conceal war under their outward garb: but once apply the tortures (βασάνους or “tests”), and thou bringest to light what is hidden: so here, examine (or “put to the test,”) by torture again and again such an imagination as this, and thou wilt quickly see that its spirit is that of a stranger. But to show you also by way of example the sort of spies which the devil sends into us to spy out what is in us, come let us strip one of them, and examine it strictly at the tribunal: and if you please, let us bring forward some of those which were detected by Paul. “Which things,” he says, “have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.” (Col. ii. 23.) The devil wished to bring in Judaism: now if he had introduced it in its own form, he would not have carried his point. Accordingly, mark how he brought it about. “You must neglect the body,” he says: “this is (the true) philosophy, not to admit of meats, but to guard against them: this is humility.” And now again in our own times, in the case of the heretics, he wished to bring us down to the creature. See then how he dressed up his deceit. Had he said, “Worship a creature,” he would have been detected: but what says he? “God” (viz. the Son and the Holy Ghost), he says, “is a created being.” But let us lay bare for the decision of the judges the meaning of the Apostolic writings: there let us bring him: themselves will acknowledge both the preaching and the language. Many make gains “that they may have wherewith to give to the poor,” unjust gains: this too is a wicked imagination. But let us undress it, let us convict it, that we may not be taken by it, but that having escaped all the devices of the devil, and holding to the sound doctrines with strictness, we may be able both to pass in safety through this life present, and to obtain the good things promised, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XVII. 16, 17

“Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.”

Observe how he meets with greater trials among the Jews than among the Gentiles. Thus in Athens he undergoes nothing of this kind; the thing goes as far as ridicule, and there an end: and yet he did make some converts: whereas among the Jews he underwent many perils; so much greater was their hostility against him.—“His spirit,” it says, “was roused within him when he saw the city all full of idols.” Nowhere else were so many objects867 of worship to be seen. But again “he disputed with the Jews in the synagogue, and in the market daily with them that met with him. Then certain of the philosophers of the Stoics and Epicureans encountered him.” (v. 18.) It is a wonder the philosophers did not laugh him to scorn, speaking in the way he did. “And some said, What does this babbler mean to say?” insolently, on the instant:868—this is far from philosophy. “Other some said, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods,” from the preaching, because he had no arrogance. They did not understand, nor comprehend the subjects he was speaking of—how should they? affirming as they did, some of them, that God is a body; others, that pleasure is the (true) happiness.869 “Of strange gods, because he preached unto them Jesus and the Resurrection:” for in fact they supposed “Anastasis” (the Resurrection) to be some deity, being accustomed to worship female divinities also.870 “And having taken him, they brought him to the 867 The old text has πειρασμοὺς, perhaps for σεβασμούς. Mod. text, τοσαῦτα εἴδωλα. 868 Old text, οὕτως αὐτοῦ φθεγγομένου ὑβριστικῶς εὐθέως (comp. Recapitulation) μακρὰν τοῦτο φιλοσοφίας· ἀπὸ τοῦ κηρύγματος. ὅτι οὐδένα τῦφον εἶχεν. Hence Mod. text, οὐδὲ ἀπεπήδησαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κηρ., εἰπόντες· μακρὸν τοῦτο φιλ. U+0026 169·Οτι οὐδ. τ. εἶχεν· ἄλλως δὲ ὅτι οὐκ ἐνόουν κ. τ. λ. The insertion of the texts removes some of the difficulties. Perhaps ἀπὸ τοῦ κηρ. is opposed to εὐθέως: the one sort straightway expressed their disdain, with a supercilious, “What does this σπερμολόγος mean to say?” the other sort did listen, and condescended to comment on the matter of the preaching, having heard it—ἀπὸ τοῦ κηρ. (as in the phrase ἀπὸ τοῦ δειπνοῦ)—saying, “He seemeth,” etc. Of these Chrys. may have said, ὅτι οὐδένα τῦφον εἶχον, opp. to ὐβριστικῶς. But all the mss. have εἶχεν, and so we have rendered it. 869 Here the mss. have the text v. 18, and v. 19, 20 after “female divinities also.” 870 The view of Chrys. that the Greeks supposed Paul to designate by the Anastasis some goddess, has been shared by many more recent interpreters, but seems very improbable. The apostle could hardly have spoken so abstractly of the resurrection as to give rise to such a misapprehension. Paul doubtless spoke of Jesus’ own resurrection and of its relation to that of believers (vid. 1 Cor. xv.), although in the text the absence of αὐτοῦ permits us to find only the idea of the general resurrection expressed.—G.B.S. Areopagus” (v. 19)—not to punish, but in order to learn871—“to the Areopagus” where the trials for murder were held. Thus observe, in hope of learning (they ask him), saying, “May we know what is this new doctrine spoken of by thee? For thou bringest certain strange matters to our ears” (v. 20): everywhere novelty is the charge: “we would fain know therefore, what these things may mean.” It was a city of talkers, that city of theirs. “For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing. Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I look upon you as being in all things” (v. 21, 22)—he puts it by way of encomium: (the word) does not seem to mean anything offensive—δεισιδαιμονεστέρους, that is, εὐλαβεστέρους, “more religiously disposed. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with his inscription, To an Unknown God. What therefore ye ignorantly worship, this declare I unto you.” (v. 23.)—“On which was inscribed, To an Unknown God.” The Athenians, namely, as on many occasions they had received gods from foreign parts also—for instance, the temple of Minerva, Pan, and others from different countries—being afraid that there might be some other god not yet known to them, but worshipped elsewhere, for more assurance, forsooth, erected an altar to that god also: and as the god was not known, it was inscribed, “To an Unknown God.” This God then, he tells them, is Christ; or rather, the God of all.872 “Him declare I unto you.” Observe how he shows that they had already 871 mss. and Edd. οὐχ ὥστε μαθεῖν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε κολάσαι. But this cannot be Chrysostom’s meaning: for in the opening of the Hom. he remarks, that there was nothing of persecution here (comp. the opening of Hom. xxxix.), and in the Recapitulation, that the Athenians at this time were under Roman Law. Also in the following sentence, he explains that their questions were prompted by the hope of learning, ῞Ορα γοῦν (i. e. to show that this was their meaning) καὶ ἐν ἐλπίδι τοῦ μαθεῖν. In the Recapitulation indeed, he says, they brought him ὡς καταπλήξοντες, but this is a different thing from ὥστε κολάσαι. Therefore we have transposed the order of the words. The clause ἔνθα αἱ φονικαὶ δίκαι (and in the Recapitulation ἔνθα τὰς φ. δ. ἐδίκαζον, which we retain from B.), seems to be meant to show that they did not bring him there for trial. 872 The principal points to be noted for the interpretation of v. 23 are as follows: (1) Pausanias (a.d. 174) and Philostratus (a.d. 244) testify to the existence at Athens of altars with the inscription: ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ. (2) “Upon important occasions, when the reference to a god known by name was wanting, as in public calamities of which no definite god could be assigned as the author, in order to honor or propitiate the god concerned by sacrifice, without lighting on a wrong one, altars were erected which were destined and designated ἀγνώστῳ θέU+0026 254·.” (Meyer.) (3) By these inscriptions the Athenians referred to no particular divinities, but to supposed benefactors or avengers to whom they, in their religious system, could attach no name. (4) No reference is to be found in these inscriptions to the God of the Jews. The true text: ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλω ὑμῖν (instead of the masculine ὅν—τοῦτον of the cursives and the T. R.) does not require the supposition of such a reference. They acknowledged an unknown—lying beyond their pantheon. Paul declares what this is: the true God as revealed in Jesus Christ. They would only partially and gradually understand his full meaning.—G.B.S. received Him, and “it is nothing strange,” says he, “nothing new that I introduce to you.” All along, this was what they had been saying: “What is this new doctrine spoken of by thee? For thou bringest certain strange matters to our ears.” Immediately therefore he removes this surmise of theirs: and then says, “God that made the world and all things therein, He being Lord of heaven and earth”—for, that they may not imagine Him to be one of many, he presently sets them right on this point; adding, “dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (v. 24), “neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything”—do you observe how, little by little, he brings in the philosophy? how he ridicules the heathen error? “seeing it is He that giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” This is peculiar to God. Look, then, whether these things may not be predicated of the Son also. “Being Lord,” he saith, “of heaven and earth”—which they accounted to be God’s. Both the creation he declares to be His work, and mankind also.873 “Having determined,” he says, “the times874 assigned to them, and the bounds of their habitation,” (v. 25, 26), “that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us: for in Him we live, and move, and have our being: as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also His offspring.” (v. 27, 28.) This is said by Aratus the poet. Observe how he draws his arguments from things done by themselves, and from sayings of their own. “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art.” (v. 29.) And yet for this reason we ought.875 By no means: for surely we are not like (to such), nor are these souls of ours. “And imagination of man.” How so? But some person might say, “We do not think this.” But 873 προστετ. E.V. “before appointed” (προτετ). 874 Edd. καὶ τὴν δημιουργίαν ἐδήλωσε καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Comp. Recapitulation, whence it appears that he means “Both heaven and earth, and mankind also were created, not generated or emanated.” 875 Καὶ μὴν διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλομεν. Mod. text inserts a φησὶν, to make this an interlocution, in the sense, “Nay but for this reason, viz., being His offspring, we ought to think of Him as in the likeness of man.” But this cannot be Chrysostom’s meaning. Perhaps Chrys. said, οὐδὲ τοῦτο, viz., after the following sentence, so that the sense will be, “We ought not to think the Godhead like unto gold, etc., the graven work of man’s art. By no means: for certainly we ourselves, our souls, are not like unto such. Nay, more, we ought not to think even this, that the Godhead is like unto aught that man’s imagination can conceive, as the Apostle adds, καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου τὸ Θεῖον εἶκαι ὅμοιον.” (See the Recapitulation.) He proceeds: τί δήποτε; i.e. Why having said χαράγματι τέχνης does he add καὶ ἐνθυμ. ὀνθρ.? The answer, not expressed here, is, “Because neither is it subject to any other human conception,” (διανοίU+0026 139·, Recapitulation). Then, the old text has, οὐκ ἐστι πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν· πῶς οὖν πάλιν τὸ ζητούμενον· τοὺς μὲν οὖν χρον. κ. τ. λ. Here we insert from the Recapitulation a sentence, which, where it stands, is superfluous (p. 236, note 6): ᾽Αλλ᾽ εἴποι ἄν τις, Οὐ τοῦτο νομίζομεν. ᾽Αλλὰ πρὸς τοὺς πολλοὺς ὁ λόγος ἦν αὐτῷ, and then, οὔκετι (so we correct οὐκ ἐστι) πρὸς φιλοσοφίαν. i.e. “Philosophers may say, We it was to the many that he was addressing himself, not now to Philosophy. How then did they think so unworthily of Him? Again, putting it upon their ignorance, he says, “Now the times of ignorance God overlooked.” Having876 agitated their minds by the fear, he then adds this: and yet he says, “but now he commandeth all men everywhere to repent.” (v. 30.) “Because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead.” (v. 31.) But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) (b) “And while Paul waited,” etc. (v. 16.) It is providentially ordered that against his will he stays there, while waiting for those others. (a) “His spirit,” it says, “within him” παρωξύνετο. It does not mean there anger or exasperation: just as elsewhere it says, “There was παροξυσμὸς between them.” (ch. xv. 30.) (c) Then what is παρωξύνετο? Was roused: for the gift is far removed from anger and exasperation. He could not bear it, but pined away.877 “He reasoned therefore in the synagogue,” etc. (v. 17.) Observe him again reasoning with Jews. By “devout persons” he means the proselytes. For the Jews were dispersed everywhere before (mod. text “since”) Christ’s coming, the Law indeed being henceforth, so to say, in process of dissolution, but at the same time (the dispersed Jews) teaching men religion.878 But those prevailed nothing, save only that they got witnesses of do not so think of the Godhead. But he is not dealing with Philosophy, but πρὸς τοὺς πολλούς. Πῶς οὖν οὐχ εὗρον; or the like; Πάλιν τὸ ζητούμενον. Again coming to the question in hand (An ‘Unknown’ God, Whom ye ‘ignorantly worship, he says). Now the times of ignorance,” etc.—Mod. text. “Why did he not immediately come (ἔστη) to Philosophy, and say, God is incorporeal by nature, invisible and without form? Because it seemed superfluous at present to say these things to men who had not yet (μήπω om. E.) learned that there is but one God. Therefore leaving those matters, he addresses himself (ἵσταται) to the matter in hand, and says, Now the times,” etc. 876 Old text inserts here the whole of v. 30, 31, then, καίτοιγέ φησιν, ὥρισεν ἡμ. ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν. Κατασείσας αὐτῶν τὴν διανοίαν τῷ φόβῳ, τότε ἐπάγει τοῦτο. It appears from the Recapitulation that κατ. τῷ φ. refers to the preceding verses, being explained by δείξας ἀναπολογήτους: and ἐπάγει τοῦτο to the first clause of v. 30, the overlooking of the times of ignorance. We have arranged the matter accordingly.—Mod. text, v. 30, 31. “See, having agitated their minds by saying, ‘He hath appointed a day,’ and terrified them, then he seasonably adds this, ‘Having raised Him from the dead.’” Which is clearly not Chrysostom’s meaning. 877 οὐκ ἔφερεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐτήκετο. The latter word seems incongruous, unless there be a reference to what St. Paul says of the state of his mind while waiting at Athens, in 1 Thess. ii. 1. q.d. this is not the state of feeling in which one is apt to give way to anger and irritation. 878 ἅμα μὲν τοῦ νόμου λυομένου φησὶν λοιπὸν, ἅμα δὲ διδάσκοντες εὐσέβειαν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. i.e. “of which dispersion the consequence was indeed a breaking down, it may be said, of the Law (by intermarriages, etc.), but withal a spreading of the true religion among men.” Mod. text, having mistakenly changed πρὸ to ἀπὸ, inserts ἐξ ἐκείνου “from that time” before τοῦ νόμου: and also omits φησὶν λοιπὸν, which the innovator did their own calamities. (e) “And certain philosophers,” etc. (v. 18.) How came they to be willing to confer with him? (They did it) when they saw others reasoning, and the man having repute (in the encounter). And observe straightway with overbearing insolence, “some said, What would this babbler say? For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit.” (1 Cor. ii. 14.) Other some, He seemeth to be a setter-forth of strange deities: δαιμονίων, for so they called their gods. “And having taken him, they brought him,” etc. (v. 19.) (a) The Athenians no longer enjoyed their own laws, but were become subject to the Romans. (g) (Then) why did they hale him to the Areopagus? Meaning to overawe him—(the place) where they held the trials for bloodshed. “May we know, what is this new doctrine spoken of by thee? For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears; we would fain know therefore what these things mean. For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” (v. 20, 21.) Here the thing noted is, that though ever occupied only in this telling and hearing, yet they thought those things strange—things which they had never heard. “Then Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus said, Ye men of Athens, I look upon you as being in all things more religiously disposed” (v. 22): (f) for the cities were full of gods (δαιμόνων, al. εἰδώλων): (h) this is why he says δεισιδαιμονεστέρους. For as I passed by and viewed the objects of your worship —he does not say simply τοὺς δαίμονας (the demons, or deities), but paves the way for his discourse: “I beheld an altar,” etc. (v. 23.) This is why he says, “I look upon you as being more religiously disposed,” viz. because of the altar. “God,” he says, “that made the world.” (v. 24.) He uttered one word, by which he has subverted all the (doctrines) of the philosophers. For the Epicureans affirm all to be fortuitously formed and (by concourse) of atoms, the Stoics held it to be body and fire (ἐκπύρωσιν). “The world and all that is therein.” Do you mark the conciseness, and in conciseness, clearness? Mark what were the things that were strange to them: that God made the world! Things which now any of the most ordinary persons know, these the Athenians and the wise men of the Athenians knew not. “Seeing He is Lord of heaven and earth:” for if He made them, it is clear that He is Lord. Observe what he affirms to be the note of Deity—creation. Which attribute the Son also hath.

For the Prophets everywhere affirm this, that to create is God’s prerogative. Not as those affirm879 that another is Maker but not Lord, assuming that matter is uncreated. Here now not understand.—᾽Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲν ἴσχυσαν (mod. text, ἐκέρδαναν) ἐκεῖνοι. But those Jews, for all their success in spreading their religion, availed nothing, save that they got (more) witnesses (μαρτυρίας perhaps should be μάρτυρας) of their own proper calamities (when the wrath came upon them to the uttermost), i.e. they prepared the way for the Gospel. but for themselves they availed nothing, but only to increase the number of those who should bear witness to the truth of God’s judgment upon them for their unbelief. 879 This, as it stands seems to be meant rather for the Manichæans than the heathen philosophers, to whom, he has just before said, the very notion of creation was strange. But the whole exposition is most inadequately he covertly affirms and establishes his own, while he overthrows their doctrine.880 “Dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” For He does indeed dwell in temples, yet not in such, but in man’s soul. He overthrows the corporeal worship. What then? Did He not dwell in the temple at Jerusalem? No indeed: but He wrought therein. “Neither is worshipped by men’s hands.” (v. 25.) How then was He worshipped by men’s hands among the Jews? Not by hands, but by the understanding. “As though He needed anything:” since even those (acts of worship) He did not in this sort seek, “as having need. Shall I eat,” saith He, “the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” (Ps. l. 13.) Neither is this enough—the having need of naught—which he has affirmed: for though this is Divine, yet a further attribute must be added. “Seeing it is He that giveth unto all, life and breath and all things.” Two proofs of Godhead: Himself to have need of naught, and to supply all things to all men. Produce here Plato (and) all that he has philosophized about God, all that Epicurus has: and all is but trifling to this! “Giveth,” he says, “life and breath.” Lo, he makes Him the Creator of the soul also, not its begetter. See again how he overthrows the doctrine about matter. “And made,” he says, “of one blood every nation of men to dwell upon all the face of the earth.” (v. 26.) These things are better than the former: and what an impeachment both of the atoms and of matter, that (creation) is not partial (work), nor the soul of man either.881 But this, which those say, is not to be Creator.882—But by the mind and understanding He is worshipped.—“ It is He that giveth,” etc. He not the partial (μερικοὶ δαίμονες) deities. “And all things.” It is “He,” he saith.—How man also came into being.883—First he showed that “He dwelleth not,” etc., and then declared884 that He “is not worshipped as though He had need given, through the carelessness or incompetency of the reporter. To be referred to the heathen, it should be ἄλλον μὲν εἶναι κύριον (as Jupiter) οὐ ποιητὴν δέ: and this is favored, perhaps, by the unnecessary τὴν δὲ (omitted by A. B.) as remaining from οὐ ποιητὴν δὲ ἀγέννητον ὕλην ὑποτίθεντες. 880 ᾽Ενταῦθα λοιπὸν αἰνιγματωδῶς εἶπε τὸ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔστησε—i.e. in speaking of God, he at the same time hints at the coequal Godhead of the Son: for He also is Creator and Lord. See p. 233 in the comments on v. 23, and v. 25, 26. 881 ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι μερικὴ, οὐδὲ ψυχὴ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. “This is very obscure, and seems remote from the matter in hand. Hales ap. Sav. thinks it has come into the text from some other place. I should rather think the passage either mutilated or corrupt.” Ben. “There is nothing either obscure or corrupt in the passage.” Ed. Par. The meaning seems to be, As the whole creation is the work of One God, not μερικῶς but τὸ καθόλου, so are all mankind, universally, His work; the soul too, as well as the body. 882 This and the following sentences seem to be fragments belonging to the preceding exposition. But the whole is too confused and mangled to admit of any satisfactory restoration. 883 Πῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπος γέγονε. Or (see note 2.) “How He (the Son) became man”—as belonging to some other place; e.g. after οὐδέπω τὰ μέγαλα εἶπεν. Or this may be put in the place of πῶς θεραπεύεται, note 8. Mod. text. “Having before shown, how the heaven was made, then he declared,” etc. 884 ἀπεφήνατο: above, το μηδένος δεῖσθαι, ὅπερ ἀπεφήνατο. of aught.” If God,885 He made all: but if He made not, He is not God. Gods that made not heaven and earth, let them perish. He introduces much greater doctrines, though as yet he does not mention the great doctrines; but he discoursed to them as unto children. And these were much greater than those. Creation, Lordship, the having need of naught, authorship of all good—these he has declared. But886 how is He worshipped? say. It is not yet the proper time. What equal to this sublimity? Marvellous is this also—of one, to have made so many: but also, having made, Himself sustains them (συγκρατεἵ) in being, “giving life and breath and all things. (b) And hath determined the times appointed, and the bounds of their habitation, that they should seek God, if haply they might feel after Him and find Him.” (v. 27.) (a) It means either this, that He did not compel them to go about and seek God, but according to the bounds887 of their habitation: (c) or this, that He determined their seeking God, yet not determined this (to be done) continually, but (determined) certain appointed times (when they should do so): showing888 now, that not having sought they had found: for since, having sought, they had not found, he shows that God was now as manifest as though He were in the midst of them palpably (ψηλαφώμενος). (e) “Though He be not far,” he saith, “from every one of us,” but is near to all. See again the power (or, “what it is to be God,”) of God. What saith he? Not only He gave “life and breath and all things,” but, as the sum and substance of all, He brought us to the knowledge of Himself, by giving us these things by which we are able to find and to apprehend Him. But we did not wish to find Him, albeit close at hand. “Though He be not far from every one of us.” Why look now, He is near to all, to every one all the world over! What can be greater than this? See how he makes clear riddance of the parcel deities (τοὺς μερικούς)! What say I, “afar off?” He is so near, that without Him we live not: “for in Him we live and move and have our being.” (v. 28.) “In him;” to put it by way of corporeal similitude, even as it is impossible to be ignorant of the air which is diffused on every side around us, and is “not far from every one of us,” nay rather, which is in us. (d) For it was not so that there was a heaven in one place, in another none, nor yet (a heaven) at one time, at another none. So that both at every “time” and at every “bound” it was possible to find Him. He so ordered things, that neither by place nor by time were men hindered. For of course even this, if nothing else, of itself was a help to them—that the heaven is in every place, that it stands in all time. (f) See how (he declares) 885 This also may be part of the argument against the Arians, which Chrys. seems to have brought into his exposition. See note 2. 886 This is clearly out of place. Perhaps πῶς καὶ ἄνθρωπος γέγονε (note 5.) belongs here. 887 Κατὰ τὰς ὁροθεσίας. Perhaps Chrys. may have read κατὰ τὰς ὁρ. in his copy of the Acts: as Cod. Bezæ and S. Irenæus, κατὰ τὴν ὁροθεσίαν. 888 Mod. text spoiling the sense; “And this he says showing that not even now had they, having sought, found: although He was as plain to be found as anything would be that was (set) in the midst to be handled.” His Providence, and His upholding power (συγκράτησιν); the existence of all things from Him, (from Him) their working (τὸ ἐνεργεἵν), (from Him their preservation) that they perish not. And he does not say, “Through Him,” but, what was nearer than this, “In him.”—That poet said nothing equal to this, “For we are His offspring.” He, however, spake it of Jupiter, but Paul takes it of the Creator, not meaning the same being as he, God forbid! but meaning what is properly predicated of God: just as he spoke of the altar with reference to Him, not to the being whom they worshipped. As much as to say, “For certain things are said and done with reference to this (true God), but ye know not that they are with reference to Him.” For say, of whom would it be properly said, “To an Unknown God?” Of the Creator, or of the demon? Manifestly of the Creator: because Him they knew not, but the other they knew. Again, that all things are filled (with the presence)—of God? or of Jupiter—a wretch of a man, a detestable impostor! But Paul said it not in the same sense as he, God forbid! but with quite a different meaning. For he says we are God’s offspring, i.e. God’s own,889 His nearest neighbors as it were.

For lest, when he says, “Being the offspring of God” (v. 29), they should again say, Thou bringest certain strange things to our ears,890 he produces the poet. He does not say, “Ye ought not to think the Godhead like to gold or silver,” ye accursed and execrable: but in more lowly sort he says, “We ought not.” For what (says he)?891 God is above this? No, he does not say this either: but for the present this—“We ought not to think the Godhead like unto such,” for nothing is so opposite to men. “But we do not affirm the Godhead to be like unto this, for who would say that?” Mark892 how he has introduced the incorporeal (nature 889 Old text: Τουτέστιν, οἰκείους, ἐγγυτάτους ὥσπερ παροίκους καὶ γείτονας ὅταν λέγῃ: so Cat. The two last words are out of place; we insert them with the text-words after ῞Ινα γὰρ μὴ. The sense is: He does not mean, with the heathen poet, that mankind came from God by generation or emanation: but that we are very near to Him. 890 Here mss. and Edd, have οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτως ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίον, as if it meant, “nothing so goes against men as strangeness.” We place it in what seems a more suitable connection: “We ought not to think,” etc. for so far from “the Godhead” being “like unto such,” nothing is so much the reverse of like unto men, who “are his offspring.” 891 τί γάρ; ὑπὲρ τοῦτο Θεός; οὐδὲ τοῦτο· ἀλλὰ τέως τοῦτο· A. B. C , τί γὰρ τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο θεός· οὐδὲ κ. τ. λ. Cat. om. τί γὰρ τὸ, and ἀλλὰ τέως τοῦτο. Mod. text, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο. τί δαὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ τοῦτο; Θεός· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τοῦτο, ἐνεργείας γάρ ἐστιν ὄνομα· ἀλλὰ τέως τοῦτο. 892 Possibly the connection may be, “He is not addressing himself to the notions of philosophers, (supra, note 1, p. 234). for them he insinuated τὸ ἀσώματον by the ᾽Εν αὐτῷ ζῶμεν, the intimate presence of Deity, the denial of body by the denial of διάστημα which is necessarily implied in the notion of body. But he speaks to the many, and puts it to them in this way, We, being in respect of the soul, akin to God, ought not to think,” etc.—Mod. text omits πρὸς τοὺς πολλούς. of God) when he said, “In Him,” etc., for the mind, when it surmises body, at the same time implies the notion of distance. (Speaking) to the many he says, “We ought not to think the Godhead like unto gold, or silver, or stone, the shaping of art,”893 for if we are not like to those as regards the soul, much more God (is not like to such). So far, he withdraws them from the notion. But neither is the Godhead, he would say, subjected to any other human conception. For894 if that which art or thought has found—this is why he says it thus, “of art or imagination of man”—if that, then, which human art or thought has found, is God, then even in the stone (is) God’s essence.—How comes it then, if “in Him we live,” that we do not find Him? The charge is twofold, both that they did not find Him, and that they found such as these. The (human) understanding in itself is not at all to be relied upon.—But when he has agitated their soul by showing them to be without excuse, see what he says: “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent.” (v. 30.) What then? Are none of these men to be punished? None of them that are willing to repent. He says it of these men, not of the departed, but of them whom He commands to repent. He does not call you to account, he would say. He does not say, Took no notice (παρεἵδεν); does not say, Permitted: but, Ye were ignorant. “Overlooked,” i.e. does not demand punishment as of men that deserve punishment. Ye were ignorant. And he does not say, Ye wilfully did evil; but this he showed by what he said above.895—“All men everywhere to repent:” again he hints at the whole world. Observe how he takes them off from the parcel deities! “Because He has appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained, whereof He hath given assurance to all men, in that He raised Him from the dead.” (v. 31.) Observe how he again declares the Passion. Observe the terror again: for, that the judgment is true, is clear from the raising Him up: for it is alleged in proof of that. That all he has been saying is true, is clear from the fact that He rose again. For He did give896 this “assurance to all men,” His rising from the dead: this (i.e. judgment), also is henceforth certain.

Acts XVII. 32–34, XVIII. 1

“And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. So Paul departed from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. After these things Paul departed from Athens, and came to Corinth.”

What can be the reason that, having persuaded (some so far as to say) that they would hear him again, and there being no dangers, Paul is so in haste to leave Athens? Probably he knew that he should do them no great good; moreover he was led by the Spirit to Corinth. 904 (b) For the Athenians, although fond of hearing strange things, nevertheless did not attend (to him); for this was not their study, but only to be always having something to say; which was the cause that made them hold off from him. But if this was their custom, how is it that they accuse him, “he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods?” (ch. xvii. 18.) Yes, but these were matters they did not at all know what to make of. Howbeit, he did convert both Dionysius the Areopagite, and some others. For those who were careful of (right) living, quickly received the word; but the others not so. It seemed to Paul sufficient to have cast the seeds of the doctrines. (a) To Corinth then, as I said, he was led by the Spirit, in which city he was to abide. (c) “And having found a certain Jew named Aquila, of Pontus by birth, lately come from Italy”—for the greater part of his life had been passed there—“and Priscilla his wife, because that Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome.” (v. 2.) For though it was in the reign of Nero that the war against the Jews was consummated, yet from the time of Claudius and thenceforward it was fanning up, at a distance indeed,905 so that, were it but so, they might come to their senses, and from Rome they were now driven as common pests. This is why it is so ordered by Providence that Paul was led thither as a prisoner, that he might not as a Jew be driven away, but as acting under 904 Here in mss. and Edd. the order is confused by the insertion of the text xvii. 34; xviii. 1–3, and the transposition of the sentence marked (a), in consequence of which the first sentence of (c) has been misunderstood, as if it meant that St. Paul thought it enough merely to sow the seeds at Athens (τέως mod. text Cat. τῶν λόγων), “because the greater part of his life was now passed.” So Cat. is further betrayed into a misconception of the following words ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ Νέρωνος ἐτελειώθη, adding ὁ Παῦλος, as if it referred to St. Paul’s martyrdom: and so Ben. mistakes the matter, major’ enim pars vitæ illius jam (ἐνταῦθα) transacta erat. Nam sub Nerone consummatus est, as Erasm. occisus est:’ though the opposition to the ἐπὶ μὲν N. in the following clause ἀπὸ δὲ Κλ., might have obviated this misapprehension. 905 See Recapitulation, p. 239, note 1. military custody might even be guarded there. (Having found these,) “he came to them, and because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought: for by occupation they were tent-makers.” (v. 3.) Lo, what a justification he found for dwelling in the same house with them! For because here, of all places, it was necessary that he should not receive, as he himself says, “That wherein they glory, they may be found, even as we” (2 Cor. xi. 12), it is providentially ordered that he there abides. “And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks. And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was straitened in the word,906 testifying to the Jews that Jesus is the Christ.” (v. 4, 5.) “And when the Jews opposed and blasphemed,” i.e. they tried to bear him down (ἐπηρέαζον), they set upon him—What then does Paul? He separates from them, and in a very awful manner: and though he does not now say, “It was need that the word should be spoken unto you,” yet he darkly intimates it to them:—“and when they opposed themselves, and blasphemed, he shook his raiment, and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles.” (v. 6.) “And he departed thence, and entered into a certain man’s house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue.” See how having again said, “Henceforth—” for all that, he does not neglect them; so that it was to rouse them that he said this, and thereupon came to Justus, whose house was contiguous to the synagogue, so that907 even from this they might have jealousy, from the very proximity. “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house.” This also was, of all things, enough to bring them over. “And many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Then spake the Lord to Paul in the night by a vision, Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace: for I am with thee, and no man shall set on thee to hurt thee: for I have much people in this city.” (v. 8–10.) See by how many reasons He persuades him, and how He puts last the reason which of all others most prevailed with him, “I have much people in this city.” Then how was it, you may ask, that they set upon him? And908 yet, the writer tells us, they prevailed nothing, but brought him to the proconsul. “And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. And when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment-seat.” (v. 11, 12.) Do you mark why those men were ever contriving to give a public turn to the misdemeanors (they accused them of)? Thus see here: (b) “Saying, This 906 A. B. C. τῷ λόγῳ: so the best mss. of the Acts, Gr. and Lat. instabat verbo. 907 A. B. C. ὥστε καὶ ἀπὸ (B. om.) τοῦ ζήλου (ζῆλον C.) ἔχειν ἀπὸ τῆς γειτνιάσεως. Cat. has preserved the true reading, ἀπὸ τούτου ζῆλον. 908 This would be better transposed thus: καὶ μὴν, φησὶν, ἤγαγον αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν ἀνθ., ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲν σχυσαν. Mod. text, “but they only brought him,” etc. What follows is confused by the transposition after ὅρα γοῦν ἐνταῦθα of the part (a) beginning with the same words. fellow seduceth men contrary to the law to worship God. And when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said: If indeed it were any wrong-doing or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you. But if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such matters. And he drave them from the judgment-seat.” (v. 13–16.) This Gallio seems to me to have been a sensible man. (a) Thus observe, when these had said, “Against the law he seduceth men to worship God,” he “cared for none of these things:” and observe how he answers them: “If indeed it were” any matter affecting the city, “any wrong-doing or wicked lewdness,” etc. (c) “Then all the Jews909 took Sosthenes the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him before the judgment-seat: and Gallio cared for none of these things” (v. 17): but their beating him he did not take as an insult to himself. So petulant were the Jews. But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “And when they heard,” (ch. xvii. 32) what great and lofty doctrines, they did not even attend, but jeered at the Resurrection! “For the natural man,” it saith, “receiveth not the things of the Spirit.” (1 Cor. ii. 14.) “And so,” it says, “Paul went forth.” (v. 33.) How? Having persuaded some; derided by others. “But certain men,” it says, “clave unto him, and believed, among whom was also Dionysius the Areopagite and some others.” 910 (v. 34.) “And after these things,” etc. “And having found a certain Jew by name Aquila, of Pontus by birth, lately come from Italy, because that Claudius had ordered all Jews to depart from Rome, he came to them, and because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tent-makers.” (ch.xviii. 1–3.) Being of Pontus, this Aquila .911 Observe how, not in Jerusalem, nor near it (the crisis), 909 The mss. have ἱο῞Ελληνες as in some copies of the Acts and Elz., but the best authorities Gr. and Lat. simply πάντες. We adopt οἱ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι from the Catena, and Chrys. evidently understood it of the Jews. 910 Here A. B. C. insert the sentence ὅρα τους πιστους κ. τ. λ. which mod. text rightly removes to the comment on v. 8, and after it, ὅρα πῶς ὁ νόμος καταλύεται λοιπόν: which unless it means, “See here the beginning of the judgment on the Jews, the dissolution of their Law, and overthrow of their nation,” of which Chrys. speaks in this sentence, is out of place here, and belongs to the comment on v. 18, i.e. to the beginning of Hom. 40, which in fact opens with these words. So mod. text understands them. “Mark how the Law begins to be dissolved from henceforth. For this man, being a Jew, having after these things shorn his head in Cenchrea, goes with Paul into Syria. Being a man of Pontus, not in Jerusalem nor near it did he haste to come, but at a greater distance.” The innovator’s meaning seems to have been, that he shore his head in fulfilment of his vow, not in Jerusalem, nor near Jerusalem, but at a greater distance, viz. in Cenchrea.” But St. Chrys. is here commenting on Claudius’ edict (see above, p. 240, on v. 2): “See here the beginning of the judgment on the Jews: it was hasting to come, but it began not in Jerusalem, nor in Palestine, but at a greater distance—at Rome, in this edict of the Emperor: οὐκ ἐν ῾Ιεροσολύμοις, οὐδὲ πλησίον ἔσπευδεν ἐλθεῖν ἀλλὰ μακροτέρω.” 911 The sentence may be completed with: “had spent the greater part of his life at Rome,” etc.; see above, p. 236, but the copyist make οὗτος nom. to οὐκ ἔσπευδεν ἐλθεῖν. was hasting to come, but at a greater distance. And with him he abides, and is not ashamed to abide, nay, for this very reason he does abide, as having a suitable lodging-place, for to him it was much more suitable than any king’s palace. And smile not thou, beloved, to hear (of his occupation). For (it was good for him) even as to the athlete the palæstra is more useful than delicate carpets; so to the warrior the iron sword (is useful), not that of gold. “And wrought,” though he preached. Let us be ashamed, who though we have no preaching to occupy us, live in idleness. “And he disputed in the synagogue every sabbath day, and persuaded both Jews and Greeks” (v. 4): but “when they opposed and blasphemed” he withdrew, by this expecting to draw them more. For wherefore having left that house did he come to live hard by the synagogue? was it not for this? For it was not that he saw any danger here. But therefore it is that Paul having testified to them—not teaches now, but testifies—“having shaken his garments,” to terrify them not by word only but by action, “said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads” (v. 6): he speaks the more vehemently as having already persuaded many. “I,” says he, “am clean.” Then we also are accountable for the blood of those entrusted to us, if we neglect them. “From this time forth I will go to the Gentiles.” So that also when he says, “Henceforth let no man trouble me” (Gal. vi. 17), he says it to terrify. For not so much did the punishment terrify, as this stung them. “And having removed thence he came into the house of one named Justus, that worshipped God, whose house was contiguous to the synagogue” (v. 7), and there abode, by this wishing to persuade them that he was in earnest (πρὸς τὰ ἐθνη ἠπείγετο) to go to the Gentiles. Accordingly, mark immediately the ruler of the synagogue converted, and many others, when he had done this. “Crispus the ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord, with his whole house: and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.”—(v. 8.) “With his whole house:”912 observe the converts in those times doing this with their entire household. This Crispus he means where he writes, “I baptized none save Crispus and Gaius.” (1 Cor. i. 14.) This (same) I take to be called Sosthenes—(evidently) a believer, insomuch that he is beaten, and is always present with Paul.913 “And the Lord said in the 912 To this clause, mod. text rightly refers the comment, ὅρα τοὺς πιστοὺς τότε μετὰ τῆς οἰκίας τοῦτο ποιοῦντας ὁλοκλήρου, which the original text has after καὶ ἕτεροι τινές of xvii. 34. 913 There is no sufficient ground for the supposition of Chrys. that the Sosthenes here mentioned was a Christian and the same who is saluted in 1 Cor. i. 1. On the contrary, he was the leader of the Jewish party who persecuted the ruler of the synagogue, perhaps the successor of Crispus who had become a Christian. The reading οἱ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι of some inferior mss. in v. 17 which is followed by Chrys. would easily give rise to this misconception. The true text is most probably πάντες, meaning the officers of the governor. The representatives of the Roman government, then, attacked Sosthenes, the leader of the party which was persecuting Paul. Thus their effort ended in failure. And so indifferent was Gallio that he in no way interfered. Paul’s accusers were thus themselves beaten and the whole effort at prosecution miserably failed.—G.B.S. night,” etc. Now even the number (of the “much people”) persuaded him, but Christ’s claiming them for His own (moved him) more.914 Yet He says also, “Fear not:” for the danger was become greater now, both because more believed, and also the ruler of the synagogue. This was enough to rouse him. Not that he was reproved915 as fearing; but that he should not suffer aught; “I am with thee, and none shall set upon thee to hurt thee.” (v. 9, 10.) For He did not always permit them to suffer evil, that they might not become too weak. For nothing so grieved Paul, as men’s unbelief and setting themselves (against the Truth): this was worse than the dangers. Therefore it is that (Christ) appears to him now. “And he continued a year and six months,” etc. (v. 11.) After the year and six months, they set upon him. “And when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia,” etc. (v. 12, 13), because they had no longer the use of their own laws.916 (c) And observe how prudent he is: for he does not say straightway, I care not, but, “If,” says he, “it were a matter of wrong-doing or wicked lewdness, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you; but if it be a question of doctrine and words and of your law, see ye to it, for I do not choose to be a judge of such matters.” (v. 14, 15.) (g) He taught917 them that not such are the matters which crave a judicial sentence, but they do all things out of order. And he does not say, It is not my duty, but, “I do not choose,” that they may not trouble him again. Thus Pilate said in the case of Christ, “Take ye Him, and judge him according to your law.” (John xviii. 31.) But they were just like men drunken and mad. (d) “And he drave them from the judgment-seat” (v. 16)—he effectually closed the tribunal against them. “Then all” (the Jews) “having seized Sosthenes the ruler of the synagogue, beat him before the judgment-seat. And Gallio cared for none of these 914 ἡ δὲ οἰκείωσις τοῦΧ. πλέον. Sed familiaritas Christi magis. Ben. Chrys. said above, that the most powerful consideration was this which is put last, “For I have much people in this city.” The meaning here is, That there was “much people” to be converted, was a cheering consideration: that Christ should say, λαός μοι πολύς ἐστιν, speaking of them as “His own,” was the strongest inducement. 915 B. C. ὅτι ἠλέγχθη φοβούμενος ἢ οὐκ ἠλέγχθη ὥστε μὴ (C. μηδὲ) παθεῖν. A., ὅτε ἐλέχθη ὥστε δὲ μὴ παθεῖν, (which is meant for emendation: “This was enough to rouse him when it was spoken: but, that he should not suffer,” etc.) Mod. text, ὅτι ἠλ. φοβούμενος, ἢ οὐκ ἠλ. μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ ὥστε μηδὲ τοῦτο παθεῖν. We read Οὐκ ὅτι ἠλέγχθη ὡς φοβούμενος. U+0026 244·στε δὲ μὴ παθεῖν, ᾽Εγώ εἰμι μετὰ σοῦ. The accidental omission of οὐκ may have been corrected in the margin by the gloss ἢ οὐκ ἠλ. But the sense seems to be otherwise confused by transpositions. “It is true, even the number, and still more Christ’s οἰκείωσις of them, prevailed with him. This was enough to rouse him. But Christ begins by saying, “Fear not,” etc. And in fact the danger was increased, etc. Not that Paul was reproved as being afraid, etc. 916 From this point to the end of the Exposition all is confused. To make something like connection, it has been necessary to rearrange the parts, but the restoration is still unsatisfactory. 917 Καὶ ἐδιδάξεν ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα δικαστικῆς ψήφου [οὐ, this we supply,] δεῖται· ἀλλὰ ἀτάκτως πάντα ποιοῦσιν. Mod. text ἐδίδαξε γὰρ (ἥ τε τούτων ῾ἐπιείκεια καὶ ἐκείνων θρασύτης, from f) ὅτι τὰ τοι. δικ. ψήφ. δεῖται. things.” (v. 17). (a) This thing, of all others, set them on (to this violence)—their persuasion that the governor would not even let himself down (to notice it). (e) It was a splendid victory. O the shame they were put to! (b) For it is one thing to have come off victorious from a controversy, and another for those to learn that he cared nothing for the affair. (f) “And Gallio cared for none of these things:” and yet the whole was meant as an insult to him! But, forsooth, as if they had received authority (they did this). Why did he (Sosthenes), though he also had authority, not beat (them)? But they were (otherwise) trained: so that the judge should learn which party was more reasonable. This was no small benefit to those present—both the reasonableness of these, and the audacity of those. (h)918 He was beaten, and said nothing.

This man let us also imitate: to them that beat us, let us return blow for blow, by meekness, by silence, by long-suffering. More grievous these wounds, greater this blow, and more heavy. For to show that it is not the receiving a blow in the body that is grievous, but the receiving it in the mind, we often smite people, but since it is in the way of friendship, they are even pleased: but if you smite any indifferent person in an insolent manner, you have pained him exceedingly, because you have touched his heart. So let us smite their heart. But that meekness inflicts a greater blow than fierceness, come, let us prove, so far as that is possible, by words. For the sure proof indeed is by acts and by experience: but if you will, let us also make the enquiry by word, though indeed we have often made it already. Now in insults, nothing pains us so much, as the opinion passed by the spectators; for it is not the same thing to be insulted in public and in private, but those same insults we endure even with ease, when we suffer them in a solitary place, and with none by to witness them, or know of them. So true is it that it is not the insult, as it is in itself, that mortifies us, but the having to suffer it in the sight of all men: since if one should do us honor in the sight of all men, and insult us in private, we shall notwithstanding even feel obliged to him. The pain then is not in the nature of the insult, but in the opinion of the beholders; that one may not seem to be contemptible. What then, if this opinion should be in our favor? Is not the man attempting to disgrace us himself more disgraced, when men give their opinion in our favor? Say, whom do the bystanders despise? Him who insults, or him who being insulted keeps silence? Passion indeed suggests, that they despise him who is insulted: but let us look into it now while we are free from that excitement, in order that we may not be carried away when the time comes. Say, whom do we all condemn? Plainly the man who insults: and if he be an inferior, we shall say that he is even mad; if an equal, that he is foolish; if a superior, still we shall not approve of it. For which man, I ask, is worthy of approval, the man who is 918 Here, between the parts g and h, the mss. have two sentences retained by Edd. but clearly out of place, unless they form part of a second recapitulation: “Therefore he departed from Athens.” “Because there was much people here.” excited, who is tossed with a tempest of passion, who is infuriated like a wild beast, who demeans himself in this sort against our common nature, or he who lives in a state of calm, in a haven of repose, and in virtuous equanimity? Is not the one like an angel, the other not even like a man? For the one cannot even bear his own evils, while the other bears even those of others also: here, the man cannot even endure himself; there, he endures another too: the one is in danger of shipwreck, the other sails in safety, his ship wafted along the favoring gales: for he has not suffered the squall of passion to catch his sails and overturn the bark of his understanding: but the breath of a soft and sweet air fanning upon it, the breath of forbearance, wafts it with much tranquillity into the haven of wise equanimity. And like as when a ship is in danger of foundèring, the sailors know not what they cast away, whether what they lay hands upon be their own or other men’s property, but they throw overboard all the contents without discrimination, alike the precious and what is not such: but when the storm has ceased, then reckoning up all that they have thrown out, they shed tears, and are not sensible of the calm for the loss of what they have thrown overboard: so here, when passion blows hard, and the storm is raised, people in flinging out their words know not how to use order or fitness; but when the passion has ceased, then recalling to mind what kind of words they have given utterance to, they consider the loss and feel not the quiet, when they remember the words by which they have disgraced themselves, and sustained most grievous loss, not as to money, but as to character for moderation and gentleness. Anger is a darkness. “The fool,” saith Scripture, “hath said in his heart, There is no God.” (Ps. xiii. 1.) Perhaps also of the angry man it is suitable to say the same, that the angry man hath said, There is no God. For, saith Scripture, “Through the multitude of his anger he will not seek” (after God).919 (Ps. x. 4.) For let what pious thought will enter in, (passion) thrusts and drives all out, flings all athwart. (b) When you are told, that he whom you abused uttered not one bitter word, do you not for this feel more pain than you have inflicted? (a) If you in your own mind do not feel more pain than he whom you have abused, abuse still; (but) though there be none to call you to account, the judgment of your conscience, having taken you privately, shall give you a thousand lashes, (when you think) how you poured out a flood of railings on one so meek, and humble, and forbearing. We are forever saying these things, but we do not see them exhibited in works. You, a human being, insult your fellowman? You, a servant, your fellow-servant? But why do I wonder at this, when many even insult God? Let this be a consolation to you when suffering insult. Are you insulted? God also is insulted. Are you reviled? God also was reviled. Are you treated with scorn? Why, so was our Master also. In these things He shares with us, but not so in the contrary things. For He never insulted another unjustly: God forbid! He never reviled, never did a wrong. So that we are those who share with Him, not ye. For to endure when insulted is God’s part: 919 Ps. x. 4. “The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not,” etc. E.V. to be merely abusive, is the part of the devil. See the two sides. “Thou hast a devil” (John vii. 20; ib. xviii. 22), Christ was told: He received a blow on the face from the servant of the highpriest. They who wrongfully insult, are in the same class with these. For if Peter was even called “Satan” (Matt. xvi. 23) for one word; much920 more shall these men, when they do the works of the Jews, be called, as those were called, “children of the devil” (John viii. 44), because they wrought the works of the devil. You insult; who are you, I ask (that you do so)? Nay, rather the reason why you insult, is this, that you are nothing: no one that is human insults. So that what is said in quarrels, “Who are you?” ought to be put in the contrary way: “Insult: for you are nothing.” Instead of that the phrase is, “Who are you, that you insult?” “A better man than you,” is the answer. And yet it is just the contrary: but because we put the question amiss, therefore they answer amiss: so that the fault is ours. For as if we thought it was for great men to insult, therefore we ask, “Who are you, that you insult?” And therefore they make this answer.

But, on the contrary, we ought to say: “Do you insult? insult still: for you are nobody:” whereas to those who do not insult this should be said: “Who are you that you insult not?—you have surpassed human nature.” This is nobility, this is generosity, to speak nothing ungenerous, though a man may deserve to have it spoken to him. Tell me now, how many are there who are not worthy to be put to death? Nevertheless, the judge does not this in his own person, but interrogates them; and not this either, in his own person. But if it is not to be suffered, that the judge, sitting in judgment, should (in his own person) speak with a criminal, but he does all by the intervention of a third person, much more is it our duty not to insult our equals in rank; for921 all the advantage we shall get of them will be, not so much to have disgraced them, as to be made to learn that we have disgraced ourselves. Well then, in the case of the wicked, this is why we must not insult (even them); in the case of the good there is another reason also because they do not deserve it: and for a third,922 because it is not right to be abusive. But as things are, see what comes of it; the 920 mss. πολλῷ μᾶλλον οὗτοι ᾽Ιουδαῖοι ἀκούσονται, ὅταν τὰ ᾽Ιουδαίων ποιῶσιν ὥσπερ κἀκεῖνοι διαβόλου τέκνα, ἔπειδη κ. τ. λ. We omit ᾽Ιουδαῖοι. 921 οὐ γὰρ οὕτω τὸ ὑβρίσαι πλεονεκτήσομεν αὐτῶν, ὡς τὸ διδαχθῆναι ὅτι ὑβρίσαμεν ἑαυτούς. B. and mod. text τῷ ὑβρ., τῷ διδ. The ὅτι om. by A. B. C. Sav. is supplied by mod. text. A has δειχθῆναι, Sav. διαλεχθῆναι. The construction is πλεονεκτεῖν τί τινός. “We may think we have got something, viz. the pleasure of having disgraced them; whereas all that we get, in advance of them, is the being taught that we have disgraced ourselves.” 922 καὶ τρίτον (om. C.), ὅτι ὑβριστὴν εἶναι οὐ χρή. This cannot be, “for a third reason,” or “in the third place,” but seems rather to mean “the third party” spoken of in the preceding sentence. Perhaps it may mean, As the judge does not himself arraign nor even interrogate the criminal, but by a third person, because the judge must not seem to be an ὑβριστὴς, so there is need of a third person, καὶ τρίτον δεῖ εἰς μέσον ἐλθεῖν ὅτι.…But the whole scope of the argument is very obscure. person abused is a man, and the person abusing is a man, and the spectators men. What then? must the beasts come between them and settle matters? for only this is left. For when both the wrong-doers and those who delight in the wrong-doing are men, the part of reconciler is left for the beasts: for just as when the masters quarrel in a house, there is nothing left but for the servants to reconcile them,—even if this be not the result, for the nature of the thing demands this,—just so is it here.—Are you abusive? Well may you be so, for you are not even human. Insolence seemed to be a high-born thing; it seemed to belong to the great; whereas it belongs rather to slaves; but to give good words belongs to free men. For as to do ill is the part of those, so to suffer ill is the part of these.—Just as if some slave should steal the master’s property, some old hag,—such a thing as that is the abusive man. And like as some detestable thief and runaway,923 with studied purpose stealing in, looks all around him, wishing to filch something: so does this man, even as he, look narrowly at all on every side, studying how to throw out some (reproach). Or perhaps we may set him forth by a different sort of example. Just as if924 one should steal filthy vessels out of a house, and bring them out in the presence of all men, the things purloined do not so disgrace the persons robbed, as they disgrace the thief himself: just so this man, by bringing out his words in the presence of all men, casts disgrace not on others but on himself by the words, in giving vent to this language, and be-fouling both his tongue and his mind. For it is all one, when we quarrel with bad men, as if one for the sake of striking a man who is immersed in putrefying filth should defile himself by plunging his hands into the nastiness. Therefore, reflecting on these things, let us flee the mischief thence accruing, and keep a clean tongue, that being clear from all abusiveness, we may be enabled with strictness to pass through the life present, and to attain unto the good things promised to those that love Him, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XVIII. 18

“And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”

See how the Law was breaking up; see how they were bound by conscience. This, namely, was a Jewish custom, to shear their heads agreeably with a vow. But then there ought to be also a sacrifice (ch. xxi. 26), which was not the case here.925—“Having yet tarried:” after the beating of Sosthenes.926 For it was necessary that he should yet tarry, and comfort them concerning these things. “He sailed for Syria.” Why does he desire again to come to Syria? It was there that “the disciples were ordered to be called Christians” (ch. xi. 26): there, that he had been “commended to the grace of God” (xiv. 26): there, that he had effected such things concerning the doctrine. “And with him Priscilla”—lo, a woman also927—“and 925 Two points are much disputed in reference to the vow mentioned in v. 18: (1) What kind of a vow it was, whether the Nazarite vow or some other. (2) Whether it had been taken and whether the shaving of the head was done by Paul or by Aquila. The majority of interpreters maintain that this shaving of the head represented the termination of a Nazarite vow which had been taken by Paul. The view encounters two great difficulties: (1) How can we suppose that the champion of liberty from Jewish ceremonies and observances should himself be given to their observance? (2) Luke here places the name of the wife Priscilla first and then Aquila, and κειράμενος stands next to this name. It is most naturally construed with the name to which it stands nearest, especially when this unexpected arrangement of the names of the husband and wife is taken into account. It is true that the same arrangement is found in the salutation of Paul (Rom. xvi. 3; 1 Tim. iv. 19), but this may be due to the predominant Christian activity of the wife; so also in v. 26, which may have been conformed to this passage. The former consideration is the one of chief importance. On the other side it must be acknowledged that there would be less motive for mentioning a vow of Aquila than of Paul. The vow taken was probably akin to that of the Nazarites. It is referred to Paul by the older interpreters by Bengel, Olshausen, Zeller, De Wette, Lange, Hackett, Gloag, Lechler, Bleek, Ewald; to Aquila, by the Vulgate, Grotius, Kuinoel, Wieseler, Meyer, Conybeare and Howson.—G.B.S. 926 Edd. without stop, ἥτις οὐκ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ τυπτηθῆναι τὸν Σωσθένην.—B. N. Cat. ἐγένετο ἔτι, which is the ἔτι of v. 18, and explained by the following words. 927 ᾽Ιδοὺ καὶ γυνή: transposed from after the sentence, “For having been—custom as Jews.” Mod. text adds, τὸ ἴσον ἀνδράσι ποιοῦσα καὶ διδάσκουσα. But perhaps the comment was, “and mentioned before her husband.” See Serm. in illud Salutate Prise. et Aquil. tom. iii. p. 176. B. where he comments on this position of the names, and adds that “she having taken Apollos, an eloquent man, etc. taught him the way of God and made him a perfect teacher.” Aquila.” But these he left at Ephesus. With good reason, namely, that they should teach. For having been with him so long time, they were learning many things: and yet he did not at present withdraw them from their custom as Jews. “And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews. When they desired him to tarry longer time with them, he consented not; but bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem.” Therefore928 it was that he was hindered from coming into Asia, being impelled to what was of pressing moment. Thus observe him here, entreated (by them) to stay, but because he could not comply, being in haste to depart, “he bade them farewell.” However, he did not leave them without more ado, but with promise (to return): “But I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus.” (v. 19–21.) “And when he had landed at Cæsarea, and gone up, and saluted the Church, he went down to Antioch. And after he had spent some time there, he departed, and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples.” (v. 22–23.) He came again to those places which he had previously visited. “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus.” (v. 24.) Lo, even learned men are now urgent, and the disciples henceforth go abroad. Do you mark the spread of the preaching? “This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the Spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” (v. 25–26.) If this man929 knew only the baptism of John, how is it that he was “fervent in the Spirit,” for the Spirit was not given in that way? 928 Something is wanting here, for in ἐκωλύετο εἰς τὴν ᾽Ασίαν ἐλθεῖν there seems to be a reference to xvi. 6. κωλυθέντες λαλῆσαι τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ ᾽ΑσίU+0026 139·, and again in οὐ μὴν αὐτοὺς ἁπλῶς εἴασεν to ibid. 7. οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτοὺς τὸ πνεῦμα. He may have spoken to this effect: This was his first visit to Ephesus, for he was forbidden before to come into Asia.…Not however that the Spirit ἁπλῶς οὐκ εἴασεν, but he says, with promise, I will come to you, etc. The prohibition was not absolute, but he was not permitted on the former occasion to preach in Asia (Procons.), because he was impelled to more urgent duties (in Macedonia and Greece); accordingly here also he has other immediate objects in view, and therefore cannot stay. So in Hom. xli. on xix. 10, 11. “For this reason also (the Lord) suffered him not to come into Asia, waiting (or reserving Himself) for this conjuncture.” 929 What St. Chrysostom said has been misconceived by the reporter or the copyists. He meant to remark two things concerning Apollos: 1. That having only the baptism of John he nevertheless had the Spirit, nay, was “fervent in the Spirit.” How so? He had it, as Cornelius had it; the baptism of the Spirit without the baptism of water. (See Recapitulation fin.) 2. That there is no mention of his receiving baptism, as the twelve did in the following narrative. St. Luke, he says, evidently had a meaning in this juxtaposition of the two incidents. Apollos had the baptism of the Spirit “therefore did not need the water.” (Hence whether he received it or not, the writer And if those after him needed the baptism of Christ, much930 more would he need it. Then what is to be said? For it is not without a meaning that the writer has strung the two incidents together. It seems to me that this was one of the hundred and twenty who were baptized with the Apostles: or, if not so, then the same that took place in the case of Cornelius, took place also in the case of this man. But neither does he receive baptism. That expression, then, “they expounded more perfectly,” seems931 to me to be this, that he behooved also to be baptized. Because the other twelve knew nothing accurate, not even what related to Jesus. And it is likely932 that he did in fact receive baptism. But if these (disciples) of John,933 after does not think need to mention it.) Those twelve had no accurate knowledge even of the facts relating to Jesus: nor so much as know whether there were a Holy Ghost.—The scribes did not comprehend this view of the case. Hence A. C. omit ἀλλ᾽ οὐ βαπτίζεται, retained by B. mod. text and Cat. OEc. (ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ β.)—They take οἱ μετὰ τοῦτον (i.e. the twelve of the following incident) to mean the Apostles, and therefore make it πολλῷ μᾶλλον καὶ οὗτος ἐδεήθη ἂν, “if Christ’s own disciples after John’s baptism needed the baptism of Christ, a fortiori this man would need it.”—They find the baptism in the ἀκριβ. αὐτῷ ἐξέθεντο, “this was one of the points they taught him—that he must be baptized.”—St. Chrys. probably spoke of the case of the hundred and twenty who were baptized with the Spirit on the Day of Pentecost: i.e. “Those having” the greater, the baptism of the Spirit, did not need the less, the baptism of water. The scribes absurdly make him suggest that Apollos may have been one of the hundred and twenty. 930 Perhaps it should be, καὶ εἰ οἱ μετὰ τοῦτον…τοῦ Χ., πῶς οὐχ οὗτος ἐδεήθη ἄν; ᾽Αλλ᾽ οὐδὲ βαπτίζεται. Τί οὖν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν; οὐδὲ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ἐφεξῆς ἔθηκεν ἀμφότερα. (By ἀμφ. perhaps the scribes understood the “knowing only the baptism of John,” and, the being “fervent in Spirit”) ᾽Εμοὶ δοκεῖ ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι τῶν μετὰ τῶν ᾽Απ. βαπτισθέντων, ὅπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Κορνηλίου γέγονε, γεγένηται καὶ ἐπὶ τούτου. 931 Here OEcumenius perceived that Chrys. was misrepresented. Accordingly, he reads, Τούτου οὖν ἀκριβῶς ἐξετασθέντος (Cat. τὸ οὖν ἀκριβῶς ἐξετασθὲν τὸ, a confusion of the two readings), δοκεῖ τοῦτο μὴ εἶναι ὅτι…“This point being closely examined, it does not seem to mean this, that he also needed to be baptized.” But the scribes took it as above, and the innovator (with whom A. partly agrees) enlarges it thus: “But he is not baptized, but when “they expounded to him more perfectly.” But this seems to me to be true, that he did also need to be baptized: since the other twelve,” etc. On this the Paris Editor, supposing the twelve Apostles to be meant, strangely remarks, Itane? duodecim quæ Jesum spectabant nihil noverunt Imo οἱ κρ', i.e. οἱ ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι. As if it were likely that those hundred and twenty could be so ignorant. 932 Εἰκὸς δε αὐτὸν καὶ βαπτισθῆναι. If Chrys. said this (see note 7, p. 247), the meaning may be: “It is likely however that he did receive baptism,” viz. though the writer does not mention it. For this is the point—the writer mentions it in the case of those twelve, for it was the means by which they, ignorant hitherto of the existence of a Holy Ghost, received the Spirit; not so in the case of Apollos, for as he had already the baptism of the Spirit, the water was quite a subordinate consideration. See above, Hom, xxiv. p. 157, on the case of Cornelius. 933 Still overlooking the reference to the following narrative, B. C. read Εἰ δὲ αὐτοὶ οἱ ᾽Ιωάννου—, “But if even John’s disciples,” etc.: mod. text and A., Πλὴν εἰ καὶ αὐτοί—, reading the next clause affirmatively, Cat. that baptism again received baptism, was this needful for the disciples also? And wherefore the need of water? These are very different from him, men who did not even know whether there were a Holy Ghost.934 “He was fervent,” then, “in the Spirit, knowing only the baptism of John:” but these “expounded to him more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him; who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace.” (v. 27.) He wished then also to depart into Achaia, and these935 also encouraged (him to do so), having also given him letters. “Who when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: for he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (v. 28.) “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper coasts”—meaning what we have read as to Cæsarea and the other places—“came to Ephesus, and having found certain disciples (ch. xix. 1), “he said to them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” (v. 2–4.) For that they did not even believe in Christ is plain from his saying, “that they should believe on Him that was to come after him.” And he did not say, The baptism of John is nothing, but, It is incomplete. Nor does he add this (in so many words), but he taught them, and many received the Holy Ghost. “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve” (v. 5–7): so that it was likely they had the Spirit, but it did not appear.936 “And all the men were about twelve.”

(Recapitulation.) “And they came to Ephesus, and there he left them” (v. 19): for he did not wish to take them about with him, but left them at Ephesus. But they subsequently dwelt at Corinth, and he bears high testimony to them, and writing to the Romans, salutes them. (Rom. xvi. 3.) Whence it seems to me that they afterwards went back to Rome, in the time and OEc., εἰ δὲ οὗτοι οἱ ᾽Ιωάννου—, which we adopt. The scribes have further darkened the sense by inserting here v. 27 to the end, and xix. 1–7. 934 The utter confusion of the text makes it uncertain what Chrys. said concerning Apollos. The probability is that he still stood upon the plane of John’s baptism and teaching, a zealous and able man, but not yet instructed in the Christian doctrine of the Spirit, nor understanding the significance of Christian baptism. It is probable that after receiving instruction he was re-baptized with the twelve at Ephesus (xix. 5–7).—G.B.S. 935 Προετρέψατο (Sav, marg. άντο) καὶ οὗτος (A. οὕτως). We read προετρέψαντο δὲ καὶ οὗτοι. 936 Viz. the Spirit came upon them in baptism, but it did not appear until Paul had laid his hands upon them: then they spake with tongues, etc. of Nero,937 as having an attachment for those parts whence they had been expelled in the time of Claudius. “But938 he himself went into the synagogue.” It seems to me that the faithful still assembled there, for they did not immediately withdraw them. “And when they besought him to stay, he consented not” (v. 20, 21), for he was hastening to Cæsarea. “And having arrived at Cæsarea,” etc., “passing through the region of Galatia and Phrygia, confirming all the disciples.” (v. 22, 23.) Through these regions also he merely passes again, just enough to establish them by his presence. “And a certain Jew, Apollos by name,” etc. (v. 24.) For he was an awakened man, travelling in foreign parts for this very purpose. Writing of him the Apostle said, “Now concerning Apollos our brother.”939 (1 Cor. xvi. 12.) (β) “Whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard,” etc. (v. 26.) It was not for nothing that he left them at Ephesus, but for Apollos’ sake, the Spirit so ordered it, that he might come with greater force to the attack (ἑπιβἥναι) upon Corinth. What may be the reason that to him they did nothing, but Paul they assault? They knew that he was the leader, and great was the name of the man. “And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia” (v. 27) i.e. in faith, he did all by faith; “the brethren wrote,” etc. nowhere envy, nowhere an evil eye. Aquila teaches, or rather this man lets himself be taught. He was minded to depart, and they send letters. (a) “For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly,” etc. (v. 28.) Now by this, that he “publicly” convinced them, his boldness was shown: by the clearness of his arguing, his power was declared: by his convicting them out of the Scriptures, his skill (of learning). For neither boldness by itself contributes aught, where there is not power, nor power where there is not boldness. “He mightily convinced,” it says. (β) “And it came to pass,” etc. (ch. xix. 1.) But whence had those, being in Ephesus, the baptism of John? Probably they had been on a visit at Jerusalem at the time (of John’s preaching), and did not even know Jesus. And he does not say to them, Do ye believe in Jesus? but what? “Have ye received the Holy Ghost?” (v. 2.) He knew that they had not, but wishes themselves to say it, that having learnt what they lack, they may ask. “John verily baptized,” etc. (v. 4.) From the baptism itself he (John) prophesies:940 and he leads them (to see) that this is the meaning of John’s baptism. (a) “That they should believe on Him that was to come:” on what kind (of Person)? “I indeed 937 ἐπὶ Νέρωνος must be removed from the end of the sentence where the mss. and Edd. have it. 938 Instead of this, Edd. have v. 22, 23. 939 From this point to the end of the Exposition, all is confused, viz. in the old text the order is as here marked by the letters α, α β β. . i.e. it gives two expositions, severally imperfect, but completing each other. In mod. text the parts are rearranged, but so that the first of the portions marked β is placed after the second of those marked α. It also assigns some of the comments to wrong texts, and in many places alters the sense. 940 Mod. text “From the baptism itself (i.e. immediately after it) they prophesy: but this the baptism of John had not; wherefore it was imperfect. But that they may be made worthy of such gifts, he more prepared them first.” baptize you with water, but He that cometh after me, shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. iii. 11.) “And when Paul,” it says, “had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (v. 6.) (β) The gift is twofold: tongues and prophesyings. Hence is shown an important doctrine, that941 the baptism of John is incomplete. And he does not say, “Baptism” of forgiveness, but, “of repentance.” What942 (is it) then? These had not the Spirit: they were not so fervent, not even instructed. And why did (Apollos) not receive baptism?943 (The case) seems to me to be this: Great was the boldness of the man. “He taught diligently the things concerning Jesus,” but he needed more diligent teaching. Thus, though not knowing all, by his zeal he attracted the Holy Ghost, in the same manner as Cornelius and his company.

Perhaps it is the wish of many, Oh that we had the baptism of John now! But (if we had), many would still be careless of a life of virtue, and it might be thought that each for this, and not for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, aimed at virtue. There would be many false prophets: for then “they which are approved” would not be very “manifest.” (1 Cor. xi. 19.) As, “blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed” (John xx. 29), so they that (believe) without signs. “Except,” saith (Christ), “ye see signs, ye will not believe.” (Ib. iv. 48.) For we lose nothing (by lack of miracles), if we will but take heed to ourselves. We have the sum and substance of the good things: through baptism we received remission of sins, sanctification, participation of the Spirit, adoption, eternal life. What would ye more? Signs? But they come to an end (ἀλλὰ καταργεἵται). Thou hast “faith, hope, charity,” the abiding things: these seek thou, these are greater than signs. Nothing is equal to charity. For “greater than all,” saith he, “is charity.” (cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 5.) But now, love is in jeopardy, for only its name is left behind, while the reality is nowhere (seen), but we are divided each from the other. What then shall one do to reunite (ourselves)? For to find fault is easy, but how may one make friendship, this is the point to be studied; how we may bring together the scattered members. For be it so, that we have one Church, or one doctrine—yet this is not the (main) consideration: no, the evil is, that944 in these we have not fellowship—“living peaceably,” as the Apostle says, “with all men” (Rom. xii. 18), on the contrary, we are at variance one with another. For be it that we are not having fights every day, yet look not thou to this, but 941 Mod. text “that they who receive baptism are (therein) thoroughly cleansed from their sins: for were it not so, these would not have received the gifts immediately.” 942 Mod. text “And how is it that they who have received the Spirit taught not, but Apollos did, who had not yet received the Spirit?” An entire perversion of Chrysostom’s meaning. 943 In the mss. it is πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἔλαβον βάπτισμα; which cannot be right. We restore ἔλαβεν. 944 Mod. text besides other alterations: “that communicating in the other things one with another, in the essentials (ἐν τοῖς ἀναγκαίοις) we do not communicate, and being in peace with all men are at variance one with another.” (to this), that neither have we charity, genuine and unswerving. There is need of bandages and oil. Let us bear it in mind, that charity is the cognizance of the disciples of Christ: that without this, all else avails nothing: that it is an easy task if we will. Yes, say you, we know all this, but how (to go to work) that it may be achieved? What (to do), that it may be effected? in what way, that we may love one another? First, let us put away the things which are subversive of charity, and then we shall establish this. Let none be resentful, none be envious, none rejoicing in (others’) misfortunes: these are the things that hinder love; well then, the things that make it are of the other sort. For it is not enough to put away the things that hinder; the things that establish must also be forthcoming. Now Sirach tells us the things that are subversive (of friendship), and does not go on to speak of the things which make union. “Reproaching,” he says, “and revealing of a secret, and a treacherous wound.” (cf. Ecclus. 22, 27.) But in speaking of the men of those times, these things might well be named, seeing they were carnal: but in our case, God forbid they should be (even) named. Not945 from these things do we bring our inducements for you, but from the others. For us, there is nothing good without friendship. Let there be good things without number, but what is the benefit—be it wealth, be it luxury—without friendship? No possession equal to this, even in matters of this life, just as there is nothing worse than men hating (us). “Charity hides a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. iv. 8): but enmity, even where sins are not, suspects them to be. It is not enough not to be an enemy; no, one must also love. Bethink thee, that Christ has bidden, and this is enough. Even affliction makes friendships, and draws (men) together. “What then,” say you, “now, when there is no affliction? say, how (are we to act) to become friends?” Have ye not other friends, I ask? In what way are ye their friends, how do ye continue such? For a beginning, let none have any enemy: this (in itself) is not a small matter: let none envy; it is not possible to accuse the man who envies not. (b) How then shall we be warmly affected? What makes love of persons? Beauty of person. Then let us also make our souls beautiful, and we shall be amiable one to another: for it is necessary, of course, not only to love, but also to be loved. Let us first achieve this point, that we may be loved, and the other will be easy. How to act that we may be loved? Let us become beautiful, and let us do this, that we may always have lovers. Let none make it his study to get money, to get slaves, to get houses, (so much) as to be loved, as to have a good name. Better is a name than much wealth. For the one remains, the other perishes: and the one it is possible to acquire, the other impossible. For he that has got an evil character, will with difficulty lay it aside: but by means of his (good) name the poor man may quickly be rich. Let there be a man 945 Οὐκ ἀπὸ τούτων ὑμᾶς ἐνάγομεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων. But the scope seems to require, Οὐκ ἀπὸ τ. ὑ. ἀπάγομεν, i.e. “as these are things not even to be supposed to exist among Christians, we do not make it our business to lead you away from these;”—and for the other clause, “But would lead you on to those other things” which Sirach has not mentioned. having ten thousand talents, and another a hundred friends; the latter is more rich in resources than the former. Then let us not merely do this, but let us work it as a kind of trade. “And how can we?” say you. “A sweet mouth multiplieth its friends, and a gracious tongue.” Let us get a well-spoken mouth, and pure manners. It is not possible for a man to be such, and not to be known.

(a) We have one world that we all inhabit, with the same fruits we all are fed. But these are small matters: by the same Sacraments we partake of the same spiritual food. These surely are justifications of loving! (c) Mark946 how many (inducements and pleas) for friendship they that are without have excogitated; community of art or trade, neighborhood, relationships: but mightier than all these are the impulses and ties which are among us: this Table is calculated more (than all else) to shame us into friendliness. But many of us who come thereto do not even know one another. The reason, it may be said, is that there are so many of them. By no means; it is only our own sluggish indifference. (Once) there were three thousand (ch. ii. 41)—there were five thousand (iv. 4)—and yet they had all one soul: but now each knows not his brother, and is not ashamed to lay the blame on the number, because it is so great! Yet he that has many friends is invincible against all men: stronger he than any tyrant. Not such the safety the tyrant has with his body-guards, as this man has with his friends. Moreover, this man is more glorious than he: for the tyrant is guarded by his own slaves, but this man by his peers: the tyrant, by men unwilling and afraid of him; this man by willing men and without fear. And here too is a wonderful thing to be seen—many in one, and one in many. (a) Just as in an harp, the sounds are diverse, not the harmony, and they all together give out one harmony and symphony, (c) I could wish to bring you into such a city, were it possible, wherein (all) should be one soul: then shouldest thou see surpassing all harmony of harp and flute, the more harmonious symphony. (b) But the musician is the Might of Love: it is this that strikes out the sweet melody, (d) singing,947 946 A. substitutes καὶ γὰρ πολλά ἐστι τὰ συνωθοῦντα ἡμᾶς καὶ συνδεσμοῦντα πρὸς φιλίας: “For indeed there are many things which perforce impel us to become and bind us to continue friends,” viz. independently of our own choice: which is good in point of sense; but the original reading of the passage implies this meaning: “Even the men of the world acknowledge the necessity of friendship, and look out pleas, inducements, and justifications for friendship: ὅρα πόσα οἱ ἔξωθεν ἐπενόησαν φιλικά”—i.e. which are far-fetched, and therefore need ἐπινοεῖσθαι, compared with the near and constraining motives which bring and keep us Christians together. For συντεκνίαν which appears in all our mss. and is retained without suspicion by the Edd. we confidently restore συντεχνίαν, comp. xviii. 2. διὰ τὸ ὁμότεχνον εἶναι. There is a gradation from lower to higher, συντεχνίαν, γειτονίαν (or γειτοσύνην C. A.) συγγενείας. 947 In the old text both sense and syntax are confused by the transpositions of the parts marked (c) and (b)—occasioned perhaps by the homoeteleuton, viz., συμφωνίαν at the end of (a) and (c): hence (d) οὐδὲν ἀπηχὲς ᾄδουσα μέλος has nothing to agree with, unless it were the μία ψυχὴ of (c); accordingly C. omits ᾄδουσα. Mod. text reforms the whole passage thus: “Just as in an harp, the sounds are diverse, but one the harmony, and one (withal) a strain in which no note is out of tune. This strain rejoices both Angels, and God the Lord of Angels; this strain rouses (to hear it) the whole audience that is in heaven; this even lulls (evil) passions—it does not even suffer them to be raised, but deep is the stillness. For as in a theatre, when the band of musicians plays, all listen with a hush, and there is no noise there; so among friends, while Love strikes the chords, all the passions are still and laid to sleep, like wild beasts charmed and unnerved: just as, where hate is, there is all the contrary to this. But let us say nothing just now about enmity; let us speak of friendship. Though thou let fall some casual hasty word, there is none to catch thee up, but all forgive thee; though thou do (some hasty thing), none puts upon it the worse construction, but all allowance is made: every one prompt to stretch out the hand to him that is falling, every one wishing him to stand. A wall it is indeed impregnable, this friendship; a wall, which not the devil himself, much less men, can overpower. It is not possible for that man to fall into danger who has gotten many friends. (Where love is) no room is there to get matter of anger, but948 only for pleasantness of feeling: no room is there to get matter of envying; none, to get occasion of resentment. Mark him, how in all things both spiritual and temporal, he accomplishes all with ease. What then, I pray you, can be equal to this man? Like a city walled on every side is this man, the other as a city unwalled.—Great wisdom, to be able to be a creator of friendship! Take away friendship, and thou hast taken away all, thou hast confounded all. But if the likeness of friendship have so great power, what must the reality itself be? Then let us, I beseech you, make to ourselves friends, and let each make this his art. But, lo! you will say, I do study this, but the other does not. All the greater the reward to thee. True, say you, but the matter is more difficult. How, I ask? Lo! I testify and declare to you, that if but ten of you would knit yourselves together, and make this your work, as the Apostles made the preaching theirs, and the Prophets theirs the teaching, so we the making of friends, great would be the reward. Let us make for ourselves royal portraits. For if this be the common badge of disciples, we do a greater work than if we should put ourselves the musician who touches the harp: so here, the harp is Charity itself, and the ringing sounds are the loving words brought forth by Charity, all of them giving out one and the same harmony and symphony: but the musician is the might of Charity: this strikes out the sweet strain. I could wish to lead you into such a city, were it possible, wherein were one soul, and thou shouldest see how than all harp and flute more harmonious is the symphony there, singing no dissonant strain,”—Instead of οὐδὲν ἀπηχὲς ᾄδουσα μέλος Τοῦτο…, we place the full stop after ᾄδουσα, so that the next sentence begins Μέλος τοῦτο καὶ ἀγγέλους κ. τ. λ. and at the end of it, instead of Θεὸν εὐφραίνει τὸ μέλος ῞Ολον…., we read εὐφραίνει Τοῦτο μέλος ὅλον κ. τ. λ. 948 The omission in B. C. of this clause and the following which A. and Mod. text retain, may be explained by the like ending ὑπόθεσιν σχεῖν. Mod. text has also after θυμηδίας· the clause ἐν γέλωτι ἀεί ἐστι καὶ τρυφῇ. into the power to raise the dead. The diadem and the purple mark the Emperor, and where these are not, though his apparel be all gold, the Emperor is not yet manifest. So now thou art making known thy lineage. Make men friends to thyself, and (friends) to others. There is none who being loved will wish to hate thee. Let us learn the colors, with what ingredients they are mixed, with what (tints) this portrait is composed. Let us be affable: let us not wait for our neighbors to move. Say not, if I see any person hanging back (for me to make the first advances), I become worse than he: but rather when thou seest this, forestall him, and extinguish his bad feeling. Seest thou one diseased, and addest to his malady? This, most of all, let us make sure of—“in honor to prefer one another, to account others better than one’s self” (Rom. xii. 10), deem not this to be a lessening of thyself. If thou prefer (another) in honor, thou hast honored thyself more, attracting949 to thyself a still higher extinction. On all occasions let us yield the precedence to others. Let us bear nothing in mind of the evil done to us, but if any good has been done (let us remember only that). Nothing so makes a man a friend, as a gracious tongue, a mouth speaking good things, a soul free from selfelation, a contempt of vain-glory, a despising of honor. If we secure these things, we shall be able to become invincible to the snares of the Devil, and having with strictness accomplished the pursuit of virtue, to attain unto the good things promised to them that love Him, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XIX. 8, 9

“And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.”

(a) See him in every place forcing his way into the synagogue, and in this manner departing thence. For in every place, he wished to have the occasion given him by them.950 (c) He wished to separate the disciples thence, and to have the beginning for ceasing to assemble with them, given by (the Jews) themselves. And it was not for nothing that he did this (b) which I have said. He was henceforth “provoking them to jealousy.” For both the Gentiles readily received him, and the Jews, upon the Gentiles receiving him, repented. (a) This is why he continually made a stir among them,951 “for three months arguing and persuading concerning the kingdom of God:” for you must not suppose because you hear of his “speaking boldly,” that there was any harshness: it was of good things that he discoursed, of a kingdom: who would not have heard him? “But when divers were hardened, speaking evil of the way.” They might well call it “the way;” this was indeed the way, that led into the kingdom of heaven. “He departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this was done for the space of two years, so that all that were in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” (v. 10.) (a) Do you mark 950 mss. and Edd. Πανταχοῦ γὰρ παῤ αὐτῶν ἐβούλετο λαβεῖν ἀφορμὴν, ὅπερ ἔφην. Τά τε γὰρ ἔθνη παρεζήλου λοιπὸν καὶ ῥαδίως κ. τ. λ. In παρεζήλου there is an allusion to Rom. xi. 14, “if by any means I may provoke them to jealousy:” its subject therefore should be “the Apostle” (nam et gentes exstimulabat jam, Erasm.) “he was henceforth provoking to jealousy, being what he said to the Romans, “If by any means I may provoke,” etc., not “the Gentiles,” as Ben. makes it, nam gentes jam zelo fervebant. Besides transposing the parts b, c, we read, Παρεζήλου λοιπόν. Τά τε γὰρ ἔθυη ῥαδίως.…But perhaps it should be Παρεζήλου λοιπὸν, ὅπερ ἔφη “Εἰ πῶς παραζηλώσω κ. τ. λ.” 951 Διὰ τοῦτο ἐνοχλεῖ (ἠνώχλει Sav.) αὐτοῖς συνεχῶς μεταπείθων, old text, retained by Saville. He is explaining why St. Paul still resorted to the synagogues, though an unwelcome visitant. He wished to separate the Church from the Synagogue: but he would not himself take the first step towards this. It must be the act of the Jews. Therefore until they by their outrageous conduct obliged him to depart, he kept on troubling them with his presence (εἰσωθοῦντα, ἠνώχλει). Not that his discourse was harsh: that word, ἐπαρρησ., does not mean this, but that he spoke freely and without reserve. (Recapitulation)—The unusual word μεταπείθων is probably a corruption of the abbreviation of the text-words, ἐπὶ μῆνας τρεῖς διαλεγ. καὶ πείθων, which the reporter may have written thus, μ. τ. πείθων.—Mod. text substitutes Διὰ τοῦτο διελέγετο αὐτοῖς συνεχῶς ὅτι ἔπειθε. how much was effected by his persisting?952 “Both Jews and Greeks heard: (c) all that dwelt in Asia:” it was for this also that the Lord suffered him not to go into Asia (ch. xvi. 6) (on a former occasion); waiting, as it seems to me, for this same conjuncture. (Hom. xl. p. 245.) (b) “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” (v. 11, 12.) Not touched the wearer only (and so were healed), but also receiving them, they laid them upon the sick (and so healed them).953 (g) “He that believeth on Me,” saith Christ, “doeth greater works than those which I do.” (John xiv. 12.) This, and the miracle of the shadows is what He meant (in those words). (d) “Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.” (v. 13.) So entirely did they do all by way of trade! Observe: vagabond, or, itinerant, Jewish exorcists. And to believe indeed, they had no mind; but by that Name they wished to cast out the demons. “By Jesus, whom Paul preacheth.” Only see what a name Paul had got! “And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.” (v. 14–16.) They did it in secret: then their impotence is publicly exposed. (f) Then not the Name does anything, unless it be spoken with faith. (h) See how they used their weapons against themselves! (j) So far were they from thinking Jesus to be anything great: no, they must needs add Paul, as thinking him to be something great. Here one may marvel how it was that the demon did not cooperate with the imposture of the exorcists, but on the contrary exposed them, and laid open their stage-play. He seems to me (to have done this) in exceeding wrath: just as it might be, if a person being in uttermost peril, should be exposed by some pitiful creature, and wish to vent all his rage upon him. “Jesus I know, and Paul I know.” For, that there may 952 πόσον ἤνυσεν ἡ ἐπιστασία. Cat., ἀποστασία, with reference to ἀποστὰς in v. 9.—The letters marking the order in which the parts are given in the mss. will show the extreme confusion into which the notes of this Homily have fallen. 953 Οὐχὶ φοροῦντες ἥπτοντο μόνον. Edd. i.e., “The process was not only this, that persons bearing these things, by touching the sick healed them, but the things themselves simply laid upon the sick were effectual for their healing.” But A. C. Cat. φοροῦντος, which is much better: “It was not only that they touched him (the Apostle) wearing these things”—viz. as the woman was healed by touching the hem of Christ’s garment—“but receiving them, they laid them upon the sick,” etc.—In the next sentence (g), for τοῦτο καὶ τὸ τῶν σκιῶν ἐστιν ὅπερ ἔλεγεν, (which Sav. gives in marg.), Edd. have τοῦτο τὸ τῶν σκιῶν αἰνιττόμενος, which Ben. renders has umbras insinuans. St. Chrys. elsewhere alleges the miraculous efficacy of St. Paul’s garments and of St. Peter’s shadow, in illustration of our Lord’s saying, t. i. 537. A. t. ii. 53. C. not seem to be any slight put upon the Name of Jesus, (the demon) first confesses (Him), and then has permission given him. For, to show that it was not any weakness of the Name, but all owing to the imposture of those men, why did not the same take place in the case of Paul? “They fled out of that house naked and wounded:” he sorely battered their heads, perhaps rent their garments. (e) “And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, that dwelt at Ephesus, and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many of them that had believed came confessing and making known their practices.” (v. 17, 18.) For since they had got to possess such power as, by means of the demons, to do such things, well might this be the consequence. “And many of them that practised curious arts, brought their books together, and burnt them in the presence of all men;”—having seen that there was no more use of them now that the demons themselves do these things—“and reckoned up the price of them, and found the amount fifty thousand pieces of silver.954 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.” (v. 19, 20.) (i) “And”955 (so) “he disputed,” in the school of one Tyrannus for two years:” where were believers, and believers exceedingly (advanced in the faith). Moreover (Paul) writes (to them) as to great men.

(Recapitulation.) (b) “And having entered in to the synagogue,” etc. (v. 8.) But956 why ἐπαρρησιάζετο? It means, he was ready to confront dangers, and disputed more openly, not veiling the doctrines. (a) “But when some were hardened, and spake evil of the way, having departed from them, he separated the disciples.” (v. 9.) He put a stop, it means, to their evilspeaking: he did not wish to kindle their envy, nor to bring them into more contention. (c) Hence let us also learn not to put ourselves in the way of evil-speaking men, but to depart from them: he did not speak evil, when himself evil spoken of. “He disputed daily,” and by this gained the many, that, being evil intreated and (evil) spoken of, he did not (utterly) break away from them, and keep aloof. (e) The evil-speakers are defeated. They calumniated the doctrine itself; (therefore) so as neither to rouse the disciples to wrath, nor them, he withdrew,957 showing that everywhere alike they repel salvation from them. Here now he 954 Ephesus was famous for its sorcerers and magicians. Plutarch and Eustathius speak of Ephesian letters (᾽Εφέσια γράμματα) which, written on slips, were carried about as charms and had power to assure success and avert disaster. The περίεργα were arts connected with this sorcery and the books burned contained, no doubt, mysterious sentences and symbols which gave to them an extravagant worth in the eyes of the superstitious. In this way the large price set upon them may be accounted for.—G.B.S. 955 The meaning seems to be, Such was the effect of his two years’ preaching at Ephesus: and his Epistle shows what high attainments in the faith were made by the Ephesians. 956 The partial restoration which is here attempted implies this scheme of the derangement: 2, 1.: 1, 3, 2, 4: see note 3, p. 252. 957 ὡς μήτε τοὺς μαθητὰς εἰς θυμὸν ἐγεῖραι, μήτε ἐκείνους ἀναχωρῆσαι. Mod. text. transposes εἰς θ. ἐγεῖραι ανδ ἀναχωρ. We read ἀνεχώρησε. The verb either to ἐκείνους or to τοὺς μαθητάς is probably lost. does not even apologize, seeing that the Gentiles everywhere have believed. “In the school of one Tyrannus:” it was not that he sought the place, but without more ado where there was a school (there he discoursed).958 (d) And look, no sooner is the trial from those without over, than this from the demons begins. Mark the infatuated Jewish hardness. Having seen his garments working miracles, they paid no heed to it. What could be greater than this? But, on the contrary, it resulted in just the opposite effect. If any of the heathens believe not, having seen the (very) dust working these effects, let him believe.959 (f) Wonderful, how great the power of them that have believed! Both Simon for the sake of merchandise sought the grace of the Spirit, and these for this object did this. What hardness (of heart)! Why does not Paul rebuke them? It would have looked like envy, therefore it is so ordered. This same took place in the case of Christ (Mark ix. 36): but then the person is not hindered, for it was the beginning of the new state of things: since Judas also is not hindered, whereas Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead: and many Jews even for opposing (Christ) suffered nothing, while Elymas was blinded. “For I am not come,” saith Christ, “to judge the world, but that the world might be saved.” (John iii. 17.) “And seven sons,” etc. (v. 14.) See the villany of the men! They still continued to be Jews, while wishing to make a gain of that Name. All that they did was for glory and profit. (g) Look,960 in every case, how men are converted not so much in consequence of good things as of things fearful. In the case of Sapphira, fear fell upon the Church, and men dared not join themselves to them: here they received 958 Some have supposed Tyrannus to have been a Jewish teacher, who conducted a school in a private synagogue— a Beth Midrash (so Meyer). In this view, Paul and his companions, on account of the opposition which they encountered, separated themselves from the public synagogue, and betook them to this private Jewish school. But Tyrannus is a Greek name and the more common and preferable opinion is that he was a teacher of philosophy or rhetoric who had become a Christian and in whose apartments both Jews and Gentiles could meet without molestation.—G.B.S. 959 τὴν κόνιν ταῦτα ἐργαζομένην, πιστευέτω, B. C. Cat. But A. substitutes κόρην, Mod. text σκίαν. He seems to allude here to the miracles effected by the very ashes of the martyrs: see e.g. t. ii. 494, A.: and perhaps with reference to these he says, Βαβαὶ, πόση τῶν πιστευσάντων ἡ δύναμις: unless this be meant as an exclamation of the persons who “took upon them,” etc. i.e. Like Simon, they saw the wonders wrought in the name of Jesus; “Wonderful (said they)! Why, what power is exercised by these men who have believed!” namely, by those who by laying the handkerchiefs, etc., upon the sick restored them to health.—Mod. text adds, “that to others also there comes (the power) of doing the same things: and how great the hardness of those who even after the demonstrations of power yet continue in unbelief.” 960 From this point to the end of the Exposition, having in vain attempted to restore the true order, we take it as it lies in the mss. and Edd.—Below, “and after this;” i.e. “yet after this,” then these itinerant Jewish exorcists took upon them, etc. and not until after their punishment, when “fear fell upon them all,” did those of the professed believers (πῶν πεπιστευκότων) who still practiced magic come forward confessing their sins. handkerchiefs and aprons, and were healed: and after this, then they came confessing their sins. (Hereby) the power of the demons is shown to be a great one, when it is against unbelievers. For why did he not say, “Who is Jesus?” He was afraid, lest he also should suffer punishment; but, that it might be permitted him to take revenge upon those who mocked him, he did this; “Jesus,” says he, “I know,” etc. He was in dread of Paul. For why did not those wretched men say to him, We believe? How much more splendid an appearance they would have made had they said this, that is, if they had claimed Him as their Master? But instead of that, they spoke even those senseless words, “By Jesus, whom Paul preacheth.” Do you mark the forbearance (of the writer), how he writes history and does not call names? This makes the Apostles admirable. “And the evil spirit,” etc. (v. 15), for what had happened at Philippi (ch. xvi. 16) had given a lesson to these also. He mentions the name, and the number, thereby giving to the persons then living a credible proof of what he wrote. And why were they itinerant? For the sake of merchandise: not assuredly to bear tidings of the word; how should that be their object? And961 how ran they anon, preaching by the things they suffered? “Insomuch,” it says, “that all that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord.” Ought not this to have converted all? And marvel not, for nothing convinces malice. But come now, let us look at the affair of the exorcists, with what an evil disposition (they acted). Why the same was not done in the case of Christ, is an inquiry for another time, and not for the present, save that this also was well and usefully ordered. It seems to me that they did this also in mockery, and that in consequence of this (punishment), none dared even at random to name that Name. Why did this put them upon confession? Because this was a most mighty argument of God’s omniscience (therefore), before they should be exposed by the demons, they accused themselves, fearing lest they should suffer the same things. For when the demons their helpers are their accusers, what hope is there thenceforth, save the confession by deeds?

But see, I pray you, after such signs had been wrought, what evils within a short space ensue. Such is human nature: it soon forgets. Or, do ye not remember what has been the case among ourselves? Did not God last year shake our whole city?962 Did not all run to 961 Πῶς δὲ ἔτρεχος λοιπὸν κηρύττοντες δἰ ὧν ἔπασχον. The subject to ἔπασχον seems to be “these exorcists” the sons of Sceva: but to ἔτρεχονit seems to be “the Apostles.” “This made the Apostles wonderful in men’s eyes:” they had wrought miracles, and preached two years, “so that all in Asia heard the word of the Lord,” yet still these practices continued: but (see) how they ran (what success they had) now, preaching by the things these men were suffering: “and this became known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling in Asia, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.”—Mod. text, seemingly referring ἔτρεχονto the exorcists, reads καλῶς δὲ ἔτρ. And in place of v. 10, gives, “Whence, showing this, it saith, ‘And this became known to all,’” etc. v. 17. 962 Ben. assigns this to the year 399, and cites the first of the “Eleven Homilies” t. xii. as having been delivered according to St. Chrys. thirty days after that great earthquake, viz., in the year of the fall of Eutropius, therefore baptism? Did not whoremongers and effeminate and corrupt persons leave their dwellings, and the places where they spent their time, and change and become religious? But three days passed, and they returned again to their own proper wickedness. And whence is this? From the excessive laziness. And what marvel if, when the things have passed away (this be the case), seeing that, the images lasting perpetually, the result is such? The fate of Sodom— say, does it not still last (in its effects)?963 Well, did the dwellers beside it become any the better? And what say you to the son of Noah? Was he not such (as he is represented), did he not see with his eyes so vast a desolation, and yet was wicked? Then let us not marvel how, when such things had been done, these Jews (at Ephesus) believe not, when we see that belief itself often comes round for them into its opposite,964 into malignity; as, for instance, when they say that He hath a devil, He, the Son of God! Do you not see these things even now, and how men are many of them like serpents, both faithless and thankless, men who, viper-like, when they have enjoyed benefits and have been warmed by some, then they sting their benefactors? This we have said, lest any should marvel, how, such signs having been wrought, they were not all converted. For behold, in our own times happened those (miracles) relating to the martyr Babylas,965 those relating to Jerusalem, those relating to the destruction of the temples, and not all were converted. Why need I speak of ancient things? I have told you what happened last year; and none gave heed to it, but again little by little they fell off and sunk back. The heaven stands perpetually crying aloud that it has a Master, and that it is the work of an Artificer, all this that we see—I mean the world—and yet some say that it is not so. What happened to that Theodorus last year—whom did it not startle? And yet nothing came of it, but having for a season become religious, they returned to the point from which they had started in their attempt to be religious. So it was with the Jews. This is what the Prophet said of them: “When He slew them, then they sought Him, and turned early unto God.” (Ps. lxxviii. 34.) And what need to speak of those things that are common to all? How many have fallen into diseases, how many have promised, if raised a.d. 399. But Ed. Par. justly corrects this mistake: in fact, the σεισμὸς of which St. Chrys. there speaks (t. xii. p. 324. A.) is only a metaphor, meaning the catastrophe of Eutropius. 963 Perhaps with an allusion to Jude ver. 7, “Sodom and Gomorrah—set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” 964 Meaning, perhaps, Even when they believe the miracles to be real, that which should have brought them to faith becomes to them an occasion of greater wickedness. 965 The miracles at Antioch, when at the instigation of the demon (Apollo) the remains of the martyr Babylas were removed by order of Julian. See the Hom. de S. Babyla, t. ii. p. 567.—The Theodorus mentioned below cannot be the lapsed person of that name to whom St. Chrys. addressed the first of the two Paræneses, t. i. init. But probably πέρυσι is corrupt, and the allusion may be to the troubles at Antioch in connection with Theodorus the Sicilian; see p. 238, note 4. up, to work so great a change, and yet they have again become the same as ever! This, if nothing else, shows that we have natural free-will—our changing all at once. Were evil natural, this would not be: things that are natural and necessary, we cannot change from. “And yet,” you will say, “we do change from them. For do we not see some, who have the natural faculty to see, but are blinded by fear?” (True—) because this also is natural: if a different (necessity of) nature come not also into operation:966 (thus) it is natural to us, that being terrified we do not see; it is natural to us that when a greater fear supervenes, the other gives way. “What then,” you will say, “if right-mindedness967 be indeed according to nature, but fear having overpowered it cast it out?” What then if I shall show that some even then are not brought to a right mind, but even in these fears are reckless? Is this natural? Shall I speak of ancient things? Well then, of recent? How many in the midst of those fears continued laughing, mocking, and experienced nothing of the sort? Did not Pharaoh change immediately, and (as quickly) run back to his former wickedness? But here, as if (the demons) knew Him not, they (the exorcists) added, “Whom Paul preacheth,” whereas they ought to have said, “the Saviour of the world.” “Him that rose again.” By this they show that they do know, but they did not choose to confess His glory. Wherefore the demon exposes them, leaping upon them, and saying, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?” So that not ye are believers, but ye abuse that Name when ye say this. Therefore the Temple is desolate, 968 the implement easy to be overcome. So that ye are not preachers; mine, says he, ye are. Great was the wrath of the demon. The Apostles had power to do this to them, but they did it not as yet. For they that had power over the demons that did these things to them, much more had power over the men themselves. Mark how their forbearance is shown, in that they whom they repulsed do these things, while the demons whom they courted do the contrary. “Jesus,” says he, “I know.” Be ashamed, ye that are ignorant (of Him). “And Paul I know.” Well said, “Think not that it is because I despise them, that I do these things.” Great was the fear of the demon. And why without these words did he not rend their garments? For so he would both have sated his wrath, and established the delusion. He feared as I said, the unapproachable force, and would not have had such power had he not said this. But observe how we find the demons everywhere more right minded (than the Jews), not daring to contradict nor accuse the Apostles, or Christ. There they say, “We know Thee who Thou 966 ἂν μὴ φύσις ἑτέρα προσέλθῃ. To complete the sense we must supply, “because this also (the being blinded by fear) is a natural affection: but what I have said is true, viz. that τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ ἀνάγκην οὐ δυνάμεθα μεθίστασθαι, ἂν μὴ κ. τ. λ. 967 τὶ οὖν ἂν καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη. This is corrupt or mutilated. The sense requires, “What if in some cases ‘an evil mind’ be a natural necessity—as much as seeing or any other natural property or affection, but when there seems to be a change, it is only that fear casts out the evil mind for a while?” 968 Meaning perhaps, That which should be the Temple of Christ, the body of the believer. art” (Matt. viii. 29); and, “Why art Thou come hither before the time to torment us” (Mark i. 24): and again, “I know Thee who Thou art, the Son of God.” And here, “These men are servants of the most high God” (ch. xvi. 17): and again, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know.” For they exceedingly feared and trembled before those holy persons. Perhaps some one of you, hearing of these things, wishes he were possessed of this power, so that the demons should not be able to look him in the face, and accounts those saints happy for this, that they had such power. But let him hear Christ saying, “Rejoice not because the demons are subject unto you” (Luke x. 20), because He knew that all men rejoice most in this, through vainglory. For if thou seekest that which pleaseth God, and that which is for the common good, there is another, a greater way. It is not so great to free from a demon as it is to rescue from sin. A demon hinders not to attain unto the kingdom of Heaven, nay, even cooperates, unwillingly indeed, but nevertheless cooperates by making him that has the demon more sober-minded; but sin casts a man out.

But it is likely some man will say, “God forbid it should ever befall me to be sobered in this way!” Nor do I wish it for you, but a very different way, that you should do all from love of Christ: if however, which God forbid, it should so befall you, then even on this behalf I would comfort you. If then the demon does not cast out (from the kingdom of heaven), but sin does cast out, to free a man from sin is greater beneficence.

From this let us study to free our neighbors, and before our neighbors, our own selves. Let us see to it, lest we have a demon: let us examine ourselves strictly. More grievous than a demon is sin, for the demon makes men humble. See ye not those possessed with a demon, when they have recovered from the attack, how downcast they are, of how sad a countenance, how fraught with shame their faces are, how they have not even courage to look one in the face? See the strange inconsistency! While those are ashamed on account of the things they suffer, we are not ashamed on account of the things we do; while they are abashed being wronged, we are not abashed when doing wrong: and yet their condition is not a subject for shame, but for pity and tenderness and indulgence: nay, great is the admiration it calls for, and many the praises, when struggling against such a spirit, they bear all thankfully: whereas our condition in very deed is a subject for ridicule, for shame, for accusation, for correction, for punishment, for the worst of evils, for hell-fire; calling for no compassion whatever. Seest thou, that worse than a demon is sin? And those indeed, from the ills they suffer, reap a double profit: first, their being sobered and brought to more self-control; then, that having suffered here the chastisement of their own sins, they depart hence to their Master, purified. For indeed upon this we have often discoursed to you, that those who are punished here, if they bear it thankfully, may naturally be supposed to put away thereby many of their sins. Whereas from sins the mischief resulting is twofold; first, that we offend; secondly, that we become worse. Attend to what I say. Not this is the only injury we get from sin, that we commit a sin: but another and a worse is this, that our soul receives a habit Just as it is in the case of the body—for it will be more plain when put in the form of an ex- ample—as he who has taken a fever has got harm not only in this respect, that he is sick, but also that after the sickness he is become weaker, even though he may return to health after a long disease: just so in the case of sin, though we may regain health, yet we are far from having the strength we need. For969 take the case of one who has been insolently abusive: does he not suffer his deserts for his abusive conduct? Aye, but there is another and a worse thing to rue (which is), that his soul is become more insensible to shame. For from each several sin that is committed, even after the sin has been done and has ceased, there remains a kind of venom instilled into our souls. Do you not hear people saying, when they are recovered from sickness, “I dare not drink water now?” And yet the man has regained his health: aye, but the disease has done him this harm also. And whereas those (possessed) persons, albeit suffering ill, are thankful, we, when faring well, blaspheme God, and think ourselves very ill used: for you will find more persons behaving thus in health and wealth than in poverty and sickness. For there stands the demon over (the possessed), like a very hangman, fierce, uttering many (menaces), even as a schoolmaster brandishing the lash, and not suffering them to give way to any laxity. And suppose that some are not at all brought to a sober mind, neither are these liable to punishment;970 no small thing this: even as fools, even as madmen and children, are not called to account, so neither are these: since for things that are done in a state of unconsciousness, none can be so merciless as to call the doers to account. Why then, in a far worse condition than those who are possessed of evil sprits are we that sin. We do not, indeed, foam at the mouth, nor distort our eyes, or throw about our hands convulsively; but as for this, would that we did it in our body and not in our soul! Will you that I show you a soul, foaming, filthy, and a distortion of the mind’s eyes? Think of those who are in a passion and drunken with rage; can any form be filthier than the words they discharge? In very deed it is like a sputtering of noisome slaver. And just as the possessed know none of those who are present, so neither do these. Their understanding darkened, their eyes distorted, they see not who is friend, who foe, who worthy of respect, who contemptible, but they see all alike without a difference. And then, do you not see them, how 969 Mod. text, “For look now at some one who has been abusive and has not been punished: not for this only is it a subject for weeping, that he does not suffer the punishment for his abusiveness, but also for another reason it is a subject for mourning. What may this be? That his soul is now become more shameless.” But Chrys. is speaking of the immediate evil—here the act of ὕβρις for which the man suffers, or will have to give account hereafter—and the permanent effect, the ἕξις which every evil act fixes on the soul.—῞Ετερονhere and above we render in its pregnant sense, “other and worse,” or, “what is quite another and a more serious thing.” 970 Old text. Εἰ δέ τινες μηδ᾽ ὅλως νήφοιεν, οὐδὲ έκεῖνοι διδόασι δίκην. Sav. and Ben. οὕτω and δώσουσι. But Par. has resumed the unintelligible reading of mod. text, εἰ δέ τινες μηδ᾽ οὕτω ν., ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἐκεῖνοι διδόασι δίκην. they tremble, just like those others? But they do not fall to the ground, say you? True, but their soul lies on the ground and falls there in convulsions: since had it stood upright, it would not have come into the condition it is in. Or think you not that it betokens a soul abjectly sprawling and lost to all self-possession, the things men can do and say when drunken with rage? There is also another form of madness worse than this. What may this be? When men cannot so much as suffer themselves to vent their anger, but instead of that nourish within their own bosoms, to their own proper hurt,971 as it were a very hangman with his lash, the rancorous remembrance of wrongs. For it is a bane to themselves first, the malice that they bear. To say nothing of the things to come, what torture, think you, must that man undergo in the scourging of his soul, as day by day he looks how he may avenge himself on his enemy? He chastises himself first, and suffers punishment, swelling (with suppressed passion), fighting against himself, setting himself on fire. For needs must the fire be always burning within thee: while raising the fever to such a height, and not suffering it to wane, thou thinkest thou art inflicting some evil on the other, whereas thou art wasting thyself, ever bearing about with thee a flame which is always at its height, and not letting thy soul have rest, but evermore being in a state of fury, and having thy thoughts in a turmoil and tempest. What is more grievous than this madness, to be always smarting with pain, and ever swelling and inflamed? For such are the souls of the resentful: when they see him on whom they wish to be revenged, straightway it is as if a blow were struck them: if they hear his voice, they cower and tremble: if they be on their bed, they picture to themselves numberless revenges, hanging, torturing that enemy of theirs: and if, beside all this, they see him also to be in renown, O! the misery they suffer! Forgive him the offence, and free thyself from the torment. Why continue always in a state of punishment, that thou mayest once punish him, and take thy revenge? Why establish for thyself a hectic disease?972 Why, when thy wrath would fain depart from thee, dost thou keep it back? Let it not remain until the evening, says Paul. (Eph. iv. 26.) For like some eating rot or moth, even so does it gnaw through the very root of our understanding. Why shut up a beast within thy bowels? Better a serpent or an adder to lie within thy heart, than anger and resentment: for those indeed would soon have done with us, but this remains forever fixing in us its fangs, instilling its poison, letting loose upon us an invading host of bitter thoughts. “That he should laugh me to scorn,” say you, “that he should despise me!”973 O wretched, miserable man, wouldest 971 ἀλλὰ τρίφωσι παῤ ἑαυτοις οἰκεῖον κακὸν, κἀθάπερ τινὰ δήμιον τὴν μνησικακίαν. Mod. text οἰκειακὸν καθ. τ. δ. 972 For τί κατασκευάζεις ἕκτικον σαυτῷ νόσημα; B. has, τί κ. ἐκτήκον σαυτὸν ·τῷ νοσήματι, quæ lectio non spernanda, te morbo tabefaciens, Ben. The reading ἐκτήκον is explained by the etacism; the τι in νοσήματι is derived from the following τί βουλόμενον; hence it was necessary to alter σαυτῷ into σαυτὸν τῷ. In the following sentence, B. has τί βουλόμενος, “Why when thou wouldest be quit of it, dost thou keep thine anger?” 973 Mod. text weakly, “But this I do that he may not laugh me to scorn, that he may not despise me.” thou not be ridiculed by thy fellow-servant, and wouldest thou be hated by thy Master? Wouldest thou not be despised by thy fellow-servant, and despisest thou thy Master?

To be despised by him, is it more than thou canst bear, but thinkest thou not that God is indignant, because thou ridiculest Him, because thou despisest Him, when thou wilt not do as He bids thee? But that thine enemy will not even ridicule thee, is manifest from hence (that), whereas if thou follow up the revenge, great is the ridicule, great the contempt, for this is a mark of a little mind; on the contrary, if thou forgive him, great is the admiration, for this is a mark of greatness of soul. But you will say, he knows not this. Let God know it, that thou mayest have the greater reward. For He says, “Lend to those of whom ye hope not to receive.” (Luke vi. 34.) So let us also do good to those who do not even perceive that one is doing them good, that they may not, by returning to us praise or any other thing, lessen our reward. For when we receive nothing from men, then we shall receive greater things from God. But what is more worthy of ridicule, what more paltry, than a soul which is always in anger, and wishing to take revenge? It is womanly, this disposition, it is babyish. For as the babes are angry even with lifeless things, and unless the mother beats the ground, they will not let go their anger:974 so do these persons wish to revenge themselves on those who have aggrieved them. Why then, it is they who are worthy of ridicule: for to be overcome by passion, is the mark of a childish understanding, but to overcome it, is a sign of manliness. Why then, not we are the objects of ridicule, when we keep our temper, but they. It is not this that makes men contemptible—not to be conquered by passion: what makes them contemptible is this—to be so afraid of ridicule from without, as on this account to choose to subject one’s self to one’s besetting passion, and to offend God, and take revenge upon one’s self. These things are indeed worthy of ridicule. Let us flee them. Let a man say, that having done us numberless ills, he has suffered nothing in return: let him say that he might again frantically assault us, and have nothing to fear. Why, in no other (better) way could he have proclaimed our virtue; no other words would he have sought, if he had wished to praise us, than those which he seems to say in abuse. Would that all men said these things of me: “he is a poor tame creature; all men heap insults on him, but he bears it: all men trample upon him, but he does not avenge himself.” Would that they added, “neither, if he should wish to do so, can he:” that so I might have praise from God, and not from men. Let him say, that it is for want of spirit that we do not avenge ourselves. This does us no hurt, when God knows (all): it does but cause our treasure to be in greater safety. If we are to have regard to them, we shall fall away from everything. Let us not look to what they say, but to what becomes us. But, says he, “Let no man ridicule me,” and some make a boast of this. O! what folly! “No man,” says he, “having injured me, has ridiculed me:” that is, “I had my re- 974 Καθάπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα (meaning τὰ βρέφη) καὶ πρὸς (om. B. C.) τὰ ἄψυχα ὀργίζεται, κἂν μὴ πλήξῃ τὸ ἔδαφος ἡ μητὴρ, οὐκ ἀφίησι τὴν ὀργήν.—Mod. text and Edd. except Sav. omit ἡ μητήρ. venge.” And yet for this thou deservest to be ridiculed, that thou didst take revenge. Whence came these words among us—being, as they are, a disgrace to us and a pest, an overthrow of our own proper life and of our discipline? It is in downright opposition to God that thou (so) speakest. The very thing which makes thee equal to God—the not avenging thyself—this thou thinkest a subject for ridicule! Are not we for these things worthy to be laughed at, both by ourselves, and by the heathen, when we thus speak against God? I wish to tell you a story of a thing that happened in the old times (which they tell) not on the subject of anger, but of money. A man had an estate in which there was a hidden treasure, unknown to the owner: this piece of ground he sold. The buyer, when digging it for the purpose of planting and cultivation, found the treasure therein deposited, and came975 and wanted to oblige the seller to receive the treasure, urging that he had bought a piece of ground, not a treasure. The seller on his part repudiated the gift, saying, “The piece of ground (is not mine), I have sold it, and I have no concern whatever with this (treasure).” So they fell to altercation about it, the one wishing to give it, the other standing out against receiving it. So chancing upon some third person, they argued the matter before him, and said to him, “To whom ought the treasure to be assigned?” The man could not settle that question; he said, however, that he would put an end to their dispute—he would (if they pleased) be master of it himself. So he received the treasure, which they willingly gave up to him; and in the sequel got into troubles without end, and learnt by actual experience that they had done well to have nothing to do with it. So ought it be done likewise with regard to anger; both ourselves ought to be emulous976 not to take revenge, and those who have aggrieved us, emulous to give satisfaction. But perhaps these things also seem to be matter of ridicule: for when that madness is widely prevalent among men, those who keep their temper are laughed at, and among many madmen he who is not a madman seems to be mad. Wherefore I beseech you that we may recover (from this malady), and come to our senses, that becoming pure from this pernicious passion, we may be enabled to attain unto the kingdom of heaven, through 975 Mod. text followed by Edd. perverts the whole story, making the parties contend, not for the relinquishing of the treasure, but for the possession of it, so making the conclusion (the willing cession of it by both to the third party) unintelligible, and the application irrelevant. The innovator was perhaps induced to make this alteration, by an unseasonable recollection of the Parable of the Treasure hid in a field.—“The seller having learnt this, came and wanted to compel the purchaser ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν θησαυρὸν,” (retaining ἀπολ., in the unsuitable sense “that he, the seller, should receive back the treasure.”) “On the other hand, the other (the purchaser) repulsed him, saying, that he had bought the piece of ground along with the treasure, and that he made no account of this (καὶ οὐδένα λόγον ποιεῖν ὑπὲρ τούτου.) So they fell to contention, both of them, the one wishing to receive, the other not to give,” etc. 976 καὶ ἡμᾶς φιλονεικεῖν μὴ ἀμύνασθαι, καὶ τοὺς λελυπηκότας φιλονεικεῖν δοῦναι δίκην: as in the story, the parties ἐφιλονείκουν, the one μὴ λαβεῖν τὸν θ., the other δοῦναι. the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XIX. 21, 23

“After these things were ended, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome. So he sent into Macedonia two of them that ministered unto him, Timotheus and Erastus; but he himself stayed in Asia for a season. And the same time there arose no small stir about the Way.”

He sends Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, but himself remains at Ephesus. Having made a long enough stay in that city, he wishes to remove elsewhere again. But how is it, that having from the first chosen to depart into Syria, he turns back to Macedonia? “He purposed,” it says, “in the Spirit,” showing that all (that he did) was done not of his own power. Now he prophesies, saying, “I must also see Rome:” perhaps to comfort them with the consideration of his not remaining at a distance, but coming nearer to them again, and to arouse the minds of the disciples by the prophecy. At this point,977 I suppose, it was that he wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus, saying, “I would not have you ignorant of the trouble which came to us in Asia.” (2 Cor. i. 8.) For since he had promised to go to Corinth, he excuses himself on the score of having loitered, and mentions the trial relating the affair of Demetrius. “There arose no small stir about the Way.”978 Do you see the renown979 (acquired)? They contradicted, it says: (then) came miracles, twofold: (then) again, danger: such is the way the threads alternate throughout the whole texture (of the history). “For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver temples of Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen.” (v. 24.). “Which made,” it says, “silver temples of Diana.” And how is it possible that temples could be made of silver? Perhaps as 977 ᾽Εντεῦθεν. If St. Chrys. is rightly reported, he means the second Epistle, which he proceeds to quote from. But that Epistle was plainly not written ἀπὸ ᾽Εφέσου. Perhaps what he said was to this effect: “At this point I suppose it was—viz. after the mission of Timothy and Erastus—that he wrote (his first Epistle) to the Corinthians from Ephesus: and in the second Epistle he alludes to the great trial which ensued in the matter of Demetrius. He had promised to come to Corinth sooner, and excuses himself on the score of the delay.” But τὰ κατὰ Δημήτριον διηγούμενος can hardly be meant of St. Paul: it should be αἰνιττόμενος. 978 The use of ἡ ὁδός without further definition, to represent the Christian religion, is peculiar to the Acts (ix. 2; Acts xix. 9, 23, Acts xxiv. 22). Κυρίου or σωτηρίας would express the omitted defining idea.—G.B.S. 979 ῞Ορᾳς τὴν εὐδοκίμησιν; This seems to refer to v. 17–20. “But see how successes and trials here, as all along, alternate. Then the Jews contradicted: (v. 9) then miracles, twofold, (11–12 and 13–19): now again (after that εὐδοκίμησις), danger.”—Here the mss. and Edd. give v. 24–27, which we have distributed to their proper places. small boxes (κιβώρια.)980 Great was the honor paid to this (Diana) in Ephesus; since, when (Hom. in Eph. Prol.) their temple was burnt it so grieved them, that they forbade even the name of the incendiary ever to be mentioned. See how, wherever there is idolatry, in every case we find money at the bottom of it. Both in the former instance it was for money, and in the case of this man, for money. (ch. xix. 13.) It was not for their religion, because they thought that in danger; no, it was for their lucrative craft, that it would have nothing to work upon. Observe the maliciousness of the man. He was wealthy himself, and to him indeed it was no such great loss; but to them the loss was great, since they were poor, and subsisted on their daily earnings. Nevertheless, these men say nothing, but only he. And observe:981 “Whom having collected, and the workmen of like occupation,” having themselves common cause with him, “he said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth” (v. 25); then he brought the danger home to them, that we are in danger of falling from this our craft into starvation. “Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: so that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at naught; but also, that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” (v. 26–28.) And yet the very things he spoke were enough to bring them to true religion: but being poor senseless creatures, this is the part they act. For if this (Paul being) man is strong enough to turn away all, and the worship of the gods is in jeopardy, one ought to reflect, how great must this man’s God be, and that he will much more give you those things, for which ye are afraid. Already (at the outset) he has secured a hold upon their minds by saying, “This Paul hath turned away much people, saying, that they be no gods, which are made with men’s hands.” See what it is that the heathen are so indignant at; because he said that “they which be made of men are no gods.” Throughout, he drives his speech at their craft. Then that which most grieved them he brings in afterwards. But, with the other gods, he would say, we have no concern, but that “the temple also of the great goddess Diana is in danger to be destroyed.” Then, lest he should seem to say this for the sake of lucre, see what he adds: “Whom the whole world worshippeth.” Observe how he 980 These silver “temple” (ναοὺς) were shrines, small models of the temple containing images of the goddess, which pilgrims to the temple purchased and carried away and probably used in their homes as objects of domestic worship.—G.B.S. 981 Καὶ ὅρα κοινωνοὺς ὄντας αὐτούς· εἶτα τὸν κίνδυνον ἐπέστησεν (so Cat. C. -σαν, A. B. ἐπέτησεν). Mod. text, “But being themselves partners of the craft, he takes them as partners also of the riot. Then also he exaggerated (ηὔξησεν) the danger, adding. This our craft is in danger of coming into contempt. For this is pretty nearly what he declares by this, that from this art,” etc. showed Paul’s power to be the greater, proving all (their gods) to be wretched and miserable creatures, since a mere man, who was driven about, a mere tentmaker, had so much power. Observe the testimonies borne to the Apostles by their enemies, that they overthrew their worship.982 There (at Lystra) they brought “garlands and oxen.” (ch. xiv. 13.) Here he says, “This our craft is in danger to be set at naught.—Ye have filled (all) everywhere with your doctrine.” (ch. v. 28.) So said the Jews also with regard to Christ: “Ye see how the world is going after Him” (John xii. 19); and, “The Romans shall come and take away our city.” (ch. xi. 48). And again on another occasion, “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.” (ch. xvii. 6).—“And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath.” Upon what was that wrath called forth? On hearing about Diana, and about their source of gain. “And cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was filled with confusion: and rushed with one accord into the theatre.” (v. 29). Such is the way with vulgar minds, any trivial occasion shall hurry them away and inflame their passions. Therefore983 it behooves to do (things) with (strict) examination. But see how contemptible they were, to be so exposed to all (excitements)! “Having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel, they dragged them:” (here) again recklessly, just as did the Jews in the case of Jason; and everywhere they set upon them.984 “And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not,” (v. 30) so far were they from all display and love of glory. “And certain of the Asiarchs, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre” (v. 31) to a disorderly populace and tumult. And Paul complies, for he was not vainglorious, nor ambitious. “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused.” Such is the nature of the multitude: it recklessly follows, like fire when it has fallen upon fuel; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.” (v. 32.) 982 ὅτι καθαιρῶν (Cat. ὅτε ἐκαθῄρουν) αὐτῶν τὰ σεβάσματα, ἐκεῖ στέμματα καὶ ταύρους προσέφερον· ἐνταῦθα φησιν ὅτι κινδυνεύει κ. τ. λ. These seem to be only rough notes or hints of what Chrys. said. The first words καθ. αὐτῶν τὰ σεβ. look like a reference to Acts xvii. 23, ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν: “thus at Athens, surveying the objects of their worship, and finding an Altar, etc. he thence takes occasion to preach the Unknown God. At Lystra, they brought garlands and oxen, and the Apostles thereupon, etc. Therefore these men here might well say, Our craft is in danger. For it was true, as was said on another occasion (at Jerusalem), Ye have filled, etc.: and, They that have turned the world, etc. Nay, of Christ also the Jews said the same, The world is going after Him.” 983 Διὰ ταῦτα μετ᾽ ἐξετάσεως δεῖ ποιεῖν, Mod. text adds πάντα. This sentence, om. by A., seems to be out of place, and to belong rather to v. 36. We have transposed the text v. 28, 29, which in mss. and Edd. is given after ὡς πᾶσι προκεῖσθαι. 984 καὶ πανταχοῦ αὐτοῖς προκεῖνται. To make some sense of the passage, we adopt προσκεῖνται from B. We also transpose v. 30 which is given with 31 after the following sentence. “And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward.” It was the Jews that thrust him forward;985 but as providence ordered it, this man did not speak. “And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.” (v. 33.) “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” (v. 34.) A childish understanding indeed! as if they were afraid, lest their worship should be extinguished, they shouted without intermission. For two years had Paul abode there, and see how many heathen there were still! “And when the town clerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is temple-keeper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?” (v. 35.) As if the thing were not palpable. With this saying first he extinguished their wrath. “And of the Diopetes.” There was another sacred object (ἱερὸν) that was so called. Either he means the piece of burnt earth or her image.986 987 This (is) a lie. “Seeing then that these things cannot be 985 Προεβάλοντο ᾽Ιουδαῖοι οἰκονομικῶς δὲ (supplied by Cat.) οὗτος οὐκ ἐφθέγξατο. Mod. text “The Jews thrust him forward, as Providence ordered it, that they might not have (it in their power) to gainsay afterwards. This man is thrust forward, and speaks: and hear what (he says).” 986 Old text: ῾Ιερὸν ἕτερον οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο—meaning, as we take it, the Palladium of Troy, which was also called “the Diopetes,” τὸ Παλλάδιον τὸ Διοπετὲς καλούμενον, Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv. 47.—ἤτοι τὸ ὄστρακον αὐτῆς φησιν. Something more is needed, therefore we supply ἢ τὸ ἄγαλμα αὐτῆς φησιν. But ἱερὸν in this sense is not usual. ῎Οστρακον, whatever it mean, cannot be the image of Diana, which was known to be of wood. The passage seems to be corrupt, and one might conjecture that ἱερὸν ἕτερον relates to “another Temple” of Diana built after the first which was burned by Herostratos, and that the name of this man is latent in the unintelligible ητοιτοοστρακον, and that Chrysostom’s remark is this, that together with that former Temple perished the original Diopetes: so that to speak of that image as still in being was a lie (τοῦτο ψεῦδος)—Mod. text “But a different ἱερὸν was thus called διοπετές: either then the idol of Diana they called Diopetes, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Διὸς τὸ ὄστρακον ἐκεῖ νοπεπτωκὸς, and not made by man: or a different ἄγαλμαwas thus called among them.”—Isidore of Pelus. in the Catena: “Some say that it is spoken of the image of Diana, i.e. ‘(a worshipper) of the great Diana and of her διοπετες ἄγαλμα:’ some that the Palladium also (is here named as διοπ.), i.e. the image of Minerva, which they worshipped along with Diana.” Ammonius ibid., “the ναὸς τοῦ Διός: or the στρογγυλοειδὲς”—meaning the ὄστρακον?—“or rather, which is the true explanation, this image of Diana: or the Palladium, which they thought came from Jupiter, and was not the work of men.” OEcum. gives the same variety of explanations, from the Catena. The words τοῦτο ψεῦδος, which in the mss. follow the text v. 36, 37, are better referred to the Diopetes, as in our translation.—Mod. text ἄρα τὸ πᾶν ψεῦδος: and then, “these things however he says to the people, in order that those also,” etc. omitting δὲ preserved by the old text. 987 This Diopetes, the image which was supposed to have fallen down from Jupiter or heaven (Δίος—πίπτω), was the image of Diana which was in the great temple at Ephesus. This was the superstitious belief of the people as is clear from the many instances in classic mythology in which statues are famed to have fallen from heaven. This image was of wood and was probably found there by the Greeks when they colonized Ionia.—G.B.S. spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.” (v. 36, 37.) All this however he says to the people; but in order that those (workmen) also might become more reasonable, he says: “Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsman which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another. But if ye enquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar, there being no cause, for which (matter) we shall not be able to give an account for this concourse.” (v. 38–40.) “A lawful assembly,” he says, for there were three assemblies according to law in each month; but this one was contrary to law. Then he terrified them also by saying, “We are in danger to be called to account” for sedition. But let us look again at the things said.

(Recapitulation.) “After these things were ended,” it says, “Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem,” saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” (v. 21.) He no longer speaks here after the manner of a man,988 or, He purposed to pass through those regions, without tarrying longer. Wherefore does he send away Timothy and Erastus? Of this I suppose he says, “Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone. He sent away,” it says, “two of those who ministered to him” (1 Thess. iii. 1), both to announce his coming, and to make them more eager. “But he himself tarried awhile in Asia.” (v. 22.) Most of all does he pass his time in Asia; and with reason: there, namely, was the tyranny, of the philosophers.989 (Afterwards) also he came and discoursed to them again. “And the same time” etc. (v. 23), for indeed the superstition was excessive. (a) “Ye both see and hear,” so palpable was the result that was taking place—“that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul by persuading hath turned away,” not by violence: this is the way to persuade a city. Then, what touched them closely, “that they be no gods which are made with hands.” (v. 26.) He overturns, says he, our craft: (e) “From this work we have our wealth. Hath persuaded.” How990 did he persuade—he, a man of mean consideration? 988 i.e. In this, he prophesies (see above on this verse): but in his purpose of going to Jerusalem from Achaia, he was disappointed, for he had to return through Macedonia: ἢ προείλετο, i.e. this is the meaning of ἔθετο ἐν πνεύματι. Mod. text om. οὐκέτι ἐγχρονίσας, and adds: “for this is the meaning of ἔθετο, and such is the force of the expression.” Then: “But why he sends away T. and E., the writer does not say: but it seems to me that of this also he says, ᾽Εν πνεύματι. Wherefore when,” etc.—The meaning is: “He sends them away on this occasion, as he did at Athens: viz. because he could no longer forbear, therefore he thought it good to be left alone.” 989 ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἦν ἡ τυραννὶς (mod. text ἡ πολλὴ φατρία) τῶν φιλοσόφων. But this seems to belong rather to Athens. 990 Mod. text inserts for connection: “And if from this work wealth accrues to you, how hath he persuaded,” etc. How prevail over so great a force of habit? by doing what—by saying what? It is not for a Paul (to effect this), it is not for a man. Even this is enough, that he said, “They are no gods.” Now if the impiety (of the heathen religions) was so easy to detect, it ought to have been condemned long ago: if it was strong, it ought not to have been overthrown so quickly. (b) For, lest they should consider within themselves (how strange), that a human being should have such power as this, and if a human being has power to effect such things, why then one ought to be persuaded by that man, he adds: (f) “not only is this our craft in danger to be set at naught, but also,” as if forsooth alleging a greater consideration, “the temple of the great goddess Diana,” etc. (c) “whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” (v. 27.) (g) “And when they heard, they were filled with wrath, and shouted, Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” (v. 28.) For each city had its proper gods. (d) They thought to make their voice a barrier against the Divine Spirit. Children indeed, these Greeks! (h) And their feeling was as if by their voice they could reinstate the worship of her, and undo what had taken place! “And the whole city,” etc. (v. 29.) See a disorderly multitude! “And when Paul,” etc. (v. 30.) Paul then wished to enter in that he might harangue them: for he took his persecutions as occasions for teaching: “but the disciples suffered him not.” Mark, how great forethought we always find them taking for him. At the very first they brought him out that they might not (in his person) receive a mortal blow; and yet they had heard him say, “I must also see Rome.” But it was providential that he so predicts beforehand, that they might not be confounded at the event. But they would not that he should even suffer any evil. “And certain of the Asiarchs besought him that he would not enter into the theatre.” Knowing his eagerness, they “besought him:” so much did all the believers love him.—“And they drew Alexander,” etc. (v. 33.) This Alexander, why did he wish to plead? Was he accused? No, but it was to find an opportunity, and overturn the whole matter, and inflame991 the anger of the people. “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” (v. 34.) Do you mark the inordinate rage? Well, and with rebuke does the town clerk say, “What man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians—” (v. 35) (coming to the point) which they were frightened about. Is it this,992 says he, that ye do not worship her? And he does not say, “That knoweth not” Diana, but, “our city,” that it always worshipped her.993 “Seeing then that these things 991 ἐκκαῦσαι. Erasm. ut et confutaret totum et furorem populi extingueret. Ben. subverteret.…extingueret. But ἐκκαῦσαι will not bear this sense, nor does the context suggest it. Alexander’s object, it is represented, was to overthrow the preaching, and kindle the rage of the people yet more.—Cat. and Sav. marg. ἑλκύσαι. 992 Mod. text “As if he had said, Do ye not worship her?” 993 Mod. text “But, Our city, paying court to them: θεραπεύων αὐτοὺς:” for which the old text has, But, Your city. ᾽Εθεράπευσεν αὐτήν. Which may mean, Thus he, the town clerk, paid homage to the city, by speaking of its honors. But θεραπεύετε αὐτὴν in the preceding sentence requires the sense given in the translation. cannot be spoken against.” (v. 36.) Why then do ye make a question about them, as if these things were not plain? (b) Then he quietly chides them, showing that they had come together without reason. “And to do nothing rashly,” he says. Showing that they had acted rashly. (a) “For ye have brought hither,” etc. (v. 37.) They wanted to make religion the pretext for what concerned their own money-making: (c) and it was not right on account of private charges to hold a public assembly. For he put them to a nonplus, and left them not a word to say for themselves.994 “There being no cause,” he says, “for this concourse, for which” (matter) “we shall not995 be able to give the account.” (v. 40.) See how prudently, how cleverly, the unbelievers (act). Thus he extinguished their wrath. For as it is easily kindled, so also is it easily extinguished. “And when he had thus spoken,” it says, “he dismissed the assembly.” (v. 41.)

Seest thou how God permits trials, and by them stirs up and awakens the disciples, and makes them more energetic? Then let us not sink down under trials: for He Himself will “also make the way of escape, that we may be able to bear them.” (1 Cor x. 13.) Nothing so makes friends, and rivets them so firmly, as affliction: nothing so fastens and compacts the souls of believers: nothing is so seasonable for us teachers in order that the things said by us may be heard. For the hearer when he is in ease is listless and indolent, and seems to suffer annoyance from the speaker: but when he is in affliction and distress, he falls into a great longing for the hearing. For when distressed in his soul, he seeks on all sides to find comfort for his affliction: and the preaching brings no small comfort. “What then,” you will say, “of the Jews? How was it that in consequence of their weakheartedness, they did not hear?” Why, they were Jews, those ever weak and miserable creatures: and besides, the affliction in their case was great, but we speak of affliction in moderation. For observe: they expected to be freed from the evils that encompassed them, and they fell into numberless greater evils: now this is no common distress to the soul. Afflictions cut us off from the sympathy we have for the present world, as appears in this, that we wish for death immediately, and cease to be loving of the body: which very thing is the greatest part of wisdom, to have no hankering, no ties to the present life. The soul which is afflicted does not wish to be concerned about many things: repose and stillness are all it desired, content for its part to have done with the things present, even though there be nothing else to follow. As the body when wearied and distressed does not wish to indulge in amours, or gormandizing, but only to repose and lie down in quiet; so the soul, harassed996 by numberless evils, is 994 Σφόδρα γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἠλόγησεν καὶ διηπόρησεν. Mod. text Τούτῳ σφ. αὐτοὺς διηπ., omitting, ἠλόγησεν, which, if not corrupt is here put in an unusual sense. 995 οὐ δυνησόμεθα old text, here and above, as in the Alexandrine ms. of the N. T. (received by Griesbach) but here with τῆς συστρ. τ. transposed. (If the negative be retained, it is better to read περὶ τῆς σ. τ. as in the leading authorities of the text: so that this clause is epexegetical to περὶ οὗ· for which, namely, for this concourse.) 996 ταραχθεῖσα B. The other mss. ταριχευθεῖσα, which is unsuitable here. urgent to be at rest and quiet. The soul which is at ease is (apt to be) fluttered, alarmed, unsettled: whereas in this there is no vacuity, no running to waste: and the one is more manly, the other more childish; the one has more gravity, in the other more levity. And as some light substance, when it falls upon deep water, is tossed to and fro, just so is the soul when it falls into great rejoicing. Moreover, that our greatest faults arise out of overmuch pleasure, any one may see. Come, if you will, let us represent to ourselves two houses, the one where people are marrying, the other where they are mourning: let us enter in imagination into each: let us see which is better than the other. Why, that of the mourner will be found full of seriousness (φιλοσοφίας); that of the marrying person, full of indecency. For look, (here are) shameful words, unrestrained laughter, more unrestrained motions, both dress and gait full of indecency, words fraught with mere nonsense and foolery: in short, all is ridicule there, all ridiculous.997 I do not say the marriage is this; God forbid; but the accompaniments of the marriage. Then nature is beside itself in excess of riot. Instead of human beings, those present become brute creatures, some neighing like horses, others kicking like asses: such utter license, such dissolute unrestraint: nothing serious, nothing noble: (it is) the devil’s pomp, cymbals, and pipes, and songs teeming with fornication and adultery. But not so in that house where there is mourning; all is well-ordered there: such silence, such repose, such composure; nothing disorderly, nothing extravagant: and if any one does speak, every word he utters is fraught with true philosophy: and then the wonderful circumstance is, that at such times not men only, but even servants and women speak like philosophers—for such is the nature of sorrow—and while they seem to be consoling the mourner, they in fact utter numberless truths full of sound philosophy. Prayers are there to begin with, that the affliction may stop there, and go no further: many a one comforting the sufferer, and recitals without number of the many who have the like cause for mourning. “For what is man?” (they ask) (and thereupon) a serious examination of our nature—“aye, then, what is man!” (and upon this) an impeachment of the life (present) and its worthlessness, a reminding (one another) of things to come, of the Judgment. (So from both these scenes) each returns home: from the wedding, grieved, because he himself is not in the enjoyment of the like good fortune; from the mourning, light-hearted, because he has not himself undergone the like affliction, and having all his inward fever quenched. But what will you? Shall we take for another contrast the prisons and the theatres? For the one is a place of suffering, the other of pleasure. Let us again examine. In the former there is seriousness of mind; for where there is sadness, there must needs be seriousness. He who aforetime 997 ὅλως οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἡ πάντα γέλως καὶ κατάγελως τὰ εκεῖ. was rich, and inflated with his own importance, now will even suffer any common person to converse with him, fear and sorrow, like some mightier fire, having fallen on his soul, and softening down his harshness: then he becomes humble, then of a sad countenance, then he feels the changes of life, then he bears up manfully against everything. But in a theatre all is the reverse of this—laughter, ribaldry, devil’s pomp, dissoluteness, waste of time, useless spending of days, planning for extravagant lust, adultery made a study of, practical training to fornication, schooling in intemperance, encouragement to filthiness, matter for laughter, patterns for the practice of indecency. Not so the prison: there you will find humbleness of mind, exhoration, incentive to seriousness, contempt of worldly things; (these) are all trodden under foot and spurned and, fear stands over (the man there), as a schoolmaster over a child, controlling him to all his duties. But if you will, let us examine in a different way.998 I should like you to meet a man on his return from a theatre, and another coming out of prison; and while you would see the soul of the one fluttered, perturbed, actually tied and bound, that of the other you would see enlarged, set free, buoyant as on wings. For the one returns from the theatre, enfettered by the sight of the women there, bearing about chains harder than any iron, the scenes, the words, the gestures, that he saw there. But the other on his return from the prison, released from all (bounds), will no longer think that he suffers any evil as comparing his own case with that of (those) others. (To think) that he is not in bonds will make him thankful ever after; he will despise human affairs, as seeing so many rich men there in calamity, men (once) having power to do many and great things, and now lying bound there: and if he should suffer anything unjustly, he will bear up against this also; for of this too there were many examples there: he will be led to reflect upon the Judgment to come and will shudder, seeing here999 (in the earthly prison) how it will be there. For as it is with one here shut up in prison, so in that world also before the Judgment, before the Day that is to come. Towards wife, children, and servants, he will be more gentle.

Not so he that comes from the theatre: he will look upon his wife with more dislike, he will be peevish with his servants, bitter towards his children, and savage towards all. Great are the evils theatres cause to cities, great indeed, and we do not even know that they are 998 C., ᾽Αλλ᾽ εἰ βούλει πάλιν πολλοὺς ἐξετάσωμεν τόπους· B., ᾽Αλλὰ πάλιν εἰ βούλει ἑτέρους ἐξετ. τόπους. Mod. text ᾽Αλλ᾽ εἰ β., πάλιν ἑτέρως ἐξετ. τοὺς αὐτοὺς τόπους. In the Translation we adopt ἑτέρως and omit τόπους. 999 The text is corrupt: καὶ φρίξει τοὺς τόπους—perhaps it should be τοὺς ἐκεῖ τόπους—ἐνταῦθα ὁρῶν· καθάπερ, γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἐν δεσμωτηρίU+0026 251· τυγχάνων οὕτω κἀκεῖ πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως πρὸ τῆς μελλούσης ἡμέρας, sc. φρίξει. i.e. “just as here, being shut up in prison he looks forward with dread to the coming trial, so will he in that world,” etc. Mod. text quite misrepresenting the sense: “For, as he that is here shut up in prison is gentle towards all, so those also before the Judgment, before the coming Day, will be more gentle,” etc. great. Shall we examine other scenes of laughter also, I mean the feasts, with their parasites, their flatterers, and abundance of luxury, and (compare with them) places where are the halt and blind? As before, in the former is drunkenness, luxury, and dissoluteness, in the latter the reverse.—See also with regard to the body, when it is hot-blooded, when it is in good case, it undergoes the quickest change to sickness: not so, when it has been kept low. Then let me make my meaning clearer to you:—let there be a body having plenty of blood, plenty of flesh, plump with good living: this body will be apt even from any chance food to engender a fever, if it be simply idle. But let there be another, struggling rather with hunger and hardship: this is not easily overcome, not easily wrestled down by disease. Blood, though it may be healthy in us, does often by its very quantity engender disease: but if it be small in quantity, even though it be not healthy, it can be easily worked off. So too in the case of the soul, that which leads an easy, luxurious life, has its impulses quickly swayed to sin: for such a soul is next neighbor to folly, to pleasure, to vainglory also, and envy, and plottings, and slanderings. Behold this great city of ours, what a size it is! Whence arise the evils? is it not from those who are rich? is it not from those who are in enjoyment? Who are they that “drag” men “before the tribunals?” Who, that dissipate properties? Those who are wretched and outcasts, or those who are inflated with consequence, and in enjoyment? It is not possible that any evil can happen from a soul that is afflicted. (James ii. 6.) Paul knew the gain of this: therefore he says, “Tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope, and hope maketh not ashamed.” (Rom. v. 3.) Then let us not sink in our afflictions, but in all things give thanks, that so we may get great gain, that we may be well-pleasing to God, who permits afflictions. A great good is affliction: and we learn this from our own children: for without affliction (a boy) would learn nothing useful. But we, more than they, need affliction. For if there, when the passions (as yet) are quiet, (chastisement) benefits them, how much more us, especially possessed as we are by so many! Nay, we behoove rather to have schoolmasters than they: since the faults of children cannot be great, but ours are exceeding great. Our schoolmaster is affliction. Let us then not draw it down willingly upon ourselves, but when it is come let us bear it bravely, being, as it is, always the cause of numberless good things; that so we may both obtain grace from God, and the good things which are laid up for them that love Him, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and evermore, world without end. Amen.

Acts XX. 1

“And after the uproar was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia.”

There was need of much comforting after that uproar. Accordingly, having done this, he goes into Macedonia, and then into Greece. For, it says, “when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia.” (v. 2, 3.) Again he is persecuted by the Jews, and goes into Macedonia. “And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. These going before tarried for us at Troas.” (v. 4, 5.) But how does he call Timothy a man “of Thessalonica?”1000 This is not his meaning, but, “Of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius: of Derbe, Timothy,”1001 etc., these, he says, went before him to Troas, preparing the way for him. “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.” (v. 6.) For it seems to me that he made a point of keeping the feasts in the large cities. “From Philippi,” where the affair of the prison had taken place. This was his third coming into Macedonia, and it is a high testimony that he bears to the Philippians, which is the reason why he makes some stay there. “And upon the day of the week, when the disciples came 1000 The phrase ἄχρι τῆς ᾽Ασίας are omitted by אand B. and are now discarded in the leading critical editions. The residence of Timothy is not given, as being well known. It was probably Lystra (Acts xvi. 1).—G.B.S. 1001 St. Chrysostom’s reading of v. 4 is peculiar, but does not appear in the vv. ll. of N. T. perhaps because the Edd. of Chrys. conform it to the usual text, which is Θεσσαλ. δὲ, ᾽Αρ. καὶ Σεκ. καὶ ΓάU+0026 190·ος Δερβαῖος καὶ Τιμόθεος, i.e. two Thessalonians, and beside them Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, etc. But in the preceding chapter, v. 29, a Gaius was mentioned along with Aristarchus, and both as Macedonians. Hence it seems St. Chrys. read it with a stop after ΓάU+0026 190·ος, of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius. In his remark, he seems to be giving a reason for striking out καὶ before Τιμόθεος: viz. “How does he call Timothy a Thessalonian, (as a negligent reader might suppose to be the case, viz., Of Thess. Ar. and Sec. and Gaius Derbæus and Timothy?) He does not say this, but, of Thessalonians he mentions three, and then, of Derbe, Timothy, cf. xvi. 1., whereas Gaius was not of Derbe, but of Macedonia, xix. 29.” The note of OEcumen. on the passage shows that Δερβαῖος was supposed by some to be a proper name: “Of the rest, he tells us what countries they were of: for Timothy he is content with the name, his personal character was distinction enough, and besides he has already told us where T. came from: viz. xvi. 1. But if Δερβαῖος here is a noun of nation and not a proper name, perhaps he has here also mentioned his country.” together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (v. 7.) It was then the (season between Easter and) Pentecost.1002 See how everything was subordinate to the preaching. It was also, it says, the Lord’s day.1003 Not even during night-time was he silent, nay he discoursed the rather then, because of stillness. Mark how he both made a long discourse, and beyond the time of supper itself. But the Devil disturbed the feast—not that he prevailed, however—by plunging the hearer in sleep, and causing him to fall down. “And,” it says, “there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him, said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.” (v. 8–12.) But observe, I pray you, the theatre, how crowded it was: and the miracle, what it was. “He was sitting in a window,” at dead of night. Such was their eagerness to hear him! Let us take shame to ourselves! “Aye, but a Paul” say you, “was discoursing then.” Yes, and Paul discourses now, or rather not Paul, either then or now, but Christ, and yet none cares to hear. No window in the case now, no importunity of hunger, or sleep, and yet we do not care to hear: no crowding in a narrow space here, nor any other such comfort. And the wonderful circumstance is, that though he was a youth, he was not listless and indifferent; and though (he felt himself) weighed down by sleep, he did not go away,1004 nor yet fear the danger of falling down. It was not from listlessness that he slumbered, but from necessity of nature. But observe, I beseech you, so fervent was their zeal, that they even assembled in a third loft: for they had not a Church yet. “Trouble not yourselves,” he says. He said not, “He shall come to life again, for I will raise him up:” but mark the unassuming way in which he comforts them: “for his life,” says he, “is in him. 1002 Πεντηκοστὴ, meaning the whole of the seven weeks. The scope of the remark is, Being met for celebration of the Holy Eucharist, which followed the Sermon, and the discourse being lengthened out until midnight, they were fasting all the time (for the Eucharist was taken fasting, see Hom. xxvii. in 1 Cor.): so that, though it was during the weeks after Easter, when there was no fast, and not only so, but the Lord’s Day moreover, here was a fast protracted till midnight. 1003 That the religious observance of Sunday is here alluded to has been generally assumed. Taken in connection with 1 Cor. xvi. 2 and Rev. i. 10, the passage renders it highly probable that at this time (about a.d. 57) the first day of the week was regularly observed by the Christians in memory of the Lord’s resurrection, although it is certain that the Jewish Christians still observed the Jewish Sabbath.—G.B.S. 1004 οὐκ ἀπέστη, so as to lose the opportunity of hearing, and forego the “breaking of bread,” which was to follow the discourse. Comp. Hom. x. in Gen. init. When he was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten.” This thing cut short the discourse; it did no harm, however. “When he had eaten,” it says, “and discoursed a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Do you mark the frugality of the supper? Do you observe how they passed the whole night? Such were their meals, that the hearers came away sober, and fit for hearing. But we, in what do we differ from dogs? Do you mark what a difference (between us and those men)? “And they brought the young man alive, and,” it says, “were not a little comforted,” both because they received him back alive, and because a miracle had been wrought.1005 “And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Thasos,1006 there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.” (v. 13.) We often find Paul parting from the disciples. For behold again, he himself goes afoot: giving them the easier way, and himself choosing the more painful. He went afoot, both that he might arrange many matters, and by way of training them to bear a parting from him.1007 “And when he had joined us at Thasos, having taken him on board, we came to Mytilene; and having sailed thence on the morrow, we come over against Chios”—then they pass the island—“and on the next day we touched at Samos, and having stopped at Trogylium, on the following day we came to Miletus. For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.” (v. 14–16.) Why this haste? Not for the sake of the feast, but of the multitude. At the same time, by this he conciliated the Jews, as being one that did honor the feasts, wishing to gain even his adversaries: at the same time also he delivers the word.1008 Accordingly, see what great gain accrued, from all being present. But 1005 The narrative requires the interpretation of Chrys. that this was a case of restoration to life, not merely of revival from suspended animation (as Olshausen, Ewald, DeWette). This is established by the fact that Eutychus is said to have seen taken up νεκρός, not ὡς νεκρός. Moreover to ἤρθη νεκρός (v. 9) is opposed ἤγαγον ζῶντα (v. 12). He was dead; they brought him alive. It is true that the apostle says: “His life (soul) is in him,” but this is said after he had fallen upon and embraced him, or this may have been said from the standpoint of his confidence of a miraculous restoration, as Jesus said of Jairus’ daughter: “The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth,” meaning that from his standpoint and in view of his power she still lived, although she was in reality dead.—G.B.S. 1006 Old text instead of ῎Ασσονhas Θάσον, a misreading which appears in some mss. and Versions of the Acts: Cat., Νάσον. 1007 παιδεύων τε αὐτοὺς χωρίζεσθαι αὐτοῦ: but mod. text ἅμα καὶ παιδεύων αὐτοὺς μηδὲ χωρίζεσθαι αὐτοῦ. After this, old text has ἀνήχθημέν, φησιν, εἰς τὴν Θάσον evidently confusing this clause of v. 13, with the first of v. 14, then, εἶτα παρέχονται (for παρέρχ.) τὴν νῆσον, followed by v. 15, 16. Mod. text, v. 15, followed by “See, how Paul being urgent, they put to sea, and lose no time, but παρέρχονται τὰς νήσους,” and v. 16. 1008 καὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἑλεῖν (F. ἐλεεῖν) βουλόμενος, wishing by this means to overcome (for their good) even those who hated him. Then, ἅμα καὶ τὸν λόγον καθίει. Mod. text ἅμα ἔσπευδε τὸν λόγον καθεῖναι. Mr. Field remarks on Hom. in 2 Cor. p. 553 B. where we have παραίνεσιν καθίησι, that the much more usual expression that the interests of the people of Ephesus might not be neglected on that account, he managed for this in a different way. But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “And having embraced them,” it says, “he departed for to go into Macedonia.” (v. 1.) By this again he refreshed them (ἀνεκτήσατο), giving them much consolation. “And having exhorted” the Macedonians, “with much discourse, he came into Greece.” (v. 2.) Observe how we everywhere find him accomplishing all by means of preaching, not by miracles. “And we, sailed,” etc. The writer constantly shows him to us as hasting to get to Syria; and the reason of it was the Church, and Jerusalem, but still he re- strained his desire, so as to set all right in those parts also.1009 And yet Troas is not a large place: why then do they pass seven days in it? Perhaps it was large as regarded the number of believers. And after he had passed seven days there, on the following day he spent the night in teaching: so hard did he find it to tear himself away from them, and they from him. “And when we came together” it says, “to break bread.” (v. 7–12.) At the very time (of breaking bread) the discourse having taken its commencement,* extended:1010 as representing that they were hungry, and it was not unseasonable: for the principal object (which brought them together) was not teaching, but they came together “to break bread;” discourse however having come up, he prolonged the teaching. See how all partook also at Paul’s table. It seems to me, that he discoursed while even sitting at table, teaching us to consider all other things as subordinate to this. Picture to yourselves, I beseech you, that house with its lights, with its crowd, with Paul in the midst, discoursing, with even the windows occupied by many: what a thing it was to see, and to hear that trumpet, and behold that gracious countenance! 1011 But why did he discourse during night time? Since “he was about to depart,” it says, and was to see them no more: though this indeed he does not tell them, they being too weak (to bear it), but he did tell it to the others. At the same time too the miracle which took is, εἴς τι καθεῖναι, and adds: “semel tantum ap. Nostrum reperimus λόγον καθεῖναι, viz. t. ix. p. 236. E.”—our passage. 1009 ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως κατεῖχε τὸν πόθον καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖ κατορθοῦν. The infinitive requires βουλόμενος or the like: i.e. “though desirous to get to Jerusalem, he restrained his desire, and made a stay at Troas of seven days, wishing, etc.:” but B. gives the same sense by reading κατορθῶν, Cat. κατώρθου. Mod. text οὕτως εἶχε τὸν πόθον καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖ κατορθοῦν. 1010 Πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν καιρὸν, ἀρχὴν ὁ λόγος λαβὼν παρέτεινεν ὡς ἐνδεικνύμενος πεινῆν· καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἄκαιρον· οὐ γὰρ προηγουμένως εἰς διδασκαλίαν καθῆκεν. This is evidently mutilated; the verb to ὁ λόγος is wanting: ὡς ἐνδεικ. πεινῆν, either “making a display of,” or, “pleading as excuse the being hungry,” is unintelligible; so is οὐκ ἦν ἄκ. Mod. text attempts to make sense by reading: “At the very time ᾦ ἐνεδείκνυτο πεινῆν, καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἄκαιρον, ἀρχὴν ὁ λόγος λαβὼν παρετάθη, ὥστε οὐ προηγ.” 1011 Mod. text “many occupying even the windows, to hear that trumpet, and see that gracious countenance. What must the persons taught have been, and how great the pleasure they must have enjoyed!” place would make them evermore to remember that evening; so that the fall turned out to the advantage of the teacher. Great was the delight of the hearers, and even when interrupted it was the more increased. That (young man) was to rebuke all that are careless (of the word), he whose death was caused by nothing else than this, that he wished to hear Paul. “And we went before to ship,” etc. (v. 13.) Wherefore does the writer say where they came, and where they went to? To show in the first place that he was making the voyage more leisurely—and this upon human grounds—and sailing past (some): also (for the same reason he tells) where he made a stay, and what parts he sailed past; (namely,) “that he might not have to spend the time in Asia.” (v. 16.) Since had he come there, he could not have sailed by; he did not like to pain those who would have begged him to remain. “For he hasted,” it says, “if it were possible for him to keep the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem:” and (this) was not possible (if he stayed). Observe, how he is also moved like other men. For therefore it is that all this is done, that we may not fancy that he was above human nature: (therefore) you see him desiring (something), and hasting, and in many instances not obtaining (his object): for those great and holy men were partakers of the same nature with us; it was in the will and purpose that they differed, and so it was that also they attracted upon themselves the great grace they did. See, for instance, how many things they order by an economy of their own. “That we give not offence” (2 Cor. vi. 3) to those who wish (to take offence), and, “That our ministry be not blamed.” Behold, both an irreproachable life and on the other hand condescension. This is (indeed to be) called economy, to the (very) summit and height (of it).1012 For he that went beyond the commandments of Christ, was on the other hand more humble than all. “I am made all things to all men,” he says, “that I might gain all.” (1 Cor. ix. 22.) He cast himself also upon dangers, as he says in another place; “In much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments.” (2 Cor. vi. 4, 5.) And great was his love for Christ. For if there be not this, all else is superfluous, both the economy (of condescending accommodation), and the irreproachable life, and the exposing himself to dangers. 1012 Τοῦτο οἰκονομία λέγεται εἰς ἀκρότητα καὶ εἰς ὕψος. “This”—the blameless life and therewith συγκατάβασις described in 2 Cor. vi. 3 ff—"is what one may indeed call Οἰκονομία—managing or dispensing things for the good of others, so that they shall have what is best for them in the best manner, without shocking their prejudices. Οἰκον., in the moral sense of the word, implies συγκατάβασοις, letting one’s self down to the level of others for their good. (Hence below, καὶ τὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας, καὶ (τὰ) τοῦ ἀλήπτου βίου.) “Talk of ‘economy’— here you have it at its very top and summit, in a degree not to be surpassed.” Instead of ὕψος the context seems to require “the lowest depth.” Hence mod. text τὸ εἰς ἀκρότητα εἶναι καὶ ὕψους ἀρετῆς, καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης συγκαταβάσεως. Καὶ ἄκουε πῶς ὁ ὑπερβαίνων…“the being at the summit both of loftiness of virtue and of lowliness of condescension.” In the next sentence St. Paul is described as ὁ ὑπερβαίνων τὰ παραγγέλματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, namely, the precept “that they which preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel,” 1 Cor. ix. 14. “Who is weak,” he says, “and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?” (2 Cor. xi. 29.) These words let us imitate, and let us cast ourselves upon dangers for our brethren’s sake. Whether it be fire, or the sword, cast thyself on it, beloved, that thou mayest rescue (him that is) thy member: cast thyself, be not afraid. Thou art a disciple of Christ, Who laid down His life for His brethren: a fellow-disciple with Paul, who chose to suffer numberless ills for his enemies, for men that were warring against him; be thou filled with zeal, imitate Moses. He saw one suffering wrong, and avenged him; he despised royal luxury, and for the sake of those who were afflicted he became a fugitive, a wanderer, lonely and deserted; he passed his days in a foreign land; and yet he blamed not himself, nor said, “What is this? I despised royalty, with all that honor and glory: I chose to avenge those who were wronged, and God hath overlooked me: and not only hath He not brought me back to my former honor, but even forty years am I passing in a foreign land. Truly, handsomely1013 have I received my wages, have I not!” But nothing of the kind did he say or think. So also do thou: be it that thou suffer any evil for doing good, be it that (thou have to wait) a long time, be not thou offended, be not discomposed: God will of a surety give thee thy reward. The more the recompense is delayed, the more is the interest of it increased. Let us have a soul apt to sympathize, let us have a heart that knows how to feel with others in their sorrows: no unmerciful temper (ὠμόν), no inhumanity.

Though thou be able to confer no relief, yet weep thou, groan, grieve over what has happened: even this is not to no purpose. If it behooves us to feel for those who are justly punished by God, much more for those who suffer unjustly at the hands of men. (They of) “Ænan,”1014 it saith, “came not forth to mourn for the house which was near her” (Micah i. 11): they shall receive pain, “in return for that they built for derision.” And again, Ezekiel makes this an accusation against them, that they did not grieve for (the afflicted). (Ezek. xvi. 2.) What sayest thou, O Prophet? God punisheth, and shall I grieve for those that He is punishing? Yea verily: for God Himself that punisheth wisheth this: since neither does He Himself wish to punish, nay, even Himself grieves when punishing. Then be not thou glad at it. You will say, “If they are justly punished, we ought not to grieve.” Why, the thing we ought to grieve for is this—that they were found worthy of punishment. Say, when thou seest thy son undergoing cautery or the knife, dost thou not grieve? and sayest thou not to 1013 Edd. καλῶς γε· οὐ γὰρ τοὺς μισθοὺς ἀπέλαβον: as if it meant, “And well that it is so: for I have not received my wages—therefore the reward is yet to come: not as it is with those who ἀπέχουσι τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν in this life, Matt. vi. 2 ff.” If this were the meaning, the sentence would be out of place; it should be, “He said nothing of the kind, but would rather have repressed such thoughts with the consideration, It is well: for I have not received my wages—they are yet to come.” But in fact here as elsewhere the Edd. overlook the ironical interrogation οὐ γάρ. Read καλῶς γε (οὐ γάρ;) τοὺς μισθοὺς ἀπ έλαβον (or καλούς γε). 1014 Αἰναν. Sav. marg., Σαινάν. LXX. Edd., Σενναάρ. Hebr., Zaanan. thyself, “What is this? It is for health this cutting, to quicken his recovery; it is for his deliverance, this burning?” but for all that, when thou hearest him crying out, and not able to bear the pain, thou grievest, and the hope of health being restored is not enough to carry off the shock to nature. So also in the case of these, though it be in order to their health that they are punished, nevertheless let us show a brotherly feeling, a fatherly disposition. They are cuttings and cauteries, the punishments sent by God: but it is for this we ought to weep, that they were sick, that they needed such a mode of cure. If it be for crowns that any suffer these things, then grieve not; for instance, as Paul, as Peter suffered: but when it is for punishment that one suffers justice, then weep, then groan. Such was the part the prophets acted; thus one of them said, “Ah! Lord, dost thou destroy the residue of Israel?” (Ezek. ix. 8.) We see men-slayers, wicked men, suffering punishment, and we are distressed, and grieve for them. Let us not be philosophical beyond measure: let us show ourselves pitiful, that we may be pitied; there is nothing equal to this beautiful trait: nothing so marks to us the stamp of human nature as the showing pity, as the being kind to our fellow-men. In fact, therefore do the laws consign to public executioners the whole business of punishment: having compelled the judge to punish so far as to pronounce the sentence, thereafter they call forth those to perform the act itself. So true is it, that though it be justly done, it is not the part of a generous (φιλοσόφου) soul to inflict punishment, but it requires another sort of person for this: since even God punishes not by His own hand, but by means of the angels. Are they then executioners, the angels? God forbid: I say not this, but they are avenging powers. When Sodom was destroyed, the whole was done by them as the instruments: when the judgments in Egypt were inflicted, it was through them. For, “He sent,” it says, “evil angels among them.” (Psalm lxxviii. 50.) But when there is need of saying, God does this by Himself: thus, He sent the Son:—(b) but,1015 “He that receiveth you, receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me.” (Matt. x. 40.) (a) And again He saith, “Then will I say unto the angels, Gather together them that do iniquity, and cast them into the furnace.” (Matt. xiii. 30, 41, 42.) But concerning the just, not so. (c) And again, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness.” (Matt. xxii. 13.) Observe how in that case His servants minister: but when the point is to do good, see Himself doing the good, Himself calling: “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you.” (Matt. xxv. 34.) When the matter is, to converse with Abraham, then Himself comes to him: when it is, to depart to Sodom, He sends His servants, like a judge raising up those who are to punish. “Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things” (Matt. xxv. 21); I (will make thee): but that other, not Himself, but His servants bind. Knowing these things, let us not rejoice over those who are suffering punishment, but even grieve: 1015 This clause is evidently misplaced, and moreover requires to be completed. The meaning may be: “So in the highest of all God’s saving acts, the mission of the Son; for he that receiveth Him receiveth the Father.” for these let us mourn, for these let us weep, that for this also we may receive a reward. But now, many rejoice even over those who suffer evil unjustly. But not so, we: let us show all sympathy: that we also may have God vouchsafed us, through the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XX. 17–21

“And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the Church. And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many tears, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: and how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”

See him, hasting to sail by, and yet not overlooking them, but taking order for all. Having sent for the rulers, through those he discourses to them (the Ephesians): but it is worthy of admiration, how finding himself under a necessity of saying certain great things about himself, he tries to make the least he can of it (πειρἅτα μετριάζειν). “Ye know.” For just as Samuel, when about to deliver up the government to Saul says in their presence, “Have I taken aught of your hands? Ye are witnesses, and God also” (1 Sam. xii. 3, 5); (so Paul here). David also, when disbelieved, says, “I was with the flock keeping my father’s sheep: and when the bear came, I scared her away with my hands” (1 Sam. xvii. 34, 35): and Paul himself too says to the Corinthians, “I am become a fool; ye have compelled me.” (2 Cor. xii. 11.) Nay, God Himself also does the same, not speaking of himself upon any and every occasion, but only when He is disbelieved, then He brings up His benefits. Accordingly, see what Paul does here: first he adduces their own testimony: that you may not imagine his words to be mere boasting, he calls the hearers themselves as witnesses of the things he says, since he was not likely to speak lies in their presence. This is the excellence of a teacher, to have for witnesses of his merits those who are his disciples. And what is wonderful, Not for one day nor for two, says he, have I continued doing this. He wishes to cheer them for the future, that they may bravely bear all things, both the parting from him, and the trials about to take place—just as it was in the case of Moses and Joshua. And see how he begins: “How I have been with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility of mind.” Observe, what most becomes rulers: “hating pride” (Exod. xviii. 21, LXX.), says (Moses): which (qualification) is especially in point for rulers, because to them there is (almost) a necessity of becoming arrogant. This (humility) is the groundwork of all that is good, as in fact Christ saith,1016 “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (Matt. v. 3.) And (here) not simply, “with humility of mind,” but, “with all humility.” For there are many kinds of humility, in word and in action, towards rulers, and toward the ruled. Will you that I mention to you some kinds of humility? There 1016 i.e. putting this foremost of the Beatitudes. are some who are lowly towards those who are lowly, and high towards the high: this is not the character of humility.1017 Some then are such. Then, that he may not seem to be arrogant, he lays a foundation beforehand, removing that suspicion: For, “if, says he, I have acted ‘with all humility of mind,’ it is not from arrogance that I say the things I say.” Then for his gentleness, ever with much condescension making them his fellows. “With you,” he says, “have I been, serving the Lord;” he makes the good works common to them with himself: none of it his own peculiar. “What?” (you will say) “why, against God could he possibly bear himself arrogantly?” And yet there are many who do bear themselves arrogantly against God: but this man not even against his own disciples. This is the merit of a teacher, by his own achievements of virtue to form the character of his disciples. Then for his fortitude, upon which also he is very concise. “With many tears,” he says, “and temptations which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews.” Do you see that he grieves at their doings? But here too he seems to show how sympathizing he was: for he suffered for those who were going to perdition, for the doers themselves: what was done to himself, he even rejoiced at it; for he belonged to that band which “rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for that Name” (Acts v. 41): and again he says, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you” (Col. i. 24): and again, “For our light affliction, which is but for the moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” (2 Cor. iv. 17). These things, however, he says, by way of making the least of his merits (μετριάζων). But there he show his fortitude, not so much of daring, as of enduring: “I,” says he, “have been evil entreated, but it was with you: and what is indeed the grievous part of the business, at the hands of Jews.” Observe, he puts here both love and fortitude. Mark, here, I pray you, a character of teaching: “I kept back nothing,” he says, ungrudging fulness, unshrinking promptness—“of what was profitable unto you:” because there were things which they did not need to learn. For as the hiding some things would have been like grudging, so the saying all things would be folly. This is why he adds, “that was profitable unto you. But have showed you, and have taught you:” have not only said, but also taught: not doing this either as a mere matter of form. For that this is what he means, observe what he says: “publicly, and from house to house:” thereby representing the exceeding toil, the great earnestness and endurance. “Both Jews, and Greeks.” Not (addressing myself) to you alone. “Testifying:” here, the boldness of speech: and that, even though we do no good, yet we must speak: for1018 this is the meaning of “testifying,” when we speak to those who do not pay attention: and so the word 1017 Something more ought to follow, but the report is imperfect. Mod. text “Others again there are who are not such as these, but who in the case of both characters preserve according to the occasion both the lowly and the high bearing: which thing indeed above all is characteristic of humility. Since then he is about to teach them such things, lest he should seem to be arrogant,” etc. 1018 Τὸ γὰρ διαμαρτύρασθαι τοῦτό ἐστιν, ὅταν..…Τὸ γὰρ διαμαρτύρασθαι ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τοῦτό ἐστιν. διαμαρτύρασθαι is for the most part used. “I call heaven and earth to witness” (Deut. iv. 26), διαμαρτύρομαι, Moses says: and now Paul himself, Διαμαρτυρόμενος “both to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God.” What testifiest thou? That they should be careful about their manner of life: that they should repent, and draw near to God. “Both to Jews and Greeks”—for neither did the Jews know Him—both1019 by reason of their works, he says, “repentance towards God,” and, by reason that they knew not the Son, he adds, “and faith in the Lord Jesus.” To what end, then, sayest thou these things? to what end dost thou put them in mind of them? What has come of it? hast thou anything to lay to their charge? Having first alarmed their feeling, then he adds, “And now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God.” (v. 22–24). Wherefore says he this? By way of preparing them to be always ready to meet dangers, whether seen or unseen, and in all things to obey the Spirit.1020 He shows that it is for great objects that he is led away from them. “Save that the Holy Ghost,” he says, “in every city witnesseth to me saying”—to show that he departs willingly; that (see Hom. xlv. p. 273) you may not imagine it any bond or necessity, when he says, “bound in the Spirit—that in every city bonds and afflictions await me.” Then also he adds this, “I count not my life dear, until I shall have fulfilled my course and the ministry, which I received of the Lord Jesus.” Until I shall have finished my course, says he, with joy. Do you mark how (clearly) these were the words not of one lamenting, but of one who forbore to make the most (of his troubles) (μετριάζοντος), of one who would instruct those (whom he addressed), and sympathize with them in the things which were befalling He says not, “I grieve indeed,1021 but one must needs bear it:” “but,” says he, “of none of those things do I make 1019 Old text διά τε τὰ ἔργα, διά τε τὸν ΥἱU+0026 232·ν ἀγνοεῖν· καὶ πίστιν τὴν εἰς τὸν Κ. ᾽Ι. as if all this were said in explanation of the preceding Οὐδὲ γὰρ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι ᾔδεσαν αὐτόν. But δία τε τὰ ἔργα explains the clause τὴν εἰς τὸν Θεὸν μετάνοιαν, which requires to be inserted as in the Translation. Mod. text “both because they were ignorant of the Son, and because of their works, and their not having faith in the Lord Jesus.” 1020 Chrys. understands “bound in the spirit” to mean constrained by the Holy Spirit (so Theophylact, Beza, Calvin, Wordsworth et al.). The fact that the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the next verse (23) in such a way as to be distinguished apparently from “the spirit” here mentioned, has led most critics to believe that “the spirit” was Paul’s own spirit (so Meyer, Lechler, Lange, DeWette, Ewald, Alford, Hackett, Gloag). Δεδεμένος should not be taken as meaning bound with chains in prospect, i.e., as seen in his spirit in advance (as Bengel, Conybeare and Howson), but rather constrained, inwardly constrained.—G.B.S. 1021 mss. Cat. and Edd. ἀλγῶμεν “let us grieve:” but Savile, ἀλγῶ μέν. The next clause ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἡγοῦμαι, or, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ, ῾Ηγοῦμαι, requires something to make sense of it, as in the Translation. account, neither do I have,” i.e. account “my life dear to me.” Why this again? not to extol himself, but to teach them, as by the former words, humility, so by these, fortitude and boldness: “I have it not precious,” i.e. “I love it not before this: I account it more precious to finish my course, to testify.” And he says not, “to preach,” “to teach”—but what says he? “to testify (διαμαρτύρασθαι)—the Gospel of the grace of God.” He is about to say something more uncomfortable (φορτικώτερον), namely, “I am pure from the blood of all men (because on my part) there is nothing lacking:” he is about to lay upon them the whole weight and burden: so he first mollifies their feelings by saying, “And now behold I know that ye shall see my face no more.” The consolation1022 is twofold: both that “my face ye shall see no more,” for in heart I am with you: and that it was not they alone (who should see him no more): for, “ye shall see my face no more, ye all, among whom I have gone about preaching the Kingdom.”1023 So that he may well (say), "Wherefore I take you to record (read διὸ μαρτ. for διαμαρτ.),—seeing I shall be with you no more—“that I am pure from the blood of all men.” (v. 26.) Do you mark how he terrifies them, and troubled and afflicted as their souls are, how hard he rubs them (ἐπιτρίβει)? But it was necessary. “For I have not shunned,” he says, “to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” (v. 27.) Why then, he who does not speak, has blood to answer for: that is, murder! Nothing could be more terrifying than this. He shows that they also, if they do it not, have blood to answer for. So, whereas he seems to be justifying himself, in fact he is terrifying them. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (or, bishops) to feed the Church of God (see note 3), which He hath purchased with His own blood.” (v. 28.) Do you mark? he enjoins them two things. Neither success in bringing others right of itself is any gain—for, I fear, he says, “lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away” (1 Cor. ix. 27); nor the being diligent for one’s self alone. For 1022 Διπλῆ ἡ παραμυθία. The meaning is, “It was his face that they would see no more: he chooses that expression by way of softening matters, implying that in spirit he would be present: and again, all ye, not they only, so that the grief was not peculiar to them:” but this being rather obscure, A. substitutes ἀθυμία, and mod. text Διπλῆ ἡ λύπη, i.e. “the dejection (or, the sorrow) was twofold, both the being to see his face no more, and the, All of them.” 1023 Neither of the two ideas which Chrys. draws from v. 25—(a) that though absent in body, he would be present with them in spirit; (b) that the “all” addressed refers to the whole company—comes naturally from the text. The apostle states his firm conviction that he shall not again visit Ephesus. Whether he ever did so or not, we do not know. The probabilities in the case would depend upon the question of a release from his Roman imprisonment. He hoped for such a release and intended to visit Colossæ (Philem. 22). On the supposition of such a release and on the consequent supposition of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, a visit after this time to Ephesus becomes very probable, especially since we find the apostle (2 Tim. iv. 13, 20) at Troas and Miletus.—G.B.S. such an one is selfish, and seeks his own good only, and is like to him who buried his talent. “Take heed to yourselves:” this he says, not because our own salvation is more precious than that of the flock, but because, when we take heed to ourselves, then the flock also is a gainer. “In which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God.” See, it is from the Spirit ye have your ordination. This is one constraint: then he says, “To feed the Church of the Lord.”1024 Lo! another obligation: the Church is the Lord’s.1025 And a third: “which He hath purchased with His own blood.” It shows1026 how precious the concern is; that the peril is about no small matters, seeing that even His own blood He spared not. He indeed, that he might reconcile those who were enemies, poured out even His blood: but thou, even when they are become thy friends, art not able to retain them. “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (v. 29.) Again he engages (ἐπιστρέφει) them from another quarter, from the things which should come after: as when he says, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood. After my departing,” he says, “grievous wolves shall enter in among you” (Eph. vi. 12); twofold the evil, both that he himself would not be present, and that others would assail them. “Then why depart, if thou knowest this beforehand?” The Spirit draws me, he says. Both “wolves,” and “grievous, not sparing the flock;” and what is worse, even “from among your own selves:” the grievous thing (this), when the war is moreover an intestine war. The matter is exceeding serious, for it is “the Church of the Lord:” great the peril for with blood He redeemed it: mighty the war, and twofold. “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (v. 30.) “How then? what comfort shall there be?” “Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” (v. 31.) See how many strong expressions are here: “with tears,” and “night and day,” and “every one.” For it was not that if he saw many,1027 then he came in (to the work), but even were it for a single soul, he was capable of doing 1024 Hence it appears that St. Chrys. reads Κυρίου not Θεοῦ in this text, though in the citation the Scribes give it according to the other reading, Θεοῦ. 1025 It is an interesting fact that in this passage where the reading vacillates between Κυρίου and θεοῦ, while the report of the Homily has given us θεοῦ, the citation of the N. T. text favors the reading Κυρίου. The great majority of mss. read τοῦ Κυρίου: א and B. have τοῦ θεοῦ (the usual Pauline formula). Many critics hold that Κυρ. was changed to θ. in accordance with Pauline usage in the Epistles. The idea of the “blood of God” is against the reading θεοῦ. Modern critics are nearly equally divided. Alford, Westcott and Hort, read θεοῦ; Meyer, Tischendorf, Κυρίου; to us the latter seems decidedly preferable.—G.B.S. 1026 δείκνυσι τίμιον τὸ πρᾶγμα, ὅτι. Mod. text. πολὺ δείκν. δἰ ὧν εἶπε τίμιον τὸ πρ. So Edd. Multum ostendit dum dicit pretiosam rem. Ben. 1027 Οὐ γὰρ εἰ πολλοὺς εἶδε τότε ἐφείσατο (mod. ἐφείδετο). Non enim si multos vidisset, eis pepercisset, Ben. But Cat. has preserved the true reading, ἐφίστατο. everything (for that one soul). So it was, in fact, that he compacted them together (συνεκρότησεν) (so firmly as he did). “Enough done on my part: three years have I remained:” they had establishing enough, he says; enough of roofing. “With tears,” he says. Seest thou that the tears were on this account? The bad man grieves not: grieve thou: perhaps he will grieve also. As, when the sick man sees his physician partaking of food, he also is incited to do the same: so likewise here, when he sees thee weeping, he is softened: he will be a good and great man.1028

(Recapitulation.) “Not knowing,” he says, “the things that shall befall me.” (v. 22, 23.) Then is this why thou departest? By no means; on the contrary (I know that), “bonds and afflictions await me.” That (there are) trials, I know, but of what kind I know not: which was more grievous. “But none of these things move me” (v. 24): for do not suppose that I say these things as lamenting them: for “I hold not my own life dear.” It is to raise up their minds that he says all this, and to persuade them not only not to flee, but also to bear nobly. Therefore it is that he calls it a “course” and a “ministry,” on the one hand, showing it to be glorious from its being a race, on the other, showing what was due from it, as being a ministry. I am a minister: nothing more. Having comforted them, that they might not grieve that he was so evil entreated, and having told them that he endured those things “with joy,” and having shown the fruits of them, then (and not before) he brings in that which would give them pain, that he may not overwhelm their minds. “And1029 now behold,” etc. “Wherefore I take you to record, that I am pure from the blood of all men, because I have not shrunk from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God” (v. 25–27): that (counsel) which concerns the present matter. “For I know this,” etc. (v. 29.) “What then,” someone might say, “thinkest thou thyself so great? if thou shouldest depart, are we to die?” I say not this, 1028 ῎Εσται χρηστὸς καὶ μέγας ἀνήρ. The second epithet, being evidently unsuitable, mod. text gives, χρηστὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ πρᾶος γενήσεται. But perhaps χ. ἀ. καὶ μ. belongs to the next sentence, as an exclamation on v. 22. “A good and great man!” and for μαλάσσεται· ἔσται we may read μαλαχθήσεται. 1029 Old text: ἵνα μὴ καταχώσῃ αὐτῶν τὴν διάνοιαν, followed by the latter part of v. 27. Τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν κ. τ. λ. But the connection may also be, “I have not shrunk—of course in due order and proportion” (or something of that kind) “that he may not overwhelm their minds, from declaring,” etc. It might seem, however, from the comment which follows, viz τὴν περὶ τοῦ παρόντος πράγματος, that Chrys. is here proposing an interpretation of v. 27 different from what was implied in the first exposition, p. 269, and from that of v. 20: i.e. “painful as it is, I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God, to wit, as touching the present matter, my separation from you, so that ye shall see my face no more.” But this being very unsatisfactory, it is better to take the connection thus: Nor does he now shrink from declaring to them the whole counsel of God concerning the coming events, and their duty and responsibility therein. (We have therefore placed the mark of an hiatus before this clause.)—Mod. text substitutes, “But what is this (that he adds), ‘Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things.’ What then,” etc. he replies, that my absence causeth this: but what? That there should rise up against you certain of another sort: he says not, “because of my departing,” but “after my departing:” that is, after his going on his journey.—And yet this thing has happened already: much more (then will it happen) hereafter. Then we have the cause, “to draw away disciples after them.” (v. 30). That there are heresies, this is the cause, and no other than this. Then comes also consolation. But if He “purchased” it “with His own blood,” He will assuredly stand forward in its defence. “Night and day,” he says, “I cease not to warn with tears.” (v. 31.) This might well be said in our case also: and though the speech seems to refer peculiarly to the teachers, it is common also to the disciples. For what, though I speak and exhort and weep night and day, while the disciple obeys not? Therefore1030 it is that he says, “I take you to record:” since also himself says, “I am pure from the blood of all men: for I have not shunned to declare unto you.” (v. 26, 27.) Why then, this only is to be a teacher, to declare, to preach, to instruct, shrink from nothing, to exhort night and day: but if, while one is doing all this, nothing comes of it, ye know what remains. Then ye have another justification: “I am pure from the blood of all men.” Think not that these words are spoken to us only: for indeed this speech is addressed to you also, that ye should attend to the things spoken, that ye should not start away from the hearing. What can I do? Lo! each day I rend myself with crying out, “Depart from the theatres:” and many laugh at us: “Desist from swearing, from covetousness:” numberless are our exhortations, and there is none to hear us. But I do not discourse during night? Fain would I do this also in the night time, and at your tables, if it were possible that one could be divided into ten thousand pieces, so as to be present with you and discourse. But if once in the week we call to you, and ye shrink back, and some of you do not even come here, and you that do come, depart having received no profit,—what shall we do? Many I know even sneer at us, that we are forever discoursing about the same things: so wearisome are we become to you by very satiety. But for this not we are to blame, but the hearers may thank themselves. For he indeed who is making good progress, rejoices to hear the same things always; it seems to be his praises that he hears spoken: but he who does not wish to get on, seems even to be annoyed, and though he hear the same thing but twice, it seems to him that he is hearing it often.

“I am pure,” he says, “from the blood of all men.” (v. 26.) This was fit and proper for Paul to say, but we dare not say it, conscious as we are of numberless faults. Wherefore for him the ever vigilant, ever at hand, the man enduring all things for the sake of the salvation of his disciples, it was fit and proper to say this: but we must say that of Moses, “The Lord was wroth with me for your sakes” (Deut. iii. 26), because ye lead us also into many sins. 1030 The text is evidently confused or defective here. Mod. text “For that none may fancy it plea enough for his justification, that he is a disciple while yet he does not yield, therefore having said, I take you to record, he adds, for I have not shunned,” etc. For when we are dispirited at seeing you make no progress, is not the greater part of our strength struck down? For what, I ask you has been done? Lo! by the grace of God we also have now passed the space of three years,1031 not indeed night and day exhorting you, but doing this, often every third day, or every seventh. What more has come of it? We accuse, we rebuke, we weep, we are in anguish, although not openly, yet in heart. But those (inward) tears are far more bitter than these (outward ones): for these indeed bring a kind of relief to the feelings of the sorrowful, whereas those aggravate it, and bind it fast. Since when there is any cause of grief, and one cannot give vent to the sorrow, lest he should seem to be vainglorious, think what he suffers! Were it not that people would tax me with excessive love of display, you would see me each day shedding fountains of tears: but to those my chamber is witness, and my hours of solitude. For believe me I have (at times) despaired of my own salvation, but from my mourning on your account, I have not even leisure to bemoan my own evils: so entirely are ye all in all to me. And whether I perceive you to be advancing, then, for very delight, I am not sensible of my own evils: or whether I see you not advancing, such is my grief, I again dismiss my own cares from my thoughts: brightening up on account of your good things, though I myself have evils without number, and saddened on account of your painful things, though my own successes are without number. For what hope is there for the teacher, when his flock is destroyed? What kind of life, what kind of expectation is there for him? With what sort of confidence will he stand up before God? what will he say? For grant that he has nothing laid to his charge, has no punishment to suffer, but is “pure from the blood of all men:” yet even so will he suffer a grief incurable: since fathers also though they be not liable to be called to account for their children’s sins, nevertheless have grief and vexation. And this profits them nothing,1032 nor shields them (προίσταται). “For it is they that watch for our souls, as those that must give account.” (Heb. xiii. 17.) This seems to be a fearful thing: to me this gives no concern after your destruction. For whether 1031 St. Chrysostom succeeded Nectarius in the Archbishopric of Constantinople, 26th Feb. Coss. Honorius iv. and Eutychianus a.d. 398. Socrat. vi. 2.—From the following passage it appears that these Homm. though begun after Easter, perhaps of a.d. 400, extended over a considerable period of time, not being preached every day.—Below, mod. text spoils the sense by altering πικρότερα into κουφότερα. 1032 Mod. text inserts a φησίν, and makes the sentence interrogative. “And does this, you will say, profit them nothing nor shield them, that they watch for our souls? But then they watch as they that must give an account: and to some indeed this seems to be terrible.” The meaning in general seems to be: “If they perish, yet surely you can comfort yourself with the thought, that you at least are pure from their blood. No, this thought avails nothing to ward off (that sorrow). “Because they watch,” etc.—this seems a fearful thing. But if you be lost, it is not the thought of my accountability that gives me most concern—it is the thought of your perishing. Oh! that I might in the last day find you saved though not through me, yea, though I myself thereafter were called to account as not having done my part by you!” I give account, or not, it is no profit to me. Might it be, that ye were saved, and I to give account because of you: ye saved, and I charged with not having fulfiled my part! For my anxiety is not that you should be saved through me as the means, but only that you should be saved, no matter by what person as the instrument. Ye know not the pangs of spiritual childbirth, how overpowering they are; how he who is in travail with this birth, would rather be cut into ten thousand pieces, than see one of those to whom he has given birth perishing and undone. Whence shall we persuade you? By no other argument indeed, but by what has been done, in all that regards you we shall clear ourselves.1033 We too shall be able to say, that in nothing have we “shrunk from declaring” to you the whole truth: nevertheless we grieve: and that we do grieve, is manifest from the numberless plans we lay and contrivances we devise. And yet we might say to ourselves, What matters it to me? I have done my part, “I am pure from” (their) “blood:” but this is not enough for comfort. If we could tear open our heart, and show it to you, ye would see with what largeness it holds (you) within it, both women and children and men; for such is the power of love, that it makes the soul more spacious than the heaven. “Receive us,” says (Paul): “we have wronged no man, ye are not straitened in us.” (2 Cor. vii. 2; vi. 12.) He had all Corinth in his heart, and says, “Ye are not straitened: be ye also enlarged” (2 Cor. vi. 13); but I myself could not say this, for I well know, that ye both love me and receive me. But what is the profit either from my love or from yours, when the things pertaining to God thrive not in us? It is a ground for greater sorrow, an occasion of worse mischief (λύμης, al. λύπης). I have nothing to lay to your charge: “for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.” (Gal. iv. 15.) “We yearn not only to give you the Gospel, but also our own souls.” (1 Thess. ii. 8.) We are loved and we love (you): but this is not the question. But let us love Christ, “for the first commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God: and the second is like unto it, And thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matt. xxii. 37–39.) We have the second, we need the first: need the first, exceedingly, both I and you. We have it, but not as we ought. Let us love Him: ye know how great a reward is laid up for them that love Christ: let us love Him with fervor of soul, that, enjoying his goodwill, we may escape the stormy waves of this present life, and be found worthy to obtain the good things promised to them that love Him, through the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XX. 32

“And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them that are sanctified.”

What he does when writing in an Epistle, this he does also when speaking in council: from exhorting, he ends with prayer: for since he had much alarmed them by saying, “Grievous wolves shall enter in among you” (v. 29), therefore, not to overpower them, and make them lose all self-possession, observe the consolation (he gives). “And now,” he says, as always, “I commend you, brethren, to God, and to the word of His grace:” that is, to His grace: it is grace that saveth. He constantly puts them in mind of grace, to make them more earnest as being debtors, and to persuade them to have confidence. “Which is able to build you up.”1034 He does not say, to build, but, “to build up,” showing that they had (already) been built. Then he puts them in mind of the hope to come; “to give you an inheritance,” he says, “among all them which are sanctified.” Then exhortation again: “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.” (v. 33.) He takes away that which is the root of evils, the love of money. “Silver, or gold,” he says. He says not, I have not taken, but, not even “coveted.” No great thing this, but what follows after is great. “Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboring, ye ought to support the weak.” (v. 34, 35.) Observe him employed in work and not simply that, but toiling. “These hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me:” so as to put them to shame. And see how worthily of them. For he says not, Ye ought to show yourselves superior to money, but what? “to support the weak”—not all indiscriminately—“and to hear the word of the Lord which He spake, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”1035 For lest any one should think that it was spoken with reference to them, and that he gave himself for an ensample, as he elsewhere says, “giving an ensample to you” (Phil. iii. 17), he added the declaration of Christ, 1034 The phrase “which is able” (τῷ δυναμένῳ) may be connected with the word “God,” or with “the word of His grace.” As standing nearer the latter, this would be the natural construction. So our author has taken it, understanding by “the word of His grace” rather the grace itself than the doctrine concerning it. Most critics have preferred to connect the phrase with τῷ θεῷ on the ground that it is more appropriate to ascribe the giving of an inheritance among the sanctified directly to God than to His word. (So DeWette, Meyer, Alford, Gloag).— G.B.S. 1035 By “the weak” Chrys. evidently understands the physically weak, the sick and poor (see the Recapitulation) and we think correctly as opposed to the “weak in faith.” The apostle counsels labor in order to liberality toward the needy. So Olshausen, DeWette, Hackett, Gloag, Alford, vs. Neander, Tholuck, Lechler, Meyer.—G.B.S. Who said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” He prayed over them while exhorting them: he shows it both by action,—“And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all,” (v. 36)—he did not simply pray, but with much feeling: (κατανύξεως): great was the consolation—and by his saying, “I commend you to the Lord. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more.” (v. 37, 38.) He had said, that “grievous wolves should enter in;” had said, “I am pure from the blood of all men:” and yet the thing that grieved them most of all was this, “that they should see him no more:” since indeed it was this that made the war grievous. “And they accompanied them,” it says, “unto the ship. And it came to pass, that after we had torn ourselves from them”—so much did they love him, such was their affection towards him—“and had launched, we came with a straight course unto Coos, and the day following unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara: and finding a ship sailing over unto Phenicia, we went aboard, and set forth. Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre” (Acts xxi. 1–3): he came to Lycia, and having left Cyprus, he sailed down to Tyre—“for there the ship was to unlade her burden. And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.” (v. 4.) They too prophesy of the afflictions. It is so ordered that they should be spoken by them also, that none might imagine that Paul said those things without cause, and only by way of boasting. And there again they part from each other with prayer. “And when we had accomplished those days, we departed, and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed. And when we had taken our leave one of another, we took ship; and they returned home again. And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.” (v. 5–8.) Having come to Cæsarea, it says, we abode with Philip, which was one of the seven. “And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.” (v. 9.) But it is not these that foretell to Paul, though they were prophetesses; it is Agabus. “And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” (v. 10, 11.) He who formerly had declared about the famine, the same says, This “man, who owneth this girdle, thus shall they bind.” (ch. xi. 28.) The same that the prophets used to do, representing events to the sight, when they spoke about the captivity—as did Ezekiel—the same did this (Agabus). “And,” what is the grievous part of the business, “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.” (v. 12.) Many even besought him not to depart, and still he would not comply. “Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart?”1036 (v. 13.) Do you mark? Lest, having heard that saying, “I go bound in the Spirit” (ch. xx. 22), you should imagine it a matter of necessity, or that he fell into it ignorantly, therefore these things are foretold. But they wept, and he comforted them, grieving at their tears. For, “what mean ye,” he says, “to weep and to break my heart?” Nothing could be more affectionate: because he saw them weeping, he grieved, he that felt no pain at his own trials. “For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.” (v. 13, 14.) Ye do me wrong in doing this: for do I grieve? Then they ceased, when he said, “to break my heart.” I weep, he says, for you, not on account of my own sufferings: as for those (men), I am willing even to die for them. But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “Silver, or gold, or apparel,” etc. (ch. xx. 33, 34; 1 Cor. ix; 2 Cor. xi.) So then, it was not in Corinth only that they did this1037—they that corrupted the disciples, but in Asia as well. But he nowhere casts this up as a reproach to the Ephesians, when writing to them. And why? Because he did not fall upon any subject that obliged him to speak of this. But to the Corinthians he says, “My boasting has not been stopped in the regions of Achaia.” (2 Cor. xi. 10.) And he does not say, Ye did not give to me; but, “Silver, or gold, or apparel, I coveted not,” that it might not seem to be their doing, that they had not given. And he does not say, From no man have I coveted the necessaries of life, that again it might not look like accusing them: but he covertly hints as much, seeing that he provided subsistence for others as well as himself. See how he worked with earnestness, “night and day” discoursing (to others), “with tears warning each one of them.” (v. 31.) (Here) again he puts them in fear: “I have showed you all things,” he says: ye cannot take refuge in the plea of ignorance: “have shown you” by works “how that so laboring ye ought to work.” And he does not say, that to receive is bad, but that not to receive is better. For, “remember,” he says, “the words of the Lord which he spake: It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (v. 35.) And where said He this? Perhaps the Apostles delivered it by unwritten tradition; or else it is plain from (recorded sayings, from) which one could infer it.1038 For in fact here 1036 The remainder of v. 13 and 14 we have removed from this to its proper place. 1037 Οὐκ ἄρα ἐν Κορίνθῳ τοῦτο εἰργάσαντο μόνον οἱ διαφθείροντες τοὺς μαθητὰς κ. τ. λ. One would have expected εἰργάσατο μόνον, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ δ. But the connection, not fully expressed, may be this: “So different from those “grievous wolves not sparing the flock,” the false teachers who would make a gain of them! So then” etc. 1038 Some text or texts of the Gospels should be supplied here: beginning perhaps like the next sentence with a Καὶ γάρ. he has shown both boldness in meeting dangers, sympathy with those over whom he ruled, teaching with (unshrinking) boldness, humility, (voluntary) poverty: but, what we have here is even more than that poverty. For if He says there (in the Gospel), “If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor” (Matt. xix. 21), when, besides receiving nothing himself, he provides sustenance for others also, what could equal this? It is one degree to fling away one’s possessions; a second, to be sufficient for the supply of one’s own necessities: a third, to provide for others also; a fourth, for one (to do all this) who preaches and has a right to receive. So that here is a man far better than those who merely forego possessions. “Thus it is right to support the weak:” this is (indeed) sympathy with the weak; for to give from the labors of others, is easy. “And they fell on his neck,” it says, “and wept.” (v. 37.) He shows their affection also by saying, “Upon his neck,” as taking a last and yet a last embrace, such was the love they conceived from his discourse, such the spell of love that bound them. For if we groan when simply parting from each other, although we know that we shall receive one another back again, what a tearing away of themselves it must have been to them! Methinks Paul also wept. “Having torn ourselves away,” he says: he shows the violence of it by saying, “having torn ourselves away from them.” And with reason: otherwise they could never have got to sea. What means, “We came with a straight course unto Coos?” Instead of saying, “we did not go round nor make stay in other places.” Then “unto Rhodes.” (ch. xxi. 1.) See how he hastes on. And finding a ship sailing over unto Phenicia. (v. 2.) Possibly that ship (in which they had come) was making a stay there: wherefore they shifted to another, and not having found one going to Cæsarea, but (finding this) for Phenice, they embarked in it (and pursued their voyage), having left Cyprus also and Syria: but the expression, “having left it on the left hand,” is not said simply (in that meaning), but that they made speed not to get to Syria either.1039 “We landed at Tyre.” (v. 3.) Then they tarry with the brethren seven days. Now that they were come near to Jerusalem, they no longer run. (b) “Who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.” (v. 4.) Observe how, when the Spirit does not forbid, he complies. They said, “Adventure not thyself into the theatre, and he did not adventure” (ch. xix. 31): often they bore him off (from dangers), and he complied: again he escaped by a window: and now, though numberless persons, so to say, beseech him, both those at Tyre and those at Cæsarea, weeping also and predicting numberless dangers, he refuses to comply. And yet it is not (merely), they predicted the dangers, but “said by the Spirit.” If then the Spirit bade, why did he gainsay? “By the Spirit,” that is, they knowing “by the Spirit” (what would be the consequences, said to him): 1039 By Syria he seems here to mean the northern parts, about Antioch. “They left Cyprus on the left, but nearer to it than the opposite coast of Syria, because he did not wish to come near that either.” Mod. text “This is not said idly, but to show that he did not think fit even to come near it (Cyprus), they sailing straight for Syria.” What follows required transposition: the derangement, 2, 1: 3, 5, 7: 4, 6, 8. for of course it does not mean that the exhortation they made was by the Spirit. For they did not simply foretell to him the dangers (through the Spirit), but (added of themselves) that it behooved him not to go up—sparing him. But “after we had accomplished the days,” i.e. had fulfilled the appointed days, “we separated, and went on our way: they all bringing us on our way with wives and children.” (v. 5.)—See how great was the entreaty. And again they part with prayer. Also in Ptolemais they stay one day, but in Cæsarea many. (v. 6–8.) (a) Now that they are near to Jerusalem, they no longer hurry. For observe, I pray you, all the days. “After the day of unleavened bread” they came “to Troas in five days” (ch. xx. 6); then they there spent “seven;” in all, twelve: then to “Thasos,” to “Mytilene,” to “Trogylium” and “over against Chios,” and to “Samos” and “Miletus” (ib. 13–17); eighteen in all. Then to “Cos,” to “Rhodes,” to “Patara,” twenty-one: then say1040 five to “Tyre;” twenty-six: there “seven;” thirty-three; “Ptolemais,” thirty-four; then to “Cæsarea, many days” (ch. xxi. 1–10); and then, thereafter, the prophet puts them up thence. (c) When Paul has heard that he has to suffer numberless perils, then he is in haste, not flinging himself upon the dangers but accounting it to be the command of the Spirit. (e) And Agabus does not say, “They shall bind” Paul, that he may not seem to speak upon agreement (with Paul), but “the man that owneth this girdle” (v. 11)—so then he had a girdle also.1041 But when they could not persuade him—this was why they wept—then they “held their peace.” Do you mark the resignation? do you mark the affection? “They held their peace,” it says, “saying, The will of the Lord be done.” (v. 12–14.) (g) The Lord, say they, Himself will do that which is pleasing in his sight. For they perceived that it was the will of God. Else Paul would not be so bent (upon going)—he that on all (other occasions delivers himself out of dangers. (d) “And after these, days,” it says, “having taken up our baggage”—i.e. having received the (supplies) necessary for the journey—“we went up to Jerusalem.” (v. 15.) “And there went with us also certain of the disciples from Cæsarea, bringing us to one with whom we should lodge, one Mnason, an ancient disciple of Cyprus.”1042 (v. 16.) “And when we were come to Jerusalem, the 1040 A. C. Cat. (in B. the original characters are written over by a later hand), Εἶτα βουληθῆναι πέντε εἰς Τύρον. Perhaps βούλει θεῖναι. Mod. text εἶτα ἐκεῖθεν δἰ ἡμερῶν πέντε. 1041 Hom.x. in Matt. E. “But why, you may ask, did he (the Baptist) use a girdle also with his garment? This was a custom with the ancients, before this present soft and dissolute fashion of ours came in. Thus Peter appears girdled, and Paul likewise: as it says, ‘The man that owneth this girdle.” 1042 The meaning of the latter part of v. 16 (ἄγοντες παῤ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Μνασωνί τινι ΚυπρίU+0026 251· κ. τ. λ.), according to Chrys., is that the disciples from Cæsarea conducted Paul to the house of Mnason at Jerusalem where he was to lodge, not (as our Eng. vss.), that they brought with them Mnason on their journey from Cæsarea to Jerusalem. The former seems the preferable view as there is nothing in the context to intimate that Mnason was at this time in Cæsarea and his residence was evidently Jerusalem. The construction of attraction is also equally well resolved in this way.—G.B.S. brethren received us gladly.” (v. 17.) (f) “Bringing us,” it says, “(to him) with whom we should lodge”—not to the church: for on the former occasion (ch. xv. 4), when they went up concerning the decrees, they lodged with the Church, but now with a certain “ancient disciple.” (The expression) shows that the preaching had been going on a long time: whence it seems to me that this writer in the Acts epitomizes the events of many years, relating (only) the matters of chief importance. (h) So unwilling were they to burthen the Church, when there was another to lodge them; and so little did they stand upon their dignity. “The brethren,” it says, “received us gladly.” Affairs among the Jews were now full of peace: there was not much warfare (among them). “Bringing us,” it says, “to one with whom we should lodge.” Paul was the guest he entertained. Perchance some one of you says: Aye, if it were given me to entertain Paul as a guest, I readily and with much eagerness would do this. Lo! it is in thy power to entertain Paul’s Master for thy guest, and thou wilt not: for “he that receiveth one of these least,” he saith, “receiveth Me.” (Matt. xviii. 5; Luke ix. 48.) By how much the brother may be least, so much the more does Christ come to thee through him. For he that receives the great, often does it from vainglory also; but he that receives the small, does it purely for Christ’s sake. It is in thy power to entertain even the Father of Christ as thy guest, and thou will not: for,1043 “I was a stranger,” He says, “and ye took me in” (Matt. xxv. 35): and again, “Unto one of the least of these the brethren that believe on Me, ye have done it unto Me.” (ib. 40.) Though it be not Paul, yet if it be a believer and a brother, although the least, Christ cometh to thee through him. Open thine house, take Him in. “He that receiveth a prophet,” He saith, “shall receive a prophet’s reward.” (Matt. x. 41.) Therefore too he that receives Christ, shall receive the reward of him who has Christ for his guest.1044 Do not thou disbelieve His words, but be believing. Himself hath said, Through them I come to thee: and that thou mayest not disbelieve, He lays down both punishments for those who do not receive, and honors for those who do receive; since He would not have done this, unless both the person honored and the person insulted were Himself. “Thou receivedst Me,” He saith, “into thy lodging, I will receive thee into the Kingdom of My Father; thou tookest away My hunger, I take away thy sins; thou sawest Me bound, I see thee loosed; thou sawest Me a stranger, I make thee a citizen of heaven; thou gavest Me bread, I give thee an entire Kingdom, that thou mayest inherit and possess it.” He saith not, “Receive,” but, “Inherit,” the word which is spoken of those who have possession by right of ownership; as when we say, “This have I inherited.” Thou didst it to Me in secret, I will proclaim it openly: and of thine acts indeed I say, that they were of free gift, but Mine are of debt. “For since thou,” He saith, “didst begin, I follow and come after: I am not ashamed to confess the be- 1043 Here supply, “He that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me.” 1044 οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ Χριστὸν (should it be Χριστιανὸν́̈) δεχόμενος, λήψεται μισθὸν τοῦ Χριστὸν ξενίζονος.—Ben. renders the latter clause, recipiet mercedem Christi peregrinantis. nefits conferred on Me, nor from what things thou didst free Me, hunger and nakedness and wandering. Thou sawest Me bound, thou shalt not behold the fire of hell; thou sawest Me sick, thou shalt not behold the torments nor the punishments.” O hands, truly blessed, which minister in such services as these, which are accounted worthy to serve Christ! Feet which go into prisons for Christ’s sake, with ease defy the fire: no trial of bonds have they, (the hands)1045 which saw Him bound! Thou clothedst Him with a garment, and thou puttest on a garment of salvation: thou wast in prison with Him, and with Him thou findest thyself in the Kingdom, not ashamed, knowing that thou visitedst Him. The Patriarch knew not that he was entertaining Angels, and he did entertain them. (Gen. xviii. 3.) Let us take shame to ourselves, I beseech you: he was sitting in mid-day, being in a foreign land, where he had none inheritance, “not so much as to set his foot on” (ch. vii. 5): he was a stranger, and the stranger entertained strangers: for he was a citizen of heaven. Therefore, not even while he was on earth was he a stranger (to Him). We are rather strangers than that stranger, if we receive not strangers. He had no home, and his tent was his place of reception. And mark his liberality—he killed a calf, and kneaded fine meal: mark his ready mind—by himself and his wife: mark the unassuming manner—he worships and beseeches them. For all these qualities ought to be in that man who entertains strangers—readiness, cheerfulness, liberality. For the soul of the stranger is abashed, and feels ashamed; and unless (his host) show excessive joy, he is as (if) slighted, and goes away, and it becomes worse than not to have received him, his being received in this way. Therefore he worships them, therefore he welcomes them with speech, therefore with a seat. For who would have hesitated, knowing that this work was done unto Him? “But we are not in a foreign land.” If we will, we shall be able to imitate him. How many of the brethren are strangers? There is a common apartment, the Church, which we call the “Xenon.” Be inquisitive (περιεργάζεσθε), sit before the doors, receive those who come yourselves; though you may not wish to take them into your houses, at any rate in some other way (receive them), by supplying them with necessaries. “Why, has not the Church means” you will say? She has: but what is that to you? that they should be fed from the common funds of the Church, can that benefit you? If another man prays, does it follow that you are not bound to pray? Wherefore do you not say, “Do not the priests pray? then why should I pray?” “But I,” you will say, “give to him who cannot be received there.” Give, though it be to that one: for what we are anxious for is this, that you should give at any rate. Hear what Paul says: “That it may relieve them that are widows indeed, and that the Church be not burdened.” (1 Tim. v. 16.) Be it how you will, only do it. But I put it, not, “that the Church be not burdened,” but, “that thou be not burdened;” for at this rate thou wilt do nothing, leaving all to the Church. This is why there is a common room set 1045 All our mss. omit χεῖρες, but the text αἱ δεδεμένον αὐτὸν ἰδοῦσαι requires more than this for its emendation. Below, before “not ashamed.” mod. text inserts, “These things He (Christ) confesseth.” apart by the Church, that you may not say these things. “The Church,” say you, “has lands,1046 has money, and revenues.” And has she not charges? I ask; and has she not a daily expenditure? “No doubt,” you will say. Why then do you not lend aid to her moderate means? I am ashamed indeed to say these things: however, I compel no man, if any one imagines what I am saying to be for gain. Make for yourself a guest-chamber in your own house: set up a bed there, set up a table there and a candlestick. (comp. 2 Kings iv. 10.) For is it not absurd, that whereas, if soldiers should come, you have rooms set apart for them, and show much care for them, and furnish them with everything, because they keep off from you the visible war of this world, yet strangers have no place where they might abide? Gain a victory over the Church. Would you put us to shame? This do: surpass us in liberality: have a room, to which Christ may come; say, “This is Christ’s cell; this building is set apart for Him.” Be it but an underground1047 chamber, and mean, He disdains it not. “Naked and a stranger,” Christ goes about, it is but a shelter He wants: afford it, though but this. Be not uncompassionate, nor inhuman; be not so earnest in worldly matters, so cold in spiritual. Let also the most faithful of thy servants be the one entrusted with this office, and let him bring in the maimed, the beggars, and the homeless. These things I say to shame you. For ye ought indeed to receive them in the upper part of your house; but if ye will not do this, then though it be below, though but where thy mules are housed, and thy servants, there receive Christ. Perchance ye shudder at hearing this. What then, when ye do not even this? Behold, I exhort, behold, I bid you; let this be a matter to be taken up in earnest. But ye do not wish it thus, perhaps? Do it some other way. There are many poor men and poor women: set apart some one (of these) constantly to remain there: let the poor man be (thine inmate) though but as a guard to thy house: let him be to thee wall and fence, shield and spear. Where alms are, the devil dares not approach, nor any other evil thing. Let us not overlook so great a gain. But now a place is set apart for a chariot, and for litters (βαστερνίοις) another; but for Christ Who is wandering, not even one! Abraham received the strangers in the place where he abode himself; his wife stood in the place of a servant, the guests in the place of masters. He knew not that he was receiving Christ; knew not that he was receiving Angels; so that had he known it, he would have lavished his whole substance. But we, who know that we receive Christ, show not even so much zeal as he did who thought that he was receiving men. “But they are impostors,” you will say, “many of them, and unthankful.” And for this the greater thy reward, when thou receivest for the sake of Christ’s name. For if thou knowest indeed that they are impostors, receive them not into thy house: but if thou dost not know this, 1046 ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἔχει ἰούγα ἡ ἐκκλησία. On ἰούγα, juga, see p. 74. Here also B. ἴυγγα., mod. text substitutes δαπανήματα. 1047 A. B. C. κἂν καταγώγιον ᾖ so Morel. Ben. But E. has here preserved the true reading κατώγεον, so Savil. with marg. κατάγαιον. why dost thou accuse them lightly? “Therefore I tell them to go to the receiving house.” But what kind of excuse is there for us, when we do not even receive those whom we know, but shut our doors against all? Let our house be Christ’s general receptacle: let us demand of them as a reward, not money, but that they make our house the receptacle for Christ; let us run about everywhere, let us drag them in, let us seize our booty: greater are the benefits we receive than what we confer. He does not bid thee kill a calf: give thou bread to the hungry, raiment to the naked, shelter to the stranger. But that thou mayest not make this thy pretext, there is a common apartment, that of the Church; throw thy money into that, and then thou hast received them: since (Abraham) there had the reward of those things also which were done by his servants. “He gave the calf to a young man, and he hasted to dress it.” (Gen. xviii. 7.) So well trained were his servants also! They ran, and murmured not as ours do: for he had made them pious. He drew them out to war, and they murmured not: so well disciplined were they. (Gen. xiv. 14.) For he had equal care for all as for himself: he all but said as Job did, “We were alike formed in the same womb.” (Job xxxiii. 6.) Therefore let us also take thought for their salvation, and let us make it our duty to care for our servants, that they may be good; and let our servants also be instructed in the things pertaining to God. Then will virtue not be difficult to us, if we train them orderly. Just as in war, when the soldiers are well-disciplined, the general carries on war easily, but the contrary happens, when this is not so; and when the sailors too are of one mind, the pilot easily handles the rudderstrings; so here likewise. For say now, if thy servants have been so schooled, thou wilt not be easily exasperated, thou wilt not have to find fault, wilt not be made angry, wilt not need to abuse them. It may be, thou wilt even stand in awe of thy servants, if they are worthy of admiration, and they will be helpers with thee, and will give thee good counsel. But from all these shall all things proceed that are pleasing to God, and thus shall the whole house be filled with blessing, and we, performing things pleasing to God, shall enjoy abundant succor from above, unto which may we all attain, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost, together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXI. 18, 19

“And the day following Paul went in with us unto James: and all the elders were present. And when he had saluted them, he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry.”

This was the Bishop of Jerusalem; and to him (Paul) is sent on an earlier occasion. This (James) was brother of the Lord; a great and admirable man. (To him, it says,) “Paul entered in with us.” Mark the (Bishop’s) unassuming behavior: “and the elders” (were present). Again Paul relates to them the things relating to the Gentiles, not indulging in vainglory, God forbid, but wishing to show forth the mercy of God, and to fill them with great joy. (ch. xv.) See accordingly: “when they heard it,” it says, “they glorified God,”—not praised nor admired Paul: for in such wise had he narrated, as referring all to Him—“and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believed.” Observe with what modest deference they too speak: “they said to him:” not (James) as Bishop discourses authoritatively, but they take Paul as partner with them in their view; “Thou seest, brother:” as though immediately and at the outset apologizing for themselves, and saying, “We did not wish this. Seest thou the necessity of the thing? ‘how many thousands,’ say they, ‘of Jews there are which’ have come together.” And they say not, “how many thousands we have made catechumens,” but, “there are. And these,” say they, “are all zealous for the law.” (v. 20.) Two reasons—the number of them, and their views. For neither had they been few, would it have been right to despise them: nor, if they were many and did not all cling to the law, would there have been need to make much account of them. Then also a third cause is given: “And they all,” it says, “have been informed of thee”—they say not,“have heard,” but κατηχήθησαν, that is, so they have believed, and have been taught, “that thou teachest apostasy from Moses to all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, by telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” (v. 21.) “What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee” (v. 22, 23): they say these things as advising, not as commanding. “We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them.” Make thy defence in act, not in word—“that they may shave themselves,” it says, “and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law” (v. 23, 24): they say not, “teachest,” but, of superabundance, “that thou thyself also keepest the law.” For of course not this was the matter of chief interest, whether he did not teach others, but, that he did himself observe the law. “What then” (he might say), “if the Gentiles should learn it? I shall injure them.” How so? say they, seeing that even we, the teachers of the Jews, have sent unto them. “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” (v. 25.) Here with a kind of remonstrance (ἐντρεπτικὥς), As “we,” say they, commanded them, although we are preachers to the Jews, so do thou, although a preacher to the Gentiles, cooperate with us. Observe Paul: he does not say, “Well, but I can bring forward Timothy, whom I circumcised: well, but I can satisfy them by what I have to say (of myself):” but he complied, and did all: for in fact thus was it expedient (to do).1048 For it was one thing to take (effectual) measures for clearing himself, and another to have done these things without the knowledge of any (of the parties). It was a step open to no suspicion, the fact of his even bearing the expenses. “Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, signifying the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.” (v. 26.) “Signifying,” διαγγέλλων, i.e. καταγγέλλων, publicly notifying: so that it was he who made himself conspicuous. “And when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews from Asia”—for (his arrival) most keeps times with theirs1049—“when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.” (v. 27, 28.) Mark their habitual conduct, how turbulent we everywhere find it, how men who with or without reason make a clamor in the midst.1050 “For they had seen before with him in the city 1048 It has been much disputed whether the charge: “Thou teachest apostacy from Moses,” etc., was true or not. There certainly was truth in the charge. Paul maintained that the Mosaic law, as such, was not binding upon Christians. But it was against those who made it a yoke of bondage upon believers, that he waged a polemic. Where there was no imposition of the law as necessary to salvation, Paul in no way antagonized it, but rather trusted to the free working of the principles of the gospel to gradually accomplish the abolition of its rites and forms. The truth seems to be that Paul was tolerant of Judaism where it did not impose burdens upon believers or threaten the completeness and sufficiency of the gospel; he even accommodated himself to Jewish requirements, as in shaving his head at Cenchrea and circumcising Timothy. He never unnecessarily opposed the law of Moses, but taught that it had been fulfilled in Christ. So far as he accommodated himself to its ceremonies, it was only that he might remove prejudice and so win the Jews to Christ.—G.B.S. 1049 Old text: μάλιστα γὰρ ἐκείνοις συγχρονίζει, as the comment on οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾽Ασιας ᾽Ιουδαῖοι, meaning apparently that his arrival at Jerusalem would naturally fall at the same time with that of the Jews who, like himself, came from the same parts. Mod. text transfers the comment to the first clause of the verse, “And as the days were about to be fulfilled: ὅρα πῶς μάλιστα δὴ αὐτοῖς ἐγχρονίζει,” it is not easy to see with what meaning. 1050 ὅρα τὸ ἦθος αὐτῶν πανταχοῦ ταραχῶδες, καὶ ἁπλῶς βοῶντων ἐν τῷ μέσῳ. Meaning perhaps that the conduct of these Ephesian Jews was of a piece with that of their heathen countrymen, ch. xix. 28. Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple and forthwith the doors were shut.” (v. 29, 30.) “Men of Israel,” it says, “help: this is the man that (teaches) against the people, and the law, and this place.”—the things which most trouble them, the Temple and the Law. And Paul does not tax the Apostles with being the cause of these things to him. “And they drew him,” it says, “out of the Temple: and the doors were shut.” For they wished to kill him; and therefore were dragging him out, to do this with greater security. “And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the tribune of the cohort, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. Then the tribune came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done. And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude.” (v. 31–34.) But the tribune having come down delivered him, and “commanded him to be bound with two chains:” (hereby) appeasing the anger of the people. “And when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people. For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him!” (v. 34–36.) What means, “Away with him?” that is, what they say with us according to the Roman custom, To the standards with him!1051 “And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the tribune, May I speak unto thee?” (v. 37.) In the act of being borne along up the stairs, he requests to say something to the tribune: and observe how quietly he does it. “May I speak unto thee?” he says. “Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art thou not then that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?” (v. 38.) For (this Egyptian) was a revolutionary and seditious person. With regard to this then Paul clears himself, and 1052

(Recapitulation.) “Do therefore this that we say unto thee,” etc. (v. 23, 24.) He shows that it was not necessary to do this upon principle (προηγουμένως)—whence also they obtain 1051 ἐν τοῖς σίγνοις αὐτὸν ἔμβαλε. Ammonius in the Catena, “It was a custom of the Jews to utter this cry against the just as they did against the Lord, Αἶρε αὐτόν! i.e. away with Him from among the living.” Hence OEcumen. combining this with the explanation in the text, “It was the custom of the Jews, etc. But some say, That is, what they say with us,” etc. And so mod. text, “It was a custom of the Jews to say this against those whom they would condemn, as also in the case of Christ they appear doing this, and saying, ῏Αρον αὐτόν! that is, Make him to disappear from among the living. “But some,” what among us they say according to the Roman custom, ᾽Εν τοῖς σίγνοις αὐτὸν ἔμβαλε, the same is the Αἶρε αὐτόν. 1052 Mod. text supplies the evident lacuna with, “And by what he says, takes him off from his suspicion. “But let us look again at what has been read. “There are,” they say, “with us seven men,” etc. his compliance—but that it was economy and condescension.1053 “As touching the Gentiles,” etc. (v. 25.) Why, then, this was no hindrance to the preaching, seeing they themselves legislated for them to this effect. Why, then,1054 in his taking Peter to task he does not absolutely (ἁπλὥς) charge him with doing wrong: for precisely what he does on this occasion himself, the same does Peter on that occasion, (merely) holding his peace, and establishing his doctrine. (Gal. ii. 11.) And he says not, For why? it is not right to teach those among the Gentiles. “It is not enough to have not (so) preached there, but there was need also to do something more, that those may be persuaded that thou observest the law. The affair is one of condescension, be not alarmed.” They do not advise him (to this course) sooner, until they have first spoken of the economy and the gain. “And besides, the doing this in Jerusalem, is a thing to be borne. ‘Do thou this thing therefore’ here, that it may be in thy power abroad to do the other.” (b) “The next day,” it says, “he took them” (v. 26): he deferred it not; for when there is economy in the case, this is the way of it. (a) “Jews from Asia having seen him,” for it was natural that they were spending some days there, “in the Temple.” (v. 27.) (c) Mark the economy (of Providence) that appeared (in this). (p. 279, note 1) After the (believing) Jews had been persuaded (concerning him), then it is that those (Jews of Asia) set upon him in order that those (believing Jews) may not also set upon him. Help, say they, “ye men of Israel!” as though it were some (monster) difficult to be caught, and hard to be overcome, that has fallen into their hands. “All men,” they say, “everywhere, he ceaseth not to teach;” not here only. And then the accusation (is) more aggravated by the present circumstances. “And yet more,” say they, “he has polluted the temple, having brought into it men who are Greeks.” (v. 28.) And yet in Christ’s time there “came up (Greeks) to worship” (John xii. 20): true, but here it speaks of Greeks who had no mind to worship. “And they seized Paul,” etc. (v. 30–35.) They no longer wanted laws nor courts of justice: they also beat him. But he 1053 This vow appears to have been the Nazarite vow described in Num. vi. 1–21, taken by the apostle as an accommodation to Jewish prejudices and to allay the suspicions of the legal party in Jerusalem. This was done upon the recommendation of James, the “Bishop” of the church, and his associates. The significance of Paul’s paying the expenses, is, perhaps, that the period during which the others vow had run was on this condition reckoned to his account also. It is noticeable that the party of James distinctly admits that adherence to the legal ceremonies is not required of the Gentile Christians; it is equally important to notice that Paul yielded to the advice to take this view, as a concession in a matter of indifference, since he was living for the time as a Jew among Jews, that he might give no needless offence and might win the more. It was not a compromise, but an expedient concession to convictions and prejudices which it was not wise or necessary to oppose or increase.— G.B.S. 1054 Mod. text, “Using this economy then, he himself at a later time (?) accuses Peter, and he does not do this ἁπλς” St. Chrysostom’s view of St. Peter’s dissimulation at Antioch as an “economy,” is most fully given in his exposition of the passage, Χομμεντ. ιν Γαλ. χαπ. ii. §. 4, 5. forbore to make his defence then; he made it afterward: with reason; for they would not even have heard him then. Pray, why did they cry, “Away with him?” (v. 36.) They feared he might escape them. Observe how submissively Paul speaks to the tribune. “May I speak unto thee? Then art not thou that Egyptian?” (v. 37, 38.) This Egyptian, namely, was a cheat and impostor, and the devil expected to cast a cloud over (the Gospel) through him, and implicate both Christ and His Apostles in the charges pertaining to those (imposters): but he prevailed nothing, nay the truth became even more brilliant, being nothing defeated by the machinations of the devil, nay rather shining forth all the more. Since if there had not been impostors, and then these (Christ and His Apostles) had prevailed, perhaps some one might have laid hold upon this: but when those impostors did actually appear, this is the wonder. “In order,” says (the Apostle), “that they which are approved may be made manifest.” (1 Cor. xi. 19.) And Gamaliel says, “Before these days stood up Theudas.”1055 Then let us not grieve that heresies exist, seeing that false Christs wished to attack even Christ both before this and after; with a view to throw Him into the shade, but on every occasion we find the truth shining out transparent. So it was with the Prophets: there were false prophets, and by contrast with these they shone the more: just as disease enhances health, and darkness light, and tempest calm. There is no room left for the Greeks to say that (our teachers) were impostors and mountebanks: for those (that were such) were exposed. It was the same in the case of Moses: God suffered the magicians, on purpose that Moses might not be suspected to be a magician: He let them teach all men to what length magic can go in making a fantastic show: beyond this point they deceived not, but themselves confessed their defeat. Impostors do us no harm, rather do us good, if we will apply our mind to the matter. What then, you will say, if we are partners with them in common estimation? The estimation is not among us, but with those who have no judgment. Let not us greatly care for the estimation of the many, nor mind it more than needs. To God we live, not to men: in heaven we have 1055 Mod. text adds, “But as for the sicarii, some say they were a kind of robbers, so called from the swords they bore, which by the Romans are called sicæ: others, that they were of the first sect among the Hebrews. For there are among them three sects, generally considered (αἱρέσεις αἱ γενικαί): Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes who are also called ὅσιοι, for that is the meaning of the name ‘Essenes,’ on account of their reverend manner of life: but the same (?) are also called sicarii, because of their being zealots.” For a further illustration of the way in which the modern text was formed, especially in respect of its use of the Catena (see p. 279, note 3), compare the latter with OEcumenius on this passage. The Catena, namely, cites from Origen: “Among the Jews are τρεῖς αἱρέσεις γενικαί· Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes: these (last) exercise a more reverend manner of life, being lovers one of another and temperate: whence also they are called Essenes, i.e. ὅσιοι: but others called them (?) sicarii, i.e. zealots.” (OEcumen. using the Catena, makes a continuous exposition from Chrys., Origen, and Josephus. Mod. text from the same materials, interpolates the text of Chrys. as above. our conversation, not on earth: there lie the awards and the prizes of our labors, thence we look for our praises, thence for our crowns. Thus far let us trouble ourselves about men—that we do not give and afford them a handle against us. But if, though we afford none, those choose to accuse us thoughtlessly and without discrimination, let us laugh, not1056 weep. “Provide” thou “things honest before the Lord and before men” (2 Cor. viii. 21): if, though thou provide things honest, that man derides, give thyself no more concern (for that). Thou hast thy patterns in the Scriptures. For, saith he, “do I now persuade men or God?” (Gal. i. 10) and again, “We persuade men, but we are made manifest unto God.” (2 Cor. v. 11.) And Christ (spoke) thus of them that take offence: “Let them alone, they be blind guides of the blind” (Matt. xv. 14); and again, “Woe unto you, when all men speak well of you” (Luke vi. 26): and again, “Let your works shine, that men may see, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. v. 16.) And, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt. xviii. 6.)

These sayings are not contrary, nay, they are exceedingly in accord. For when the offence is with us, then woe unto us, but when not with us, not so. And again, Woe to (that man) through whom “the name of God is blasphemed.” (Rom. ii. 24.) How then if I do what is right in anything, but another blasphemes? That is nothing to me, but only to him: for through him (God) was blasphemed. “And how is it possible to do what is right in anything, and yet give a handle to the rest?” Whence will ye that I bring examples—from present, or from old times? Not to be easily scared (ψοφοδεεἵς), shall we speak to the very point now in hand? Paul judaized in Jerusalem, but in Antioch not so: he judaized, and they were offended (p. 282, note 3), but those had no right to be offended. He is said to have saluted both Nero’s cupbearer and his concubine:1057 what, think ye, must they have said against him because of this? But they had no right to do so. Since, if he drew them to him for1058 loose living or any wicked acts, one might well be offended: but if in order to right living, what is there to be offended at? Let me mention something that happened to one of my acquaintance. The wrath of God once fell upon (a city), and he being very young (was) in the order of deacon. The bishop was absent at the time, and of the presbyters none took thought for the matter, but indiscriminately they caused in one night immense numbers1059 of 1056 B. alone of our mss. gives the negative which the sense requires; restored to the text by Ed. Par. Ben. 2. 1057 The cupbearer may be Narcissus (Rom. xvi. 11): the name of the concubine is not mentioned. In one of his earliest works, Adv. Oppugn. Vitæ Monast. i. § 3. t. i. p. 59. D. St. Chrys. relates that Nero cast St. Paul into prison, and in the end beheaded him, in his rage at the loss of a favorite concubine, converted by him to the faith. 1058 Ben. ἠσπάσατο, which is the reading of D. only: all the rest ἐπεσπασατο. 1059 In the original, μυριάδας πολλάς. The deacon is probably Chrys. himself; the bishop, Flavian. people to be baptized all at once, and they did indiscriminately receive baptism, all of them ignorant of everything: these he took apart by a hundred or two hundred together, and discoursed to them, not upon any other subject, but only on the sacraments, so that the unbaptized also were not allowed to be present. Many thought he did this because he coveted rule. But he cared not for that: neither however did he continue the thing for a (longer) time, but immediately desisted. When then? Was he the cause of the scandal? I think not. For if indeed he had done this without cause, they might with reason have ascribed it to him: and so again, if he had continued to do so. For when aught of what is pleasing to God is hindered by another’s taking offence, it is right to take no notice: but then is the time to mind it, when we are not forced because of him to offend God. For, say, if, while we are discoursing and putting drunkards to shame (σκωπτόντων), any one take offence—am I to give over speaking? Hear Christ say, “Will ye also go away?” (John vi. 67.) So then, the right thing is, neither to take no notice, nor to take too much, of the weakness of the many. Do we not see the physicians acting thus: how, when it may be done, they humor the whims of their patients, but when the gratification does harm, then they will not spare? Always it is good to know the right mean. Many reviled, because a certain beautiful virgin stayed, and they railed upon those who catechised (her). What then? Was it their duty to desist for that? By no means. For let us not look to this only, whether some be offended, but whether they are justly offended, and1060 so that it is no hurt to ourselves (to give way). “If meat,” saith (Paul), “offend my brother, I will eat no meat as long as the world lasts.” (1 Cor. viii. 13.) With reason: for the not eating did (him) no harm. If however it offend him, that I wish to renounce (ἀποτάξασθαι) (the world), it is not right to mind him. And whom, you will ask, does this offend? Many, to my knowledge. When therefore the hindrance is a thing indifferent, let (the thing) be done1061. Else, if we were to look only to this, many are the things we have to desist from: just as, on the other hand, if we should despise (all objections), we have 1060 καὶ μὴ μετὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας βλαβῆς. Mod. text and Edd. καὶ εὶ μὴ, which is ambiguous. “The thing to be considered is, whether they are offended δικαίως καὶ μὴ μετὰ τ. ἡ. β. justly, and not with concomitant hurt to ourselves should we give way.” As in the case afterwards mentioned, the sitting at meat in an idol’s temple; the “weak brothers” were offended δικαίως, and to abstain from such conduct was not attended with any moral hurt or loss to the men of “knowledge.” 1061 ὅταν τοίνυν ἀδιαφορον ᾖ τὸ κώλυμα, γινέσθω. Ben, quando igitur indifferens est, abstineatur. But the κώλυμα (which is overlooked in this rendering) seems to mean, the hindrance to the ἀποτάξασθαι, which latter will be the subject to γίνεσθω. For instance, if the impediment urged by others against a person’s taking the monastic vows be a thing indifferent, let him take them. Else, if we were to look to this only—viz. that this or that man is offended—πολλῶν ἔχομεν ἀποστῆναι—many are the right undertakings we should have to forego or desist from: as on the other hand were we to make it a rule to despise all considerations of offence, we should have to be the ruin of many a brother. to destroy many (brethren). As in fact Paul also took thought beforehand concerning offence: “Lest,” he says, “in this liberality which is administered by us:” for it was attended with no loss (to him) to obviate an ill surmise. But when we fall into such a necessity as that great evils should ensue through the other’s taking offence1062 let us pay no heed to that person. He has to thank himself for it, and we are not now accountable, for it was not possible to spare him without hurt (to ourselves). Some were offended, because certain believers sat down to meat in (heathen) temples. It was not right to sit down: for no harm came of this (their not doing it). They were offended, because Peter ate with the Gentiles. But he indeed spared them, but (Paul)1063 not so. On all occasions it behooves us in following the laws of God to take great pains that we give no matter of offence; that both ourselves may not have to answer for it, and may have mercy vouchsafed us from God, by the grace and lovingkindness of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXI. 39, 40

“But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people. And when he had given him license, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying.”

Observe how, when he discourses to those that are without, he does not decline availing himself of the aids afforded by the laws. Here he awes the tribune by the name of his city. And again, elsewhere he said, “Openly, uncondemned, Romans as we are, they have cast us into prison.” (ch. xix. 37.) For since the tribune said, “Art thou that Egyptian?” he immediately drew him off from that surmise: then, that he may not be thought to deny his nation, he says at once, “I am a Jew:” he means his religion.1064 (b) What then? he did not deny (that he was a Christian): God forbid: for he was both a Jew and a Christian, observing what things he ought: since indeed he, most of all men, did obey the law: (a) as in fact he elsewhere calls himself, “Under the law to Christ.” (1 Cor. ix. 21.) What is this, I pray? (c) The man1065 that believes in Christ. And when discoursing with Peter, he says: “We, Jews by nature.—But I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.” (Gal. ii. 15.) And this is a proof, that he does not speak lies, seeing he takes all as his witnesses. Observe again how mildly he speaks. This again is a very strong argument that he is chargeable with no crime, his being so ready to make his defence, and his wishing to come to discourse with the people of the Jews. See a man well-prepared (τεταγμένον ἄνδρα)!—Mark the providential ordering of the thing: 1064 Εἶτα ἵνα μὴ νομισθῆ τὸ ἔθνος ᾽Ιουδαῖος, λέγει τὴν θρησκείαν· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ ἔννομον ἑαυτὸν Χριστοῦ καλεῖ. Τί (A. B. C. add οὖν, Cat. δὴ) τοῦτο ἐστιν; (Mod. text adds, Παῦλος ψεύδεται; ῎Απαγε) Τί οὖν; οὐκ ἠρνήσατο; κ. τ. λ. The sense is confused by omission and transposition. It seems to be this: He gives the tribune to understand that he is a Roman: but because he would not have the Jews to suppose that he was not a Jew, therefore he declares his religion, that he is a Jew. And herein was no denial of his Christianity, etc. See below on v. 3, ἵνα μὴ πάλιν νομίσωσι τὸ ἔθνος ἄλλο, τὴν θρησκείαν ἐπήγαγεν. Hence we restore the sense as in the text.—OEcumen. gives it, “He immediately drew him off from this surmise, και τὸ ἔθνος καὶ τὴν θρησκείαν εἰπών, as in fact he elsewhere calls himself, Under the law to Christ.” 1065 Mod. text omits the article. ῾Ο τῷ Χριστῷ πιστεύων, as we take it, is the answer to the question, τί δὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν; In the next sentence (which Edd. separate from this only by a comma) he says: in the same sense he calls himself and Peter, φύσει ᾽Ιουδαῖοι, “born Jews (not proselytes,) and Jews still.” But Ammonius in the Catena: “I am a man which am a Jew: for we Christians are φύσει ᾽Ιουδαῖοι, as confessing the true faith: which is what the name Judah signifies.” unless the tribune had come, unless he had bound him, he would not have desired to speak for his defence, he would not have obtained the silence he did. “Standing on the stairs.” Then there was the additional facility afforded by the locality, that he should have a high place to harangue them from—in chains too! What spectacle could be equal to this, to see Paul, bound with two chains, and haranguing the people! (To see him,) how he was not a whit perturbed, not a whit confused; how, seeing as he did so great a multitude all hostility against him, the ruler standing by, he first of all made them desist from their anger: then, how prudently (he does this). Just what he does in his Epistle to the Hebrews, the same he does here: first he attracts them by the sound of their common mother tongue: then by his mildness itself. “He spake unto them,” it says, “in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.” (ch. xxii. 1.) Mark his address, at once so free from all flattery, and so expressive of meekness. For he says not, “Masters,” nor “Lords,” but, “Brethren,” just the word they most liked: “I am no alien from. you,” he says, nor “against you.” “Men,” he says, “brethren, and fathers:” this, a term of honor, that of kindred. “Hear ye,” says he, “my”—he says not, “teaching,” nor “harangue,” but, “my defence which I now make unto you.” He puts himself in the posture of a suppliant. “And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence.” (v. 2.) Do you observe how the using the same tongue subdued them? In fact, they had a sort of awe for that language. Observe also how he prepares the way for his discourse, beginning thus: “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.” (v. 3.) “I am a man,” he says, “which am a Jew:” which thing they liked most of all to hear; “born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia.” That they may not again think him to be of another nation, he adds his religion: “but brought up in this city.” (p. 282, note 4.) He shows how great was his zeal for the worship, inasmuch as having left his native city, which was so great and so remote too, he chose to be brought up here for the Law’s sake. See how from the beginning he attached himself to the law.1066 But this he says, not only to defend himself to them, but to show that not by 1066 The whole purpose of Paul’s defence here is to appease the prejudice against him as an apostate from Moses. He addresses the people of Jerusalem in their own tongue and as “brethren.” He shows them that although born in a Greek city, he had received his education in Jerusalem, under one of their most famous Rabbis. He sketches his history as a zealous adherent of Judaism. After his conversion he did not desert the religion of his fathers. It was while praying in the temple that the call of God came to him which summoned him to go as an apostle to the Gentiles. From this apology, it would be seen how far Paul was from despising the Mosaic law and also, how manifestly providential had been the call by which he had been set apart to a distinct work among the Gentiles. It is a guarded defence which neither antagonizes the law, nor admits its binding force over the apostle or his converts. human intent was he led to the preaching of the Gospel, but by a Divine power: else, having been so educated, he would not have suddenly changed. For if indeed he had been one of the common order of men, it might have been reasonable to suspect this: but if he was of the number of those who were most of all bound by the law, it was not likely that he should change lightly, and without strong necessity. But perhaps some one may say: “To have been brought up here proves nothing: for what if thou camest here for the purpose of trading, or for some other cause?” Therefore he says, “at the feet of Gamaliel:” and not simply, “by Gamaliel,” but “at his feet,” showing his perseverance, his assiduity, his zeal for the hearing, and his great reverence for the man. “Taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers.” Not simply, “the law,” but “the law of the fathers;” showing that he was such from the beginning, and not merely one that knew the Law. All this seems indeed to be spoken on their side, but in fact it told against them, since he, knowing the law, forsook it. “Yes: but what if thou didst indeed know the law accurately, but dost not vindicate it, no, nor love it?” “Being a zealot,” he adds: not simply (one that knew it). Then, since it was a high encomium he had passed upon himself, he makes it theirs as well as his, adding, “As ye all are this day.” For he shows that they act not from any human object, but from zeal for God; gratifying them, and preoccupying their minds, and getting a hold upon them in a way that did no harm. Then he brings forward proofs also, saying, “and I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders” (v. 4, 5): “How does this appear.” As witnesses he brings forward the high-priest himself and the elders. He says indeed, “Being a zealot, as ye” (Hom. xix. p. 123): but he shows by his actions, that he went beyond them. “For I did not wait for an opportunity of seizing them: I both stirred up the priests, and undertook journeys: I did not confine my attacks, as ye did, to men, I extended them to women also: “both binding, and casting into prisons both men and women.”

This testimony is incontrovertible; the (unbelief) of the Jews (is left) without excuse. See how many witnesses he brings forward, the elders, the high-priest, and those in the city. Observe his defence, how it is not of cowardly fear (for himself, that he pleads), no, but for teaching and indoctrination. For had not the hearers been stones, they would have felt the force of what he was saying. For up to this point he had themselves as witnesses: the rest, however, was without witnesses: “From whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And I answered, Who are Thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, Whom thou persecutest.” (v. 6, 7, 8.) Why then, these very things ought to have been held worthy of credit, from those that went before: otherwise he would not have undergone such a revolu- tion. How if he is only making a fine story of it, say you? Answer me, Why did he suddenly fling away all this zeal? Because he looked for honor? And yet he got just the contrary. But an easy life, perhaps? No, nor that either. Well but something else? Why it is not in the power of thought to invent any other object. So then, leaving it to themselves to draw the inference, he narrates the facts. “As I came nigh,” he says, “unto Damascus, about noonday.” See how great was the excess of the light. What if he is only making a fine story, say you? Those who were with him are witnesses, who led him by the hand, who saw the light. “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.” (v. 9.) But in another place he says, “Hearing the voice, but seeing no man.” (Acts ix. 7.) It is not at variance: no, there were two voices, that of Paul and the Lord’s voice: in that place, the writer means Paul’s voice (Hom. xix. p. 124, note 2); as in fact (Paul) here adds, “The voice of Him that spake unto me. Seeing no man:” he does not say, that they did not see the light: but, “no man,” that is, “none speaking.” And good reason that it should be so, since it behooved him alone to have that voice vouchsafed unto him. For if indeed they also had heard it, (the miracle) would not have been so great. Since persons of grosser minds are persuaded more by sight, those saw the light, and were afraid. In fact, neither did the light take so much effect on them, as it did on him: for it even blinded his eyes: by that which befel him, (God) gave them also an opportunity of recovering their sight, if they had the mind. It seems to me at least, that their not believing was providentially ordered, that they might be unexceptionable witnesses. “And he said unto me” it says, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, Whom thou persecutest.” (comp. ch. ix. 5.) Well is the name of the city (Nazareth) also added, that they might recognize (the Person): moreover, the Apostles also spoke thus. (ch. ii. 22; iv. 10; x. 38.) And Himself bore witness, that they were persecuting Him. “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. Enter into the city,” it says, “and there it shall be spoken to thee of all that is appointed for thee to do.” (v. 10–13.) Lo! again another witness. And see how unexceptionable he makes him also. “And one Ananias,” he says, “a devout man according to the law,”—so far is it from being anything alien!—“having a good report of all the Jews that dwelt” (there). “And I in the same hour received sight.” Then follows the testimony borne by the facts. Observe how it is interwoven, of persons and facts; and the persons, both of their own and of aliens: the priests, the elders, and his fellow-travellers: the facts, what he did and what was done to him: and facts bear witness to facts, not persons only. Then Ananias, an alien;1067 then the fact itself, the recovery of sight; then a great prophecy. “And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see That Just One.” (v. 14.) It is well said, “Of the fathers,” to show that they were not Jews, but aliens from the law, and that it was not from zeal (for the law) that they were acting. “That thou shouldest know His will.” Why then His will is this. See how in the form of narrative it is teaching. “And see That Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And see,” he says, “that Just One.” (v. 15.) For the present he says no more than this: if He is Just, they are guilty. “And hear the voice of His mouth.” See how high he raises the fact! “For thou shalt be His witness—for this, because thou wilt not betray the sight and hearing (i.e. “prove false to”)—“both of what thou hast seen, and of what thou hast heard:” by means of both the senses he claims his faith, fulness—“to all men. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name.” (v. 16.) Here it is a great thing he has uttered. For he said not, “Be baptized in His name:” but, “calling on the name of Christ.” It shows that He is God: since it is not lawful to “call upon” any other, save God. Then he shows also, that he himself was not compelled: for, “I said,” says he, “What must I do?” Nothing is (left) without witness: no; he brings forward the witness of a whole city, seeing they had beheld him led by the hand. But see the prophecy fulfilled. “To all men,” it is said. For he did become a witness to Him, and a witness as it ought to be; by what he suffered, by what he did, and by what he said. Such witnesses ought we also to be, and not to betray the things we have been entrusted withal: I speak not only of doctrines, but also of the manner of life.

For observe: because he had seen, because he had heard, he bears witness to all men, and nothing hindered him. We too bear witness (Mod. text “have heard”) that there is a Resurrection and numberless good things: we are bound to bear witness of this to all men. “Yes, and we do bear witness,” you will say, “and do believe.” How; when ye act the contrary? Say now: if any one should call himself a Christian, and then having apostatized should hold with the Jews, would this testimony suffice? By no means: for men would desire the testimony which is borne by the actions. Just so, if we say that there is a Resurrection and numberless good things, and then despise those things and prefer the things here, who will believe us? Not what we say, but what we do, is what all men look to. “Thou shalt be a witness,” it says, “unto all men:” not only to the friendly, but also to the unbelievers: for this is what witnesses are for; not to persuade those who know, but those who know not. Let us be trustworthy witnesses. But how shall we be trustworthy? By the life we lead. The Jews assaulted him: our passions assault us, bidding us abjure our testimony. But let us not obey them: we are wit- 1067 Perhaps it should be, “And he too, not an alien:” viz. being a “devout man according to the Law:” as above, he says of Ananias, οὕτως οὐδὲν ἀλλότριόν ἐστι. nesses from God. (Christ) is judged that He is not God:1068 He has sent us to bear witness to Him. Let us bear witness and persuade those who have to decide the point: if we do not bear witness, we have to answer for their error also. But if in a court of justice, where worldly matters come in question, nobody would receive a witness full of numberless vices, much less here, where such (and so great) are the matters to be considered. We say, that we have heard Christ, and that we believe the things which He has promised: Show it, say they, by your works: for your life bears witness of the contrary—that ye do not believe. Say, shall we look at the money-getting people, the rapacious, the covetous? the people that mourn and wail, that build and busy themselves in all sorts of things, as though they were never to die? “Ye do not believe that ye shall die, a thing so plain and evident: and how shall we believe you when ye bear witness?” For there are, there are many men, whose state of mind is just as if they were not to die. For when in a lengthened old age they set about building and planting, when will they take death into their calculations? It will be no small punishment to us that we were called to bear witness, but were not able to bear witness of the things that we have seen. We have seen Angels with our eyes, yea, more clearly than those who have (visibly) beheld them. We shall be (Mod. text “Then let us be”) witnesses to Christ: for not those only are “martyrs,” (or witnesses, whom we so call), but ourselves also. This is why they are called martyrs, because when bidden to abjure (the faith), they endure all things, that they may speak the truth: and we, when we are bidden by our passions to abjure, let us not be overcome. Gold saith: Say that Christ is not Christ. Then listen not to it as to God, but despise its biddings. The evil lusts1069 “profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) For this is not to witness, but the contrary. And indeed that others should deny (Him) is nothing wonderful: but that we who have been called to bear witness should deny Him, is a grievous and a heinous thing: this of all things does the greatest hurt to our cause. “It shall be to (your)selves for a testimony.” (Luke xxi. 13), He saith: but (this is) when we ourselves stand to it firmly. If we would all bear witness to Christ, we should quickly persuade the greater number of the heathen. It is a great thing, my beloved, the life (one leads). Let a man be savage as a beast, let him openly condemn thee on account of thy doctrine,1070 yet he secretly approves, yet he will praise, yet he will admire. For say, whence 1068 Κρίνεται παῤ ἀνθρώποις (τισὶν ὁ Θεὸς add. mod. text) ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι Θεός. The subject, not expressed, is Christ. He is brought before the bar of men’s judgment for trial whether He be God: so below τοὺς δικάζοντας. 1069 Mod. text adds: “say the same: but be not thou seduced, but stand nobly that it may not be said of us also, They profess,” etc. 1070 Κἂν φανερῶς οὐ καταγινώσκῃ (B. C. -ει) διὰ το δόγμα, αλλ᾽ ἀποδέχεται κ. τ. λ. Ben. retains this, in the sense, saltem aperte non damnabit propter dogma: taking κἂν in different senses in this and the former clause. Ed. Par. Ben. 2, Legendum videtur φανερῶς οὖν καταγ. Licet sit quispiam valde efferus, licet aperte ob dogma condemnet, at clam etc. Erasm. Etiam si per dogma non condemnetur. The emendation is sure and easy: κἂν can an excellent life proceed? From no source, except from a Divine Power working in us. “What if there be heathen also of such a character?” If anywhere any of them be such, it is partly from nature, partly from vainglory. Wilt thou learn what a brilliancy there is in a good life, what a force of persuasion it has? Many of the heretics have thus prevailed, and while their doctrines are corrupt, yet the greater part of men out of reverence for their (virtuous) life did not go on to examine their doctrine: and many even condemning them on account of their doctrine, reverence them on account of their life: not rightly indeed, but still so it is, that they do thus feel (towards them). This has brought slanders on the awful articles of our creed, this has turned everything upside down, that no one takes any account of good living: this is a mischief to the faith. We say that Christ is God; numberless other arguments we bring forward, and this one among the rest, that He has persuaded all men to live rightly: but this is the case with few. The badness of the life is a mischief to the doctrine of the Resurrection, to that of the immortality of the soul, to that of the Judgment: many other (false doctrines) too it draws on with itself, fate, necessity, denial of a Providence. For the soul being immersed in numberless vices, by way of consolations to itself tries to devise these, that it may not be pained in having to reflect that there is a Judgment, and that virtue and vice lie in our own power. (Such a) life works numberless evils, it makes men beasts, and more irrational than beasts: for what things are in each several nature of the beasts, these it has often collected together in one man, and turned everything upside down. This is why the devil has brought in the doctrine of Fate: this is why he has said that the world is without a Providence (Hom. ii. p. 15): this is why he advances his hypothesis of good natures, and evil natures, and his hypothesis of evil (uncreated and) without beginning, and material (in its essence): and, in short, all the rest of it, that he may ruin our life. For it is not possible for a man who is of such a life either to recover himself from corrupt doctrines, or to remain in a sound faith: but of inevitable necessity he must receive all this. For I do not think, for my part, that of those who do not live aright, there could be easily found any who do not hold numberless satanical devices—as, that there is a nativity (or birth-fate) (γένεσις), that things happen at random, that all is hap-hazard and chance-medley. Wherefore I beseech you let us have a care for good living, that we may not receive evil doctrines. Cain received for punishment that he should be (ever) groaning and trembling. (Gen. iv. 14.) Such are the wicked, and being conscious within themselves of numberless bad things, often they start out of their sleep, their thoughts are full of tumult, their eyes full of perturbation; everything is fraught for them with misgivings, everything alarms them, their soul is replete with grievous expectation and cowardly apprehension, contracted with impotent fear and trembling. Nothing can be more effeminate than such a soul, nothing φανερῶς ΣΟΥ καταγινώσκῃ. So below, Πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ καταγινώσκοντες αὐτῶν διὰ τὸ δόγμα, αἰδοῦνται δια τον βίον. more inane.1071 Like madmen, it has no self-possession. For it were well for it that in the enjoyment of calm and quiet it were enabled to take knowledge of its proper nobility. But when all things terrify and throw it into perturbation, dreams, and words, and gestures, and forebodings, indiscriminately, when will it be able to look into itself, being thus troubled and amazed? Let us therefore do away with its fear, let us break asunder its bonds. For were there no other punishment, what punishment could exceed this—to be living always in fear, never to have confidence, never to be at ease? Therefore knowing these things assuredly, let us keep ourselves in a state of calm and be careful to practise virtue, that maintaining both sound doctrines and an upright life, we may without offence pass through this life present, and be enabled to attain unto the good things which God hath promised to them that love Him, through the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXII. 17–20

“And it came to pass, that, when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance; and saw him saying unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every synagogue them that believed on thee: and when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him.”

See how he thrusts himself (into danger), I came, he says, after that vision, “to Jerusalem. I was in a trance,” etc. Again, this is without witness: but observe, the witness follows from the result. He said, “They will not receive thy testimony:” they did not receive it. And yet from calculations of reason the surmise should have been this, that they would assuredly receive him. For I was the man that made war upon the Christians: so that they ought to have received him. Here he establishes two things: both that they are without excuse, since they persecuted him contrary to all likelihood or calculation of reason; and, that Christ was God, as prophesying things contrary to expectation, and as not looking to past things, but fore-knowing the things to come. How then does He say, “He shall bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and children of Israel?” (Acts ix. 15.) Not, certainly persuade. Besides which, on other occasions we find the Jews were persuaded, but here they were not. Where most of all they ought to have been persuaded, as knowing his former zeal (in their cause), here they were not persuaded. “And when the blood of Thy martyr Stephen,” etc. See where again his discourse terminates, namely, in the forcible main point (εἰς τὸ ἱσχυρὸν κεφάλαιον): that it was he that persecuted, and not only persecuted but killed, nay, had he ten thousand hands (μυρίαις χερσὶν ἀναιρὥν) would have used them all to kill Stephen. He reminded them of the murderous spirit heinously indulged (by him and them). Then of course above all they would not endure him, since this convicted them; and truly the prophecy was having its fulfilment: great the zeal, vehement the accusation, and the Jews themselves witnesses of the truth of Christ! “And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” (v. 21, 22.) The Jews1072 would not endure to hear out all his harangue,1073 but excessively fired by their wrath, they shouted, it says, “Away with him; for it is not fit that he should live. And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, the tribune commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.” (v. 23, 24.) Whereas both the tribune ought to have examined whether these things were so—yes, and the Jews themselves too—or, if they were not so, to have ordered him to be scourged, he “bade examine him by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so clamored against him.” And yet he ought to have learnt from those clamorers, and to have asked whether they laid hold upon aught of the things spoken: instead of that, without more ado he indulges his arbitrary will and pleasure, and acts with a view to gratify them: for he did not look to this, how he should do a righteous thing, but only how he might stop their rage unrighteous as it was. “And as they bound him with thongs,1074 Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned?” (v. 25.) Paul lied not, God forbid: for he was a Roman:1075 if there was nothing else, he would have been afraid (to pretend this), lest he should be found out, and suffer a worse punishment. (See Sueton. Vit. Claud. §25.) And observe he does not say it peremptorily (ἁπλὥς), but, “Is it lawful for you?” The charges brought are two, both its being without examination, and his being a Roman. They 1072 The sense is confused in old text by misplacing the portions of sacred text. Mod. text “witnesses of the truth of Christ speaking boldly. But the Jews,” etc. v. 21–24, which verses are followed in old text by φήσιν· αἶρε αὐτὸν οὐ γὰρ καθήκει αὐτὸν ζῇν. Below, mod. text “or the Jews themselves also,” and omits “or if it were not so, to have ordered him to be scourged.” 1073 The words, “I will send thee to the Gentiles,” were those at which the Jews took offence. That a word should come from heaven to Paul in the Temple, commanding him to leave the chosen people and the Holy City and go to the uncircumcised heathen, was a statement verging upon blasphemy. This admission they would regard as proof of Paul’s apostasy from Moses. It implied that he regarded the heathen as standing upon the same plane as themselves. The thought roused all their native bigotry. Beyond “this word” they would not hear him, nor did they think that one who should so estimate the privileges and character of the Jews as compared with the Gentiles was fit to live.—G.B.S. 1074 Προέτειναν ἀυτὸν τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν is commonly rendered, as here, “When they stretched him out, or bound him with thongs.” But this rendering seems to overlook the force of πρό in the verb and the force of the article τοῖς. The preferable interpretation seems to be, (Thayer’s Lex.): “When they had stretched him out for the thongs, i.e. to receive the blows of the thongs, by tying him up to a beam or pillar.” (So Meyer, DeWette, Lechler, Gloag).—G.B.S. 1075 Mod. text entirely mistaking the sense, interpolates, “On which account also the tribune fears on hearing it. And why, you will say, did he fear?” as if it meant, The tribune would have been afraid to be condemned for this, etc. held this as a great privilege, at that time: for they say that (it was only) from the time of Hadrian that all1076 were named Romans, but of old it was not so. He would have been contemptible had he been scourged: but as it is, he puts them into greater fear (than they him). Had they scourged him, they would also have dismissed1077 the whole matter, or even have killed him; but as it is, the result is not so. See how God permits many (good results) to be brought about quite in a human way, both in the case of the Apostles and of the rest (of mankind). Mark how they suspected the thing to be a pretext,1078 and that in calling himself a Roman, Paul lied: perhaps surmising this from his poverty. “When the centurion heard that, he went and told the tribune, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the tribune came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the tribune answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the tribune also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.” (v. 26–29.)—“But I,” he says, “was free born.” So then his father also was a Roman. What then comes of this? He bound him, and brought him down to the Jews.1079 “On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty whereof he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.” (v. 30.) He discourses 1076 Meaning that all provincial subjects of the Roman Empire came to be called Romans, only in the time of this Emperor: therefore in St. Paul’s time it was a great thing to be able to call one’s self a Roman. If it means, “All the citizens of Tarsus,” the remark is not apposite. Certain it is that Tarsus, an urbs libera by favor of M. Anthony, enjoyed neither jus coloniarum nor jus civitatis until long afterwards, and the Apostle was not a Roman because a citizen of Tarsus. This however is not the point of St. Chrysostom’s remark. In the Catena and OEcumen. it will be seen, that in later times the extended use of the name “Roman” as applied to all subjects of the Roman Empire made a difficulty in the understanding of this passage. Thus Ammonius takes it that St. Paul was a “Roman,” because a native of Tarsus which was subject to the Romans (so OEc.): and that the Jews themselves for the like reason were Romans; but these scorned the appellation as a badge of servitude; Paul on the contrary avouched it, setting an example of submission to the powers that be.—After this sentence mod. text interpolates, “Or also he called himself a Roman to escape punishment: for,” etc. 1077 παρέπεμψαν ἄν: mod. text (after Cat.) needlessly alters to παρέτρεψαν. 1078 πρόφασιν εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν ῾Ρωμαῖον τὸν Παῦλον· καὶ ἴσως.…We read τῷ εἰπεῖν and καὶ ψεύδεσθαι τὸν Π. ἴσως. Mod. text “But the tribune by answering, ‘with a great sum,’ etc., shows that he suspected it to be a pretext, Paul’s saying that he was a Roman: and perhaps he surmised this from Paul’s apparent insignificance.” 1079 Mod. text interpolates: “So far was it from being a falsehood, his saying, etc., that he also gained by it, being loosed from his chains. And in what way, hear.” And below, altering the sense: “He no longer speaks to the tribune, but to the multitude and the whole people.” not now to the multitude, nor to the people. “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” (ch. xxiii. 1.) What he means is this: I am not conscious to myself of having wronged you at all, or of having done anything worthy of these bonds. What then said the high priest?1080 Right justly, and ruler-like, and mildly: “And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”1081 (v. 3–5.) Because “I knew not that he was high priest.” Some say, Why then does he defend himself as if it was matter of accusation, and adds, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people?” For if he were not the ruler, was it right for no better reason than that to abuse (him or any) other? He says himself, “Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it” (1 Cor. iv. 12); but here he does the contrary, and not only reviles, but curses.1082 They are the words of boldness, rather than of anger; he did not choose to appear in a contemptible light to the tribune. For suppose the tribune himself had spared to scourge him, only as he was about to be delivered up to the Jews, his being beaten by their servants would have more emboldened him: this is why Paul does not attack the servant, but the person who gave the order. But that saying, “Thou whited wall, and dost thou sit to judge me after the law?” (is) instead of, Being (thyself) a culprit: as if he had said, And (thyself) worthy of stripes without number. See accordingly how greatly they were struck with his boldness; for whereas the point was to have overthrown the whole matter, they rather commend him.1083 (infra, v. 9.) “For it is written,” etc. He wishes to show that he thus speaks, not from fear, nor because (Ananias) did not deserve to be called this, but from obedience to the law in this point also. And indeed I am fully persuaded that he did not know that it was the high priest,1084 since he had returned now after a long inter- 1080 Mod. text “When he ought to have been pricked to the heart, because (Paul) had been unjustly bound to gratify them, he even adds a further wrong, and commands him to be beaten: which is plain from the words subjoined.” 1081 Mod. text “Now some say, that he knowing it speaks ironically (or feigns ignorance, εἰρωνεύεται); but it seems to me, that he did not at all know that it was the high priest: otherwise he would even have honored him: wherefore,” etc. In old text τινές φασι, placed before ὅτι οὐκ ἤδειν, κ. τ. λ. requires to be transposed. 1082 Mod. text “Away with the thought: he appears to have done neither the one nor the other: but to one accurately considering it, the words,” etc. 1083 Παραινοῦσι, all our mss. But Erasm. debacchantur, and all the Edd. παροινοῦσιν, contrary to the sense. 1084 Other interpretations are given in the Catena and OEcum. “Anonym.: The high priest being a hypocrite deserved to be called a ‘whited wall.’ Whence also Paul says he did not even know him as high priest, since it is the work of a high priest to save the flock put under his charge: but this man made havoc upon it, etc. Severus: val, and was not in the habit of constant intercourse with the Jews; seeing him too in the midst among many others: for the high priest was no longer easy to be seen at a glance, there being many of them and diverse.1085 So, it seems to me, in this also he spoke with a view to his plea against them: by way of showing that he does obey the law; therefore he (thus) exculpates himself.

(Recapitulation.) (b) But let us review what has been said. (a) “And when I was came again to Jerusalem,” etc. (v. 17.) How was it,1086 that being a Jew, and there brought up and taught, he did not stay there? Nor did he abide there, unless he had a mind to furnish numberless occasions against him: everywhere just like an exile, fleeing about from place to place. (c) “While I prayed in the temple,” he says, “it came to pass that I was in a trance.” (To show) that it was not simply a phantom of the imagination, therefore “while he prayed” (the Lord) stood by him. And he shows that it was not from fear of their dangers that he fled, but because they would “not receive” his “testimony.” (v. 18.) But why said he “They know I imprisoned?” (v. 19.) Not to gainsay Christ, but because he wished to learn this which was so contrary to all reasonable expectation. Christ, however, did not teach him (this),1087 but only bade him depart, and he obeys: so obedient is he. “And they lifted up Paul justly reproached him, but then, as if repenting, said: ‘I knew not,’ etc. Not know that he was high priest? Then how saidst thou, ‘And sittest thou to judge me?’—But he pretends ignorance: an ignorance which does no harm, but is an ‘economy’ (οἰκονομοῦσαν): for reserve (μεταχειρισμὸς) may be more forcible than speaking out (παρρησία): an unseasonable παρρησία often hinders the truth: a seasonable μεταχ. as often advances it.” 1085 Other methods of dealing with Paul’s much debated statement: “I did not know that he was the high priest,” besides the view given in the text (with which agree Beza, Wolff, Lechler, et al.) are: (1) Paul did not perceive who it was that addressed him and thus did not know that it was the high priest whom he rebuked (Alford). (2) Paul did not acknowledge Ananias to be high priest; he would not recognize so unjust a man as a real high priest (Calvin, Meyer, Stier). (3) Ananias was not high priest at this time (Lightfoot, Whiston, Lewin). (4) Paul did not recollect or consider that it was the high priest whom he was addressing (Bengel, Olshausen, Neander, Schaff, Hackett, Conybeare and Howson, Gloag). In this view Paul apologizes for his rash words, spoken inadvertently and without reflection, by adding: “for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” Baur and Zeller suppose that the apostle never said what he is reported as saying. The choice appears to lie between views (2) and (4).—G.B.S. 1086 Mod. text omits the whole of the portion marked (a). The sense is: St. Paul is concerned to explain how it was that having been bred and taught in Jerusalem, he did not remain there. It was by command of Christ in a vision that he departed. In fact he could not stay there unless, etc. Accordingly we find him everywhere fleeing about from place to place, like one exiled from his own land. The words which are corrupt, are: οὐκ ἐκεῖ ἔμενεν; οὐδὲ ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν(οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐξῆν ἐκεῖ διατρίβειν?) εἰ μὴ μυρία κατ᾽ αὐτῶν (αὐτοῦ A) κατασκευᾶσαι (sic) ἤθελε πανταχοῦ· καθάπερ τις φυγὰς περιφυγών. 1087 τὸ οὕτω παράδοξον, viz. that the Jews would not receive the testimony of one, who from his known history had, of all men, the greatest claim to be heard by them: “‘Lord, they know,’ etc., therefore surely they their voices,” it says, “and said, Away with him: it is not fit that this fellow should live.” (v. 22.) Nay, ye are the persons not fit to live; not he, who in everything obeys God. O villains and murderers! “And shaking out their clothes,” it says, “they threw dust into the air” (v. 23), to make insurrection more fierce, because they wished to frighten the governor.1088 And observe; they do not say what the charge was, as in fact they had nothing to allege, but only think to strike terror by their shouting. “The tribune commanded,” etc. and yet he ought to have learnt from the accusers, “wherefore they cried so against him. And as they bound him, etc. And the chief captain was afraid, after he learnt that he was a Roman.” Why then it was no falsehood. “On the morrow, because he would know the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, etc., he brought him down before the council.” (v. 24–30.) This he should have done at the outset. He brought him in, loosed. This above all the Jews would not know what to make of.1089 “And Paul,” it says, “earnestly beholding them.” It shows his boldness, and how it awed them (τὸ ἐντρεπτικόν). “Then the high priest Ananias.” etc. (ch. xxiii. 1, 2.) Why, what has he said that was affronting? What is he beaten for? Why what hardihood, what shamelessness! Therefore (Paul) set him down (with a rebuke): “God shall smite thee thou whited wall.” (v. 3.) Accordingly (Ananias) himself is put to a stand, and dares not say a word: only those about him could not bear Paul’s boldness. They saw a man ready to die1090 for if this was the case, (Paul) had but to hold his peace, and the tribune will listen to me.” (So St. Chrysostom constantly interprets these words: see Cat. in loco.) But Christ did not gratify his wish for information on this point: He only bade him depart.—The innovator, who has greatly disfigured this Homily by numerous interpolations, has here: “did not teach him what he must do.” 1088 Better: “they cast off their clothes” as a signal of their anger and readiness to stone Paul. Others understand it to mean: waving their garments as a signal of their assent to the exclamations against Paul of those who were near.—G.B.S. 1089 τοῦτο μάλιστα ἠπόρησαν ἂν οἱ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι: i.e. perhaps “they would be at a loss to know the reason of his being brought before them loosed, not knowing what had passed between him and the tribune.” Mod. text amplifies: “This he ought to have done at the outset, and neither to have bound him, nor have wished to scourge him, but to have left him, as having done nothing such as that he should be put in bonds. ‘And he loosed him,’ it says, etc. This above all the Jews knew not what to make of.” 1090 εἷδον ἄνθρωπον θανατῶντα· εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἦν, κἂν ἐσίγησεν· καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθεν· κἂν ἐξέδωκεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς ὁ χιλίαρχος. The meaning (see above p. 289.) may be: “The wrong was not to be put up with, for to hold his peace under such treatment would have been to embolden the tribune to sacrifice him to his enemies, as a person who might be insulted with impunity.” But the passage is corrupt: perhaps it should be οὐκ (mod. text has οὕτως) εἶδον ἀνθρ. θαν. “They did not see before them one who was willing to die, i.e. to let them take away his life. For if this were the case, he had but to hold his peace, and the tribune would,” etc. Mod. text “In such wise saw they a man ready to die; and they would not endure it. ‘I knew not that he was the high priest.’ Why then: the rebuke was of ignorance. For if this were not the case, κἂν λαβὼν αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθε καὶ οὐκ ἐσίγησε, κἂν ἐξέδωκεν, κ. τ. λ.” would have taken him, and gone his way; he would have sacrificed him to them. He both shows that he suffers willingly what he suffers, and thus excuses himself before them, not that he wished to excuse himself to them—since as for those, he even strongly condemns them—but for the sake of the people.1091 “Violating the law, commandest thou me to be beaten?” Well may he say so: for to kill a man who had done (them) no injury, and that an innocent person, was a violating of the law. For neither was it abuse that was spoken by him, unless one would call Christ’s words abusive, when He says, “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, for ye are like unto whited walls.” (Matt. xxiii. 27.) True, you will say: but if he had said it before he had been beaten, it would have betokened not anger, but boldness. But I have mentioned the reason of this.1092 And (at this rate) we often find Christ Himself “speaking abusively” to the Jews when abused by them; as when He says, “Do not think that I will accuse you.” (John v. 45.) But this is not abuse, God forbid. See, with what gentleness he addresses these men: “I wist not,” he says, “that he was God’s high priest” (v. 4, 5): and, (to show) that he was not dissembling (εἰρωνεύεται) he adds, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” He even confesses him to be still ruler. Let us also learn the gentleness also,1093 that in both the one and the other we may be perfect. For one must look narrowly into them, to learn what the one is and what the other: narrowly, because these virtues have their corresponding vices hard by them: mere forwardness passing itself off for boldness, mere cowardice for gentleness:1094 and need being to scan them, lest any person possessing the vice should seem to have the virtue: which would be just as if a person should fancy that he was cohabiting with the mistress, and not know that it was the servant-maid. What then is gentleness, and what mere cowardice? When others are wronged, and we do not take their part, but hold our peace, this is cowardice: when we are the persons ill-treated, and we bear 1091 Mod. text quite perverting the sense: “Obeying the law, not from a wish to show (ἐνδείξασθαι) to them: for those he had even strongly condemned. For the law’s sake, therefore, he defends himself, not for the sake of the people, with reason,” etc. 1092 Viz. it was because he did not choose to let the tribune despise him, p. 289. And so mod. text adds, ὅτι οὐκ ἐβούλετο καταφρονηθῆναι. 1093 Μάθωμεν καὶ τὴν ἐπιείκειαν, i.e. Paul’s as well as his παρρησία. Mod. text “Let us then also learn gentleness.” 1094 ὅτι παρυφεστᾶσιν αὐταῖς αἱ κακίαι, τῇ μὲν παρρησίU+0026 139· θρασύτης τῇ δὲ ἐπιεικείU+0026 139· ἀνανδρία. It is seldom possible to match the ethical terms of one language with exact equivalents in another. Here θρασύτης, as opposed to παρρησία “courage in speaking one’s mind,” is not merely “audacity,” or “hardihood,” or “pugnacity,” or “the spirit of the bully,” though it may be applied to all these. On the whole, “forwardness” seems to be most suitable for the antithesis: the one character comes forward boldly and speaks up in the cause of truth and justice; the other thrusts itself forward, in its own cause, for resentment of wrongs done to one’s self. Below, in connection with ἀνανδρία it means what we call “bullying.” it, this is gentleness. What is boldness? Again the same, when others are the persons for whom we contend. What forwardness? When it is in our own cause that we are willing to fight. So that magnanimity and boldness go together, as also (mere) forwardness and (mere) cowardice. For he that (does not) resent on his own behalf,1095 will hardly but resent on behalf of others: and he that does not stand up for his own cause, will hardly fail to stand up for others. For when our habitual disposition is pure from passion, it admits virtue also. Just as a body when free from fever admits strength, so the soul, unless it be corrupted by the passions, admits strength. It betokens great strength, this gentleness; it needs a generous and a gallant soul, and one of exceeding loftiness, this gentleness. Or, think you, is it a small thing to suffer ill, and not be exasperated? Indeed one would not err if in speaking of the disposition to stand up for our neighbors, one should call it the spirit of manly courage. For he that has had the strength to be able to overcome so strong a passion (as this of selfishness), will have the strength to dare the attack on another. For instance, these are two passions, cowardice and anger: if thou have overcome anger, it is very plain that thou overcomest cowardice also: but thou gettest the mastery over anger, by being gentle: therefore (do so) with cowardice also, and thou wilt be manly. Again, if thou hast not got the better of anger, thou art become forward (and pugnacious); but not having got the better of this, neither canst thou get the better of fear; consequently, thou wilt be a coward too: and the case is the same as with the body; if it be weak, it is quickly overcome both by cold and heat: for such is the ill temperament, but the good temperament is able to stand all (changes). Again, greatness of soul is a virtue, and hard by it stands prodigality: economy is a virtue, the being a good manager; hard by it stands parsimony and meanness. Come, let us again collate and compare the virtues (with their vices). Well, then, the prodigal person is not to be called great-minded. How should he? The man who is overcome by numberless passions, how should he be great of soul? For this is not despising money; it is only the being ordered about by other passions: for just as a man, if he were at the beck and bidding of robbers to obey their orders, could not be free (so it is here). His large spending does not come of his contempt of money, but simply from his not knowing how to dispose of it properly: else, were it possible both to keep it and to lay it out on his pleasure, this is what he would like. But he that spends his money on fit objects, this is the man of high soul: for it is truly a high soul, that which is not in slavery to passion, which accounts money to be nothing. Again, economy is a good thing: for thus that will be the best manager, who spends in a proper manner, and not at random without management. But parsimony is not the same thing with this. For 1095 All our mss. ὁ γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ μὴ ἀλγῶν, δυσκόλως ὑπὲρ ἑτέρων ἀλγήσει, but Sav. marg. οὐκ ἀλγήσει: which we adopt as indispensable to the sense. In the next sentence, C. omits the μὴ before ἀμύνων, and A. the οὐκ before ἀμυνεῖται. the former1096 indeed, not even when an urgent necessity demands, touches the principal of his money: but the latter will be brother to the former. Well, then, we will put together the man of great soul, and the prudent economist, as also the prodigal and the mean man: for both of these are thus affected from littleness of soul, as those others are (from the opposite). Let us not then call him high-souled, who simply spends, but him who spends aright: nor let us call the economical manager mean and parsimonious, but him who is unseasonably sparing of his money.

What a quantity of wealth that rich man spent, “who was clothed in purple and fine linen?” (Luke xvi. 19.) But he was not high-souled: for his soul was possessed by an unmerciful disposition and by numberless lusts: how then should it be great? Abraham had a great soul, spending as he did for the reception of his guests, killing the calf, and, where need was, not only not sparing his property, but not even his life. If then we see a person having his sumptuous table, having his harlots and his parasites, let us not call him a man of a great mind, but a man of an exceedingly little mind. For see how many passions he is enslaved and subject to—gluttony, inordinate pleasure, flattery: but him who is possessed by so many, and cannot even escape one of them, how can any one call magnanimous? Nay, then most of all let us call him little-minded, when he spends the most: for the more he spends, the more does he show the tyranny of those passions: for had they not excessively got the mastery over him, he would not have spent to excess. Again, if we see a person, giving nothing to such people as these, but feeding the poor, and succoring those in need, himself keeping a mean table—him let us call an exceedingly high-souled man: for it is truly a mark of a great soul, to despise one’s own comfort, but to care for that of others. For tell me, if you should see a person despising all tyrants, and holding their commands of no account, but rescuing from their tyranny those who are oppressed and evil entreated; would you not think this a great man? So let us account of the man in this case also. The passions are the tyrant: if then we despise them, we shall be great: but if we rescue others also from them, we shall be far greater, as being sufficient not only for ourselves, but for others also. But if any one, at a tyrant’s bidding, beat some other of his subjects, is this greatness of soul? No, indeed: but the extreme of slavery, in proportion as he is great. And now also there is set before us 1096 ᾽Εκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ ἀναγκαίας ἀπαιτούσης χρείας, τῆς οὐσίας ἅπτεται τῶν χρημάτων, οὗτος δὲ ἐκείνου γένοιτο ἂν ἀδελφός. We leave this as it stands, evidently corrupt. Something is wanting after οὗτος δὲ. “The former, the οἰκονομικὸς, is careful not to touch his principal or capital, but will confine his outlay within his income: the latter,” etc. But οὐδὲ ἀναγκ. ἀπ. χρείας is hardly suitable in the former case, and should rather come after οὗτος δέ “the latter, the niggard, though the need be ever so urgent, has not the heart to touch either principal or income”—or something to that effect. Then perhaps, πῶς οὖν οὗτος ἐκείνου γένοιτο ἂν ἀδελφός; Mod. text “For the former spends all upon proper objects; the latter, not even when urgent need requires, touches the principal of his money. The οἰκον. therefore will to brother to the μεγαλόψ.” (πρόκειται) a soul that is a noble one and a free: but this the prodigal has ordered to be beaten by his passions: the man then that beats himself, shall we call high-souled? By no means. Well then , but let us see what is greatness of soul, and what prodigality; what is economy, and what meanness; what is gentleness, and (what) dulness and cowardice; what boldness, and what forwardness: that having distinguished these things from each other, we may be enabled to pass (this life) well-pleasing to the Lord, and to attain unto the good things promised, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Acts XXIII. 6–8

“But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.”

Again he discourses simply as man, and he does not on all occasions alike enjoy the benefit of supernatural aid. “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:”1098 both in this, and in what comes after it, he wished to divide the multitude, which had an evil unanimity against him. And he does not speak a falsehood here either: for he was a Pharisee by descent from his ancestors. “Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” For since they would not say for what reason they arraigned him, he is compelled therefore to declare it himself. “But the Pharisees,” it says, “confess both.” And yet there are three things: how then does he say both? “Spirit and Angel” is put as one.1099 When he is on their side, then they plead for him. “And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but” (what) “if a spirit has spoken 1097 This Homily is wanting in C. The mod. text swarms with interpolations. 1098 καὶ ἐν τούτῳ, viz. in saying “I am a Pharisee,” καὶ ἐν τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα, i.e. “Of the hope of resurrection,” etc. Mod. text “but is also permitted to contribute somewhat of himself, which also he does and καὶ ἐν τ., καὶ ἐν τῷ μ. τ. both on this occasion and on that which followed (?) he pleads for himself, wishing,” etc. 1099 Mod. text “Either because spirit and angel is one, or because the term ἀμφότερα is taken not only of two but of three.” (This is taken from Ammonius in the Catena. The innovator adds): “the writer therefore uses it καταχρηστικῶς, and not according to strict propriety.” to him, or an angel?”1100 1101 (v. 9.) Why did they not plead for him before this? Do you observe, how, when the passions give way, the truth is discovered? Where is the crime, say they, if an angel has spoken to him, or a spirit? Paul gives them no handle against him. “And when there arose a great dissension, the tribune, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.” (v. 10.) The tribune is afraid of his being pulled in pieces, now that he has said that he is a Roman: and the matter was not without danger. Do you observe that Paul had a right to profess himself a Roman? Else, neither would (the tribune) have been afraid now. So it remains that the soldiers must bear him off by force. But when the wretches saw all to be without avail, they take the whole matter into their own hands, as they would fain have done before, but were prevented: and their wickedness stops nowhere, though it received so many checks: and yet how many things were providentially ordered, on purpose that they might settle down from their rage, and learn those things through which they might possibly recover themselves! But none the less do they set upon him. Sufficient for proof of his innocence was even this, that the man was saved when at the point to be pulled in pieces, and that with these so great dangers about him, he escaped them all. “And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, 1100 The last clause in the Vulgate text, μὴ θεομαχῶμεν, is unknown to St. Chrys., being in fact quite a modern addition. Chrys. interprets it as an aposiopesis—viz. ποῖον ἔγκλημα; St. Isidore of Pelusium in the Cat. τὸ γὰρ εἰ ἤ ἐστι· τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, ἢ πν. ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος. Ammonius ibid. “Either the sentence is left incomplete, viz. but whether a spirit or an angel has spoken to him…is not certain: or, it is to be spoken as on the part of the Pharisees, Εἴδε (?) πν. κ. τ. λ. that is, Behold, he is manifestly asserting the resurrection, taught (κατηχηθείς) either by the Holy Ghost or by an angel the doctrine of the resurrection.” Mod. text using the latter: “Where is the crime, if an angel has spoken to him, if a spirit, and taught (κατηχηθείς) by him, he thus teaches the doctrine of the resurrection?” (and then, adopting the modern addition μὴ θεομ.), “then let us not stand off from him, lest warring with him, we be found also fighting against God.” 1101 The Pharisees were uniformly more favorably inclined to Christianity than the rival sect of the Sadducees. The latter, as disbelieving in the resurrection and the spirit-world, would be especially prejudiced against a system which made these tenets so central. The Pharisees, on the other hand, agreed on these points with Christianity. It is evident that in his defence here before the Sanhedrin Paul wishes to conciliate the Pharasaic party so far as can be done by emphasizing his own agreement with them respecting the resurrection. They, as believers in this doctrine, would have less prejudice against Paul’s teaching concerning Christ’s resurrection. In asserting his Pharasaic ancestry, Paul wishes to establish a point of connection with them and thus gain a foothold for the defence of his central truth of Christ’s resurrection, which justifies him in being His disciple and servant.—G.B.S. saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.” (v. 11–13.) “They bound themselves under a curse,” it says. See how vehement and revengeful they are in their malice! What means, “bound under a curse?”1102 Why then those men are accused forever, seeing they did not kill Paul. And forty together. For such is the nature of that nation: when there needs concerting together for a good object, not even two concur with each other: but when it is for an evil object, the entire people does it. And they admit the rulers also as accomplices. “And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. Now therefore ye with the council signify to the tribune that he bring him down unto you to-morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him. And when Paul’s sister’s son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the tribune: For he hath a certain thing to tell him. So he took him, and brought him to the tribune, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee. Then the tribune took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me? And he said, the Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to-morrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly. But do not thou yield unto them for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee. So the tribune then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me.” (v. 14–22). Again he is saved by man’s forethought. And observe: Paul lets no man learn this, not even the centurion, that the matter might not become known. And the centurion having come, reported to the tribune. And it is well done of the tribune also, that he bids him keep it secret, that it might not become known: moreover he gives his orders to the centurions only, at the time when the thing was to be done: and so Paul is sent into Cæsarea, that there too he might discourse in a greater theatre and before a more splendid audience: that so the Jews may not be able to say, “If we had seen Paul, we would have believed—if we had heard him teaching.” Therefore this excuse too is cut off from them. “And the Lord,” it said, “stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” (Yet) even after He has appeared to him, He again suffers him to be saved 1102 To this question mod. text interpolates for answer from Ammonius in the Catena, “that is, they declared themselves to be out of the pale of the faith to Godward, if they should not do that which was determined against Paul.” by man’s means. And one may well be astonished at Paul;1103 he was not taken aback, neither said, “Why, what is this? Have I then been deceived by Christ?” but he believed: yet, because he believed, he did not therefore sleep: no; what was in his own power by means of human wisdom, he did not abandon. “Bound themselves by a curse:” it was a kind of necessity that those men fastened on themselves by the curse. “That they would neither eat nor drink.” Behold fasting the mother of murder! Just as Herod imposed on himself that necessity by his oath, so also do these. For such are the devil’s (ways): under the pretext forsooth of piety he sets his traps. “And they came to the chief priests,” etc. And yet they ought to have come (to the tribune), ought to have laid a charge, and assembled a court of justice: for these are not the doings for priests, but for captains of banditti, these are not the doings for rulers, but for ruffians. They endeavor also to corrupt the ruler: but it was providentially ordered, to the intent that he also should learn of their plot. For not (only) by their having nothing to say, but also by their secret attempt, they convicted themselves that they were naught. It is likely too that after (Paul was gone) the chief priests came to (the tribune) making their request, and were put to shame. For1104 of course he would not have liked either to deny or to grant their request. How came he to believe (the young man’s tale)? He did so in consequence of what had already taken place; because it was likely they would do this also. And observe their wickedness: they as good as laid a necessity on the chief priests also: for if they undertook so great a thing themselves, and engaged themselves in the whole risk, much more ought those to do thus much. Do you observe, how Paul is held innocent by those that are without, as was also Christ by Pilate? See their malice brought to naught: they delivered him up, to kill and condemn him: but the result is just the contrary; he is both saved, and held innocent. For had it not been so,1105 he would have been pulled in pieces: had it not been so, he would have perished, he would have been condemned. And not only does (the tribune) rescue him from the rush (made upon him), but also from much other1106 (violence): see how he becomes a minister to him, insomuch that without risk he is carried off safe with so large a force. “And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Cæsarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; and provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor. And he wrote a letter after this manner: 1103 Καὶ ἄξιον ἐκπλαγῆναι τὸν Παῦλον· (A. and Cat. omit this) τί δὴ τοῦτο; οὐκ ἐθορυβήθη, οὐδὲ εἶπε. Here mod. text rightly transposes τί δὴ τοῦτο. 1104 Mod. text “And with reason the tribune does this (i.e. sends Paul away): for of course he did not wish either to gratify (χαρίσασθαι) or to assent.” But the meaning is: “If he had not been informed of their plot, he would have been embarrassed by the request, not liking to refuse, nor yet to grant it.” 1105 εἰ γὰρ μὴ οὕτω. Cat. οὗτος: “but for this man (the tribune.)” 1106 Mod. text omits ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλης πολλῆς· ὅρα πῶς. Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix sendeth greeting. This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman. And when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their council: whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against him. Fare ye well.” (v. 23–30). See how the letter speaks for him as a defence— for it says, “I found nothing worthy of death,” but as accusation against them (rather) than against him. “About to have been killed of them:” so set upon his death were they. First, “I came with the army, and rescued him:” then also “I brought him down unto them:” and not even so did they find anything to lay to his charge: and when they ought to have been stricken with fear and shame for the former act, they again attempt to kill him, insomuch that again his cause became all the more clear. “And his accusers,” he says, “I have sent unto thee:” that at the tribunal where these things are more strictly examined, he may be proved guiltless.

(Recapitulation.) Let us look then to what has been said above. “I,” he says, “am a Pharisee:” then, that he may not seem to pay court, he adds, “Of the hope and resurrection of the dead it is, that I am called in question.” (v. 6.) From this charge and calumny he commends himself. “For the Sadducees indeed,” etc. The Sadducees have no knowledge of anything incorporeal, perhaps not even God; so gross (παχεἵς) are they: whence neither do they choose to believe that there is a Resurrection. “And the scribes,” etc. Look; the tribune also hears that the Pharisees have acquitted him of the charges, and have given sentence (mss. and Edd. ἐψηφίσατο, “he gave sentence”) in his favor, and with greater confidence carries him off by force. Moreover all that was spoken (by Paul) was full of right-mindedness (φιλοσοφίας). “And the night following the Lord stood by him,” etc. See what strong consolation! First he praises him, “As thou hast testified to My cause in Jerusalem;” then He does not leave him to be afraid for the uncertain issue of his journey to Rome: for thither also, He saith, thou shalt not depart alone (μόνος, Cat. and Edd. μόνον), but thou shalt also have all this boldness of speech. Hereby it was made manifest, not (only) that he should be saved, but that (he should be so) in order to great crowns in the great city. But why did He not appear to him before he fell into the danger? Because it is evermore in the afflictions that God comforts us; for He appears more wished-for, while even in the dangers He exercises and trains us. Besides, he was then at ease, when free from bonds; but now great perils were awaiting him. “We have bound ourselves,” they say, “under a curse, that we will not eat nor drink.” (v. 14.) What is all this zeal? “That he may bring him down,” it says, “unto you, as though ye would enquire into his case more perfectly.” (v. 15.) Has he not twice made a speech unto you? has he not said that he is a Pharisee? What (would ye have) over and above this? So reckless were they and afraid of nothing, not tribunals, not laws: such their hardihood which shrunk from nothing. They both declare their purpose, and announce the way of carrying it into effect. “Paul’s sister’s son heard of it.” (v. 16.) This was of God’s providence, their not perceiving that it would be heard. What then did Paul? he was not alarmed, but perceived that this was God’s doing: and casting all upon Him, so he acquits himself (from further concern about it:) “having called one of the centurions,” etc. (v. 17.) He told of the plot, he was believed; he is saved. If he was acquitted of the charge, why did (the tribune) send the accusers? That the enquiry might be more strict: that the man might be the more entirely cleared.

Such are God’s ways of ordering: the very things by which we are hurt, by these same are we benefited. Thus it was with Joseph: his mistress sought to ruin him: and she seemed indeed to be contriving his ruin, but by her contriving she placed him in a state of safety: for the house where that wild beast (of a woman) was kept was a den in comparison with which the prison was gentle. (Gen. xxxix. 1–20.) For while he was there, although he was looked up to and courted, he was in constant fear, lest his mistress should set upon him, and worse than any prison was the fear that lay upon him: but after the accusation he was in security and peace, well rid of that beast, of her lewdness and her machinations for his destruction: for it was better for him to keep company with human creatures in miserable plight, than with a maddened mistress. Here he comforted himself, that for chastity’s sake he had fallen into it: there he had been in dread, lest he should receive a death-blow to his soul: for nothing in the world is more annoying than a woman in love can be to a young man who will not (meet her advances): nothing more detestable (than a woman in such case), nothing more fell: all the bonds in the world are light to this. So that the fact was not that he got into prison, but that he got out of prison. She made his master his foe, but she made God his friend: brought him into closer relation to Him Who is indeed the true Master; she cast him out of his stewardship in the family, but made him a familiar friend to that Master. Again, his brethren sold him (Gen. xxxvii. 18); but they freed him from having enemies dwelling in the same house with him, from envy and much ill will, and from daily machinations for his ruin: they placed him far aloof from them that hated him. For what can be worse than this, to be compelled to dwell in the same house with brethren that envy one; to be an object of suspicion, to be a mark for evil designs? So that while they and she were severally seeking to compass their own ends, far other were the mighty consequences working out by the Providence of God for that just man. When he was in honor, then was he in danger; when he was in dishonor, then was he in safety. The eunuchs did not remember him, and right well it was that they did not, that the occasion of his deliverance might be more glorious: that the whole might be ascribed, not to man’s favor, but to God’s Providence (Gen. xl. 23): that at the right moment, Pharaoh, reduced to need, might bring him out; that not as conferring but as receiving a benefit, the king might release him from the prison. (ib. xli. 40.) It behooved to be no servile gift, but that the king should be reduced to a necessity of doing this: it behooved that it should be made manifest what wisdom was in him. Therefore it is that the eunuch forgets him, that Egypt might not forget him, that the king might not be ignorant of him. Had he been delivered at that time, it is likely he would have desired to depart to his own country: therefore he is kept back by numberless constraints, first by subjection to a master, secondly by being in prison, thirdly by being over the kingdom, to the end that all this might be brought about by the Providence of God. Like a spirited steed that is eager to bound off to his fellows, did God keep him back there, for causes full of glory. For that he longed to see his father, and free him from his distress, is evident from his calling him thither. (Gen. xlv. 9.)

Shall we look at other instances of evil designing, how they turn out to our good, not only by having their reward, but also by their working at the very time precisely what is for our good? This (Joseph’s) uncle (Esau) had ill designs against his father (Jacob), and drove him out of his native land: what then? (Gen. xxvii. 41.) He too set him (thereby) aloof from the danger; for he too got (thereby) to be in safety. He made him a wiser and a better man (φιλοσοφώτερον); he was the means of his having that dream (Gen. xxviii. 12.) But, you will say, he was a slave in a foreign land? Yes, but he arrives among his own kindred, and receives a bride, and appears worthy to his father-in-law. (ib. xxix. 23.) But he too cheated him? Yes, but this also turned out to his good, that he might be the father of many children. But it was in his mind to design evil against him? True, but even this was for his good, that he might thereupon return to his own country; for if he had been in good circumstances, he would not have so longed for home. But he defrauded him of his hire? Aye, but he got more by the means. (ib. xxxi. 7.) Thus, in every point of these men’s history, the more people designed their hurt, the more their affairs flourished. If (Jacob) had not received the elder daughter, he would not soon have been the father of so many children; he would have dragged out a long period in childlessness, he would have mourned as his wife did. For she indeed had reason to mourn, as not having become a mother (ib. xxx. 1, 2.); but he had his consolation: whence also he gives her a repulse. Again, had not (Laban) defrauded him of his hire, he would not have longed to see his own country; the higher points (φιλοσοφία) of the man’s character would not have come to light, (his wives) would not have become more closely attached to him. For see what they say: “With devouring hath he devoured us and our money.” (Gen. xxxi. 15.) So that this became the means of riveting their love to him. After this he had in them not merely wives, but (devoted) slaves; he was beloved by them: a thing that no possession can equal: for nothing, nothing whatever, is more precious than to be thus loved by a wife and to love her. “And a wife,” Scripture says, “that agrees with her husband.” (Ecclus. xxv. 1) “A man and a wife that agree together.” E.V.) One thing this, as the Wise Man puts it, of the things for which a man is to be counted happy; for where this is, there all wealth, all prosperity abounds: as also, where it is not, there all besides profits nothing, but all goes wrong, all is mere unpleasantness and confusion. Then let us seek this before all things. He that seeks money, seeks not this. Let us seek those things which can remain fixed. Let us not seek a wife from among the rich, lest the excess of wealth on her side produce arrogance, lest that arrogance be the means of marring all. See you not what God did? how He put the woman in subjection? (Gen. iii. 16.) Why art thou ungrateful, why without perception? The very benefit God has given thee by nature, do not thou mar the help it was meant to be. So that it is not for her wealth that we ought to seek a wife: it is that we may receive a partner of our life, for the appointed order of the procreation of children. It was not that she should bring money, that God gave the woman; it was that she might be an helpmate. But she that brings money, becomes, instead of a wife, a setter up of her own will (ἐπίβουλος), a mistress—it may be a wild beast instead of a wife—while she thinks she has a right to give herself airs upon her wealth. Nothing more shameful than a man who lays himself out to get riches in this way. If wealth itself is full of temptations, what shall we say to wealth so gotten? For you must not look to this, that one or another as a rare and unusual case, and contrary to the reason of the thing, has succeeded: as neither ought we in other matters to fix our regards upon the good which people may enjoy, or their chance successes, out of the common course: but let us look to the reason of the thing as it is in itself, and see whether this thing be not fraught with endless annoyance. Not only you bring yourself into a disreputable position; you also disgrace your children by leaving them poor, if it chance that you depart this life before the wife: and you give her incomparably more occasions for connecting herself with a second bridegroom. Or do you not see that many women make this the excuse for a second marriage—that they may not be despised; that they want to have some man to take the management of their property? Then let us not bring about so great evils for the sake of money; but let us dismiss all (such aims), and seek a beautiful soul, that we may also succeed in obtaining love. This is the exceeding wealth, this the great treasure, this the endless good things: whereunto may we all attain by the grace and loving kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXIII. 31, 32, 33

“Then the soldiers, as it was commanded them, took Paul, and brought him by night to Antipatris. On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with him, and returned to the castle: who, when they came to Cæsarea, and delivered the epistle to the governor, presented Paul also before him.”

Like some king whom his body-guards escort, so did these convey Paul; in such numbers too, and by night, for fear of the wrath of the people.1107 Now then you will say that they have got him out of the city, they desist from their violence? No indeed. But (the tribune) would not have sent him off with such care for his safety, but that while he himself had found nothing amiss in him, he knew the murderous disposition of his adversaries. “And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia; I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come.” Already Lysias has spoken for his exculpation; (but the Jews seek to) gain the hearer beforehand. “And he ordered him to be kept in custody in Herod’s prætorium” (v. 34, 35): again Paul is put in bonds. “And after five days came down the high priest Ananias with the elders.” See how for all this they do not desist; hindered as they were by obstacles without number, nevertheless they come, only to be put to shame here also. “And with an orator, one Tertullus.”1108 And what need was there of “an orator? Which (persons) also informed the governor against Paul.” (c. xxiv. 1.) See how this man also from the very outset (b) with his praises seeks to gain the judge beforehand. “And when he was called forth, Tertullus 1107 τοῦ δήμου τὴν ὀργὴν τῆς ὁρμῆς. ᾽Επεὶ οὖν τῆς πόλεως αὐτὸν ἐξέβαλον, τότε ἀφίστανται. So Edd. and our mss. but Cat. simply τὴν ὀργήν. The next sentence, if referred affirmatively to the Jews, would be untrue, for in fact the Jews οὐκ ἀπέστησαν. Possibly the scribes took it to refer to the soldiers: but this is very unsatisfactory. To make sense, it must be read interrogatively: “Well then, at any rate that now, they have got him out of the city, they desist from further attempts? By no means; and in fact the precautions taken for his safety show what was the tribune’s view of the matter, both that Paul was innocent and that they were set on murdering him.” We read ἀφίστανται τῆς ὁρμῆς. 1108 It has been necessary to rearrange the texts, and also to transpose the parts mark a, b.—Καὶ μὴν ὑμεῖς, φησί τοῦτο πεποιήκατε. The φησί here is hypothetical: “Tertullus wishes to arraign Paul as a seditious person. And yet, Felix might say, it is ye Jews that have been the movers of sedition: in these words ye describe yourselves.”—Mod. text “v. 2, 3, 4. And yet ye have done this: then what need of an orator? See how this man, also from the very outset wishes to deliver him up as a revolutionary and seditious person, and with his praises preoccupies the judge. Then as having much to say, he passes it by, and only says this, But that I be not further tedious unto thee.” began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.” (v. 2, 3.) Then as having much to say, he passes by the rest: “Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world.” (a) As a revolutionary and seditious person he wishes to deliver him up. And yet, it might be answered, it is ye that have done this. (c) And see how he would put up the judge to a desire of punishing, seeing he had here an opportunity to coerce the man that turned the world upside down! As if they had achieved a meritorious action, they make much of it: “Having found this fellow,” etc., “a mover of sedition,” say they, “among all the Jews throughout the world.” (Had he been such), they would have proclaimed him as a benefactor and saviour of the nation!1109 “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (v. 4, 5.) They thought this likely to tell as a reproach—“of the Nazarenes:” and by this also they seek to damage him—for Nazareth was a mean place. And, “we have found him,” say they: see how maliciously they calumniate him: (found him), as if he had been always giving them the slip, and with difficulty they had succeeded in getting him: though he had been seven days in the Temple! “Who also hath gone about to profane the temple; whom we took, and would have judged according to our law.” (v. 6.) See how they insult even the Law; it was so like the Law, forsooth, to beat, to kill, to lie in wait! And then the accusation against Lysias: though he had no right, say they, to interfere, in the excess of his confidence he snatched him from us: “But the tribune Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee:1110 by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, where of we accuse him. And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.” (v. 7–9). What then says Paul? “Then Paul; after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a just judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself.” (v. 10.) This is not the language of flattery, his testifying to the judge’s justice:1111 no, the adulation was rather in that speech of the orator, “By thee we enjoy great quietness.” If so, then why are ye seditious? What Paul sought was justice. “Knowing thee to be a just judge, I cheerfully,” says he, “answer for myself.” Then also he enforces this by the length of time: that (he had been judge) “of many years. Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but 1109 So much was sedition to their taste, they would have been the last to arraign him for that; on the contrary etc.—But Mod. text ὡς λυμεῶνα λοιπὸν καὶ κοινὸν ἐχθρὸν τοῦ ἔθνους διαβάλλουσι. 1110 The bracketed passage in vv. 6–8 om. in A. B. G. H. א. and R.V.—G.B.S. 1111 Hence it appears that Chrys. read ὄντα σε κριτὴν δίκαιον in v. 10, though the old text in the citation omits the epithet. Cat. retains it.—See p. 299, note 2. twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.” (v. 11.) And what is this?1112 (It means), “that I could not immediately have raised a commotion.” Because the accuser had nothing to show (as done) in Jerusalem, observe what he said: “among all the Jews throughout the world.” Therefore it is that Paul here forcibly attracts him—“to worship,” he says, “I came up,” so far am I from raising sedition—and lays a stress upon this point of justices being the strong point. “And they neither found me in the Temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city” (v. 12); which in fact was the truth. And the accusers indeed use the term “ringleader,” as if it were a case of fighting and insurrection; but see how mildly Paul here answers. “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy,1113 so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets: and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” (v. 14, 15.) The accusers were separating him (as an alien), but he identifies himself with the Law, as one of themselves. “And in this,” says he, “do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men. Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. In which they found me purified in the temple, not with multitude, neither with tumult.” (v. 16, 17, 18.) Why then camest thou up? What brought thee hither? To worship, says he; to do alms. This was not the act of a factious person. Then also he casts out their person:1114 “but,” says he, (they that found 1112 As Felix had been many years a judge, he was conversant enough with the habits of the Jews to be aware that the Pentecost which brought Paul to Jerusalem was but twelve days past: so that there had not been time to raise a commotion. Mod. text, “And what did this contribute to the proof? A great point: for he shows that Felix himself knew that Paul had done nothing of all that he was accused of. But if he had ever raised an insurrection, Felix would have known it, being judge, and such an affair would not have scaped his notice.”—Below, διὰ τοῦτο ἐνταῦθα αὐτὸν ἕλκει, we suppose αὐτὸν to be Felix: Mod. text substitutes ἐντεῦθεν ἀφέλκων, referring it to the accuser. The meaning is obscure, but it seems to be, “draws the attention of his judge to this point,” viz., of his having come up to worship, and therefore ἐνδιατρίβει τούτῳ τῷ δικαίU+0026251· lays the stress upon this point, of Felix being a just judge. Perhaps, however, the true reading here is τῷ δεκαδύο, “of its being not more than twelve days.” 1113 ῞Αιρεσις in v. 14 has the same meaning as in v. 5. The meaning is therefore obscured by rendering it (as A.V.) in the former verse by “sect” and in the latter by “heresy.” It is party or sect in both cases, used as a term of reproach. Paul’s accusers considered him a member of a sect which they contemptuously called the Nazarenes. In his defence he takes up their own word.—G.B.S. 1114 Εἰτα καὶ ἐκβάλλει αὐτῶν τὸ πρόσωπον, rejects their person, repudiates their pretension. They had said, “We found him:” he answers, “There found me, in a condition as far as possible from that of a mover of sedition— not they, ‘but certain of the Jews from Asia.’ In the Recapitulation, he says, καλῶς δὲ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐκβάλλει referring to v. 21. Hence one might conjecture here, εἶτα οὐκ ἐκβ., to be placed after v. 20; but see p. 299, note me, were) “certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me. Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me while I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” (v. 19, 20, 21.) For this is justification in superabundance, not to flee from his accusers, but to be ready to give account to all.1115 “Of the resurrection of the dead,” says he, “am I this day called in question.” And not a word said he of what he had to say, how they had conspired against him, had violently kept him, had laid wait for him—for these matters are course spoken of by the tribune1116—but by Paul, though there was danger, not so: no, he is silent, and only defends himself, though he had very much to say. (b) “In which”1117 (alms), says he, “they found me in course of purifying in the Temple.” Then how did he profane it? For it was not the part of the same man both to purify himself and worship and come for this purpose, and then to profane it. This has with it a surmise of the justice of his cause, that he does not fall into a long discourse. And he gratifies the judge, I suppose, by that also (namely, by), making his defence compendious: (d) seeing that Tertullus before him did make a long harangue. (f) And this too is a proof of mildness, that when one has much to 3.—Mod. text ἐκβ. ἀ. τ. πρ. λέγων ἀδιορίστως, ᾽Εν οἷς εὗρόν μέ τινες τῶν κ. τ. λ. “Saying indefinitely, ‘In which there found me,’ (and then adding), ‘certain of the Jews from Asia.’” 1115 Vv. 5 and 6 had contained the three charges preferred by Tertullus, viz.: sedition, sectarianism and profanation of the temple. Paul was charged with creating disturbances among the Jews (5). To this he replies (11, 12), that the charge is not sustained by facts; he worshipped in the temple, but neither there, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city, did he create a disturbance or gather a crowd. To the second charge that he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (5), Paul replies by conceding that he worships the God of his fathers after a way which they call a sect, but he denies that this fact involves rejection or contempt of the law or the prophets (14). To the third charge that he had attempted to profane the Temple (6), he replies by alleging that he had, on the contrary, brought offerings to the Temple service and that he had there peaceably taken part in the religious rites of the Nazarites (17, 18). He concludes by insisting that his whole offence consists in having stoutly maintained the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.—G.B.S. 1116 Old text ταῦτα γὰρ εἰκότως περὶ ἐκείνου λέγεται, παρὰ δὲ τούτου…We read παρὰ ἐκείνου in the sense, “All that is to be said on those points comes from Lysias: from Paul, not a word.” Mod. text ταῦτα γὰρ παῤ ἐκείνων λέγεται γενέσθαι: “these things are said to have been done by those.” 1117 Here old text has the reading ἐν αἷς, above it was ἐν οἷς.—Here the first Redactor has confused the matter, in consequence of his supposing that at the mention of Tertullus (d) Chrys. must have gone into the Recapitulation. Hence he places (c) the formula ἀλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν κ. τ. λ. immediately before this. Accordingly to (d) as being comment on v. 4, he joins (e), and then supposing the ἐπιεικείας of (f) to refer to ἐπιεικείU+0026 139· v. 4, he places this next. The part (b) he keeps in its place, viz. before the Recapitulation: there remained (a), and this he prefixes to b, though its contents clearly show that it belongs to the Recapitulation of v. 31. say, in order not to be troublesome one says but few words. (c) But let us look again at what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “Then the soldiers,” etc. (v. 31–33.) (a) This also made Paul famous in Cæsarea, his coming with so large a force.—“But,” says Tertullus, “that I be not further tedious,” (e) showing that (Felix) does find him tedious (ἐγκόπτεται): “I beseech thee,” he does not say, Hear the matter, but, “hear us of thy clemency.” (ch. xxiv. 4.) Probably it is to pay court, that he thus lays out his speech. (g) “For having found this man, a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world” (v. 5): how then, it might be said, if he did this elsewhere (and not here)? No, says he; among us also he has profaned the Temple; “attempted,” says he, “to profane it:” but the how, he leaves untold. “Whom also we took.” etc. “But the tribune,” etc. And while he thus exaggerates what relates to the tribune,1118 see how he extenuates the part of the accusers themselves. “We took him,” he says, “and would have judged him according to our Law.” (v. 6.) He shows that it is a hardship to them that they have to come to foreign tribunals, and that they would not have troubled him had not the tribune compelled them, and that he, having no concern in the matter, had seized the man by force: for in fact the wrongs done were against us, and with us the tribunal ought to have been. For that this is the meaning, see what follows: “with great violence” (v. 7), he says. For this conduct is violence. “From whom thou mayest know.” He neither dares to accuse him (the tribune)—for the man was indulgent (forsooth)—nor does he wholly pass it by. Then again, lest he should seem to be lying, he adduces Paul himself as his own accuser. “From whom, by examining him, thou mayest take knowledge of all these things.” (v. 8.) Next, as witnesses also of the things spoken, the accusers, the same persons themselves both witnesses and accusers: “And the Jews also assented,” etc. (v. 9.) But Paul, “Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a just judge.” (v. 10.) Why then, he is no stranger or alien or revolutionary person, seeing he had known the judge for many years. And he does well to add the epithet “just,”1119 that he (Felix) might not look to the chief priest, nor to the people, nor the accuser. See, how he did not let himself be carried away into abuse, although there was strong provocation. “Believing,” he says, “that there will be a resurrection:” now a man who believed a resurrection, would never have done such things—“which” (resurrection) “they themselves also allow.” (v. 15.) He does not say it of them, that they believe “all things written in the Prophets:” it was he that believed them all, not they: but how “all,” it would require a long discourse to show. And he nowhere makes mention of Christ. Here by saying, “Believing,” he does (virtually) introduce what relates to Christ; for the present he dwells on the subject of the resurrection, which doctrine was common to them also, and 1118 τὰ μὲν ἐκείνου, evidently the tribune, but Ben. quæ Paulum quidem spectabant.—They made the most of what the tribune had done, of their own violence they make as little as possible. 1119 See above, p. 197, note 3. The principal authorities for the δίκαιον are Laud’s Cod. Gr. and Cat. of Acts. removed the suspicion of any sedition. And for the cause of his going up, “I came,” he says, “to bring alms to my nation and offerings.” (v. 17.) How then should I have troubled those, for the bringing offerings to whom I had come so long a journey? “Neither with multitude, nor with tumult.” (v. 18.) Everywhere he does away the charge of sedition. And he also does well to challenge his accusers who were from Asia, “Who ought to accuse before thee,” etc., but he does well also not to reject this either;1120 “or else,” says he, “let these same here say. Touching the resurrection of the dead,” etc. (v. 19, 20, 21): for in fact it was on this account they were sore troubled from the first, because he preached the Resurrection. This being proved, the things relating to Christ also were easily introduced, that He was risen. “What evil doing,” he says, “they found in me. In the council” (ch. iv. 2) he says: the examination not having taken place in private. That these things which I say are true, those witness who bring this charge against me. “Having,” he says, “a conscience void of offence both toward God, and toward men.” (v. 16.) This is the perfection of virtue, when even to men we give no handle against us, and are careful to be void of offence with God. “That I cried,” he says, “in the council.” He also shows their violence.1121 They have it not to say, Thou didst these things under the pretext of alms: for (it was) “not with multitude, nor with tumult:” especially as upon enquiry made concerning this thing, nothing further was found. Do you observe his moderation, though there were dangers? do you observe how he keeps his tongue from evil-speaking, how he seeks only one thing, to free himself from the charges against himself, not that he may criminate them, except so far as he might be obliged to do so while defending himself? Just as Christ also said: “I have not a devil, but I honor My Father: but ye do dishonor Me.” (John viii. 49.)

Let us imitate him, since he also was an imitator of Christ. If he, with enemies, who went even to the length of murder and slaughter, said nothing offensive to them, what pardon 1120 καλῶς δὲ (B.) οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐκβάλλει, i.e. but while he does well to challenge the parties who found him viz. the Jews from Asia, he does well also that he does not cast out or repudiate this particular which he goes on to mention—viz. his exclamation before the Sanhedrim. This may consist with what was said above, ἐκβάλλει αὐτῶν τὸ πρόσωπον: (see p. 297, note 1) viz. though he does this, and deprives them of the credit they took to themselves, for it was not that they found him; and as to his behavior in the temple, he will not admit their testimony, for they were not present: yet even these he challenges to testify to that of which they were cognizant.— Mod. text “from Asia, saying, Who ought to accuse me before thee, if they had aught against me. So confident was he to be clear as to the matters of which he was accused, that he even challenges them. But not only those from Asia, nay, those also from Jerusalem.” 1121 Mod. text adds, “by saying, ᾽Εκέκραξα: as much as to say, They have it not,” etc. But their violence was shown not by his crying out, but by the fact that they had nothing more against him than this exclamation. shall we deserve, who in reviling and abuse become infuriated, calling our enemies villains, detestable wretches? what pardon shall we deserve, for having enemies at all? Hear you not, that to honor (another) is to honor one’s self? So it is: but we disgrace ourselves. You accuse (some one) that he has abused you: then why do you bring yourself under the same accusation? Why inflict a blow on yourself? Keep free from passion, keep unwounded: do not, by wishing to smite another, bring the hurt upon yourself. What, is the other tumult of our soul not enough for us, the tumult that is stirred up, though there be none to stir it up—for example, its outrageous lusts, its griefs and sorrows, and such like—but we must needs heap up a pile of others also? And how, you will say, is it possible, when one is insulted and abused, to bear this? And how is it not possible, I ask? Is a wound got from words; or do words inflict bruises on our bodies? Then where is the hurt to us? So that, if we will, we can bear it. Let us lay down for ourselves a law not to grieve, and we shall bear it: let us say to ourselves, “It is not from enmity; it is from infirmity”—for it is indeed owing to an infirmity, since, for proof that it comes not from enmity nor from malignity of disposition, but from infirmity, the other also would fain have restrained (his anger), although he had suffered numberless wrongs. If we only have this thought in our minds, that it is from infirmity, we shall bear it, and while we forgive the offending person, we shall try not to fall into it ourselves. For I ask all you who are present: would ye have wished to be able to exercise such a philosophic temper, as to bear with those who insult you?1122 I think so. Well, then, he insulted unwillingly; he would rather not have done so, but he did it, forced by his passion: refrain thyself. Do you not see (how it is with) the demoniacs (in their fits)? Just then as it is with them, so with him: it is not so much from enmity, as from infirmity (that he behaves as he does): endure it. And as for us—it is not so much from the insults as they are in themselves that we are moved, as from our own selves: else how is it that when madmen offer us the same insults, we bear it? Again, if those who insult us be our friends, in that case too we bear it: or also our superiors, in that case also we bear it: how then is it not absurd, that in the case of these three, friends, madmen, and superiors, we bear it, but where they are of the same rank or our inferiors, we do not bear it? I have oftentimes said: It is but an impulse of the moment, something that hurries us away on the sudden: let us endure it for a little, and we 1122 Old text ἆρα ἂν ἠθελήσατε οὕτω φιλοσοφεῖν δύνασθαι—; Mod. text ἆρα ἂν οὕτω φιλοσοφεῖν δύνησθε—; and so Ben. against grammar and the sense. Savile and Ed. Par. Ben. 2, ἆρα ἂν ἐθελήσητε,..…δύνασθε; But our mss. give it as above: and Savile’s reading does not suit the sense: which is, “Would not you have wished—? Well, then, so would he.”—Below, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖνος οὐκ (B., ἐκείνοις and om. οὐκ) ἀπὸ ἔχθρας τοσοῦτον, ὅσον ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας, τοῦτο ὑπομένει· οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως τῶν ὑβρέων κινούμεθα, ὅσον ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν. The scribes have made nonsense of the passage, and the Edd. retain it. If for ὑπομένει we read ὑπόμενε, this will answer to ἐπίσχες in the preceding sentence: to τοῦτο we supply πάσχει: so we read, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖνοι, οὕτω καὶ οὗτος οὐκ ἀπὸ ἔ. ὅσον ἀπὸ ἀσθ. τοῦτο πάσχει· ὑπόμενε. Καὶ ἡμεῖς etc. shall bear the whole thing. The greater the insults, the more weak the offender. Do you know when it behooves us to grieve? When we have insulted another, and he keeps silence: for then he is strong, and we weak: but if the contrary be the case, you must even rejoice: you are crowned, you are proclaimed conqueror, without having even entered into the contest, without having borne the annoyance of sun, and heat, and dust, without having grappled with an antagonist and let him close with you; nothing but a mere wish on your part, sitting or standing, and you have got a mighty crown: a crown far greater than those (combatants earn): for to throw an enemy standing to the encounter, is nothing like so great as to overcome the darts of anger. You have conquered, without having even let him close with you, you have thrown down the passion that was in you, have slain the beast that was roused, have quelled the anger that was raging, like some excellent herdsman. The fight was like to have been an intestine one, the war a civil war. For, as those who sit down to besiege from without (endeavor to), embroil (the besieged) in civil discords, and then overcome them; so he that insults, unless he rouse the passion within us, will not be able to overcome us: unless we kindle the flame in ourselves, he has no power. Let the spark of anger be within us, so as to be ready for lighting at the right moment, not against ourselves, nor so as to involve us in numberless evils. See ye not how the fire in houses is kept apart, and not thrown about at random everywhere, neither among straw, nor among the linen, nor just where it may chance, that so there may not be danger, if a wind blow on it, of its kindling a flame: but whether a maid-servant have a lamp, or the cook light a fire, there is many an injunction given, not to do this in the draught of the wind, nor near a wooden panel, nor in the nighttime: but when the night has come on, we extinguish the fire, fearing lest perchance while we are asleep and there is none to help, it set fire, and burn us all. Let this also be done with regard to anger; let it not be scattered everywhere up and down in our thoughts, but let it be in some deep recess of the mind, that the wind arising from the words of him who is opposing us may not easily reach to it, but that it receive the wind (which is to rouse it) from ourselves, who know how to rouse it in due measure and with safety. If it receive the wind from without, it knows no moderation; it will set everything on fire: oftentimes when we are asleep this wind will come upon it, and will burn up all. Let it therefore be with us (in safe keeping) in such sort as only to kindle a light: for anger does kindle a light when it is managed as it ought to be: and let us have torches against those who wrong others, against the devil. Let not the spark lie anywhere as it may chance, nor be thrown about; let us keep it safe under ashes: in lowly thoughts let us keep it slumbering. We do not want it at all times, but when there is need to subdue and to make tender, to mollify obduracy, and convict the soul. What evils have angry and wrathful passions wrought! And what makes it grievous indeed is, that when we have parted asunder, we have no longer the power to come together again, but we wait for others (to do this): each is ashamed, and blushes to come back himself and reconcile the other. See, he is not ashamed to part asunder and to be separated; no, he takes the lead as author of the evil: but to come forward and patch that which is rent, this he is ashamed to do: and the case is just the same, as if a man should not shrink from cutting off a limb, but should be ashamed to join it together again. What sayest thou, O man? Hast thou committed great injuries, and thyself been the cause of the quarrel? Why, then, thou wouldest justly be the first to go and be reconciled, as having thyself furnished the cause. But he did the wrong, he is the cause of the enmity? Why then, for this reason also thou must do it, that men may the more admire thee, that in addition to the former, thou mayest get the first prize in the latter also: as thou wast not the cause of the enmity, so neither of its being extended further. Perhaps also the other, as conscious within himself of numberless evils, is ashamed and blushes. But he is haughty? On this account above all, do not thou hesitate to run and meet him: for if the ailment in him be twofold, both haughtiness and anger, in this thou hast mentioned the very reason why thou oughtest to be the first to go to him, thou that art the one in sound health, the one who is able to see: as for him, he is in darkness: for such is anger and false pride. But do thou, who art free from these and in sound health, go to him—thou the physician, go to the sick. Does any of the physicians say, Because such an one is sick, I do not go to him? No, this is the very reason above all why they do go, when they see that he is not able to come to them. For of those who are able (to come) they think less, as of persons not extremely ill, but not so of those who lie at home sick. Or are not pride and anger, think you, worse than any illness? is not the one like a sharp fever, the other like a body swollen with inflammation? Think what a thing it is to have a fever and inflammation: go to him, extinguish the fire, for by the grace of God thou canst: go, assuage the heat as it were with water. “But,” you will say, “how if he is only the more set up by my doing this very thing?” This is nothing to thee: thou hast done thy part, let him take account for himself: let not our conscience condemn us, that this thing happens in consequence of any omission of what ought to have been done on our part. “In so doing,” says the Scripture, “thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.” (Rom. xii. 20, cf. Hom. in l. xxii. §3.) And yet, for all that this is the consequence, it bids us go and be reconciled and do good offices—not that we may heap coals of fire, but that (our enemy) knowing that future consequence,1123 may be assuaged by the present kindness, that he may tremble, that he may fear our good offices rather than our hostilities, and our friendships rather than our ill designs. For one does not so hurt his hater by showing his resentment as an enemy, as by doing him good and showing kindness. For by his resentment, he has hurt both himself and perhaps the other also in some little degree: but by doing good offices, he has heaped coals of fire on his head. “Why then,” you will say, “for fear of thus heaping coals one ought not to do this (b) 1123 B. C. ἵνα εἰδὼς ἐκεῖνο (mod. text ἐκεῖνος) τοῦτο (we read τούτῳ) καταστέλληται. Here, as often, ἐκεῖνο refers to the other world, τοῦτο to this life: “knowing what will come of it there, (i.e. the coals of fire) he may,” etc. but to carry on the enmity to greater lengths.” By no means: it is not you that cause this, but he with his brutish disposition. For if, when you are doing him good, and honoring him, and offering to be reconciled, he persists in keeping up the enmity, it is he has kindled the fire for himself, he has set his own head on fire; you are guiltless. Do not want to be more merciful than God (b), or rather, if you wish it, you will not be able, not even in the least degree. How should you? “As far as the heaven is from the earth,” Scripture says, “so far are My counsels from your counsels” (Isa. xlv. 8): and again, “If ye,” He says, “being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more your heavenly Father” (Matt. vii. 11)? But in fact this talk is mere pretext and subterfuge. Let us not prevaricate with God’s commandments. “And how do we prevaricate,” you will say? He has said, “In so doing, thou wilt heap coals of fire on his head:” and you say, I do not like to do this. (a) But are you willing to heap coals after another fashion, that is upon your own head? For in fact this is what resentment does: (c) since you shall suffer evils without number. (e) You say, “I am afraid for my enemy, because he has done me great injuries:” in reality is it this you say? But how came you to have an enemy? But how came you to hate your enemy? You fear for him that has injured you, but do you not fear yourself? Would that you had a care for yourself! Do not act (the kindness) with such an aim as this: or rather do it, though it be but with such an aim. But you do it not at all. I say not to you, “thou wilt heap coals of fire:” no, I say another and a greater thing: only do it. For Paul says this only by way of summoning thee (if only), in hope of the vengeance, to put an end to the enmity. Because we are savage as wild beasts in disposition, and would not otherwise endure to love our enemy, unless we expected some revenge, he offers this as a cake, so to say, to a wild beast. For to the Apostles (the Lord) says not this, but what says He? “That ye may be like to your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. v. 45.) And besides, it is not possible that the benefactor and the benefited should remain in enmity. This is why Paul has put it in this way. Why, affecting a high and generous principle in thy words, why in thy deeds dost thou not even observe (common) moderation? (It sounds) well; thou dost not feed him, for fear of thereby heaping upon him coals of fire: well then, thou sparest him? well then, thou lovest him, thou actest with this object in view? God knows, whether thou hast this object in so speaking, and are not1124 palming this talk upon us as a mere pretence and subterfuge. Thou hast a care for thine enemy, thou fearest lest he be punished, then wouldest thou not have extinguished thine anger? For he that loves to that degree that he overlooks his own interest for the sake of the other’s advantage, that man has no enemy. (Then indeed) thou mightest say this. How long shall we trifle in matters that are not to be trifled with, and that admit of no excuse? Wherefore I beseech you, let us cut off these pretexts; let us not despise God’s laws: that we may be enabled with well-pleasing to the Lord to pass this life present, and attain unto the 1124 καὶ μὴ…Mod text καὶ μὴν…“And yet thou art,” etc. good things promised, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXIV. 22, 23

“And when Felix heard these things, having more perfect knowledge of that way, he deferred them and said, When Lysias the tribune shall come down, I will know the uttermost of your matter. And he commanded a centurion to keep Paul, and to let him have liberty, and that he should forbid none of his acquaintance to minister or come unto him.”

See how much close investigation is made by the many in a long course of time, that it should not be said that the trial was hurried over. For, as the orator had made mention of Lysias, that he took “him away with violence, Felix,” he says, “deferred them. Having knowledge of that way:” that is, he put them off on purpose: not because he wanted to learn, but as wishing to get rid of the Jews. On their account, he did not like to let him go: to punish him was not possible; that would have been (too) barefaced. “And to let him have liberty,1125 and to forbid none of his acquaintance to minister to him.” So entirely did he too acquit him of the charges. Howbeit, to gratify them, he detained him, and besides, expecting to receive money, he called for Paul. “And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance (i.e. self-control or chastity), and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee. He hoped also that money should have been given him of Paul, that he might loose him; wherefore he sent for him the oftener, and communed with him. But after two years Porcius Festus came into Felix’s room: and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.” (v. 24–27.) See how close to the truth are the things written. But he sent for him frequently, not that he admired him, nor that he praised the things spoken, nor that he wished to believe, but why? “Expecting,” it says, “that money should have been given him.” Observe how he does not hide here the mind of the judge. “Wherefore he sent for him,” etc. And yet if he had condemned him, he would not have done this, nor have wished to hear a man, condemned and of evil character. And observe Paul, how, though reasoning with a ruler, he says nothing of the sort that was likely to amuse and entertain, but (“he reasoned,” it says,) “of righteousness, and of the coming judgment,” 1125 ῎Ανεσις better rendered “relaxation” or “indulgence” (R.V.) than “liberty” (A.V.). Meyer understands by this that he was to be allowed rest, “to be spared all annoyance.” Others (DeWette, Lange) suppose ἄνεσις to refer to release from chains, the so-called custodia libera of the Romans in which the prisoner went free on bail or upon the responsibility of some magistrate. This view is, however, inconsistent with the fact that Felix committed Paul to the keeping of a centurion (23) as well as with his leaving Paul bound (27). The custody was doubtless the custodia militaris and ἄνεσις denotes the relaxation of the rigors of his imprisonment.—G.B.S. and of the resurrection. And such was the force of his words, that they even terrified the governor.1126 This man is succeeded in his office by another, and he leaves Paul a prisoner: and yet he ought not to have done this; he ought to have put an end to the business: but he leaves him, by way of gratifying them. They however were so urgent, that they again besought the judge. Yet against none of the Apostles had they set themselves thus pertinaciously; there, when they had attacked, anon they desisted. So providentially is he removed from Jerusalem, having to do with such wild beasts. And they nevertheless request that he might be brought again there to be tried. “Now when Festus was come into the province, after three days he ascended from Cæsarea to Jerusalem. Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him, and desired favor against him, that he would send for him to Jerusalem, laying wait in the way to kill him.” (ch. xxv. 1–3.) Here now God’s providence interposed, not permitting the governor to do this: for it was natural that he having just come to the government would wish to gratify them: but God suffered him not. “But Festus answered, that Paul should be kept at Cæsarea, and that he himself would depart shortly thither. Let them therefore, said he, which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him. And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Cæsarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought.” (v. 4–6.) But after they came down, they forthwith made their accusations shamelessly and with more vehemence: and not having been able to convict him on grounds relating to the Law, they again according to their custom stirred the question about Cæsar, being just what they did in Christ’s case. For that they had recourse to this is manifest by the fact, that Paul defends himself on the score of offences against Cæsar. “And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not prove. While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar, have I offended anything at all. But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me”? (v. 7–9.) Wherefore he too gratifies the Jews, the whole people, and the city. Such being the case, Paul terrifies him also, using a human weapon for his defence. “Then said Paul, I stand at Cæsar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged; to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be 1126 Paul’s reasoning “concerning righteousness” was directed against the well-known injustice of a prince of whom Tacitus says that he acted as if there were no penalty for villainy. His reasoning “concerning self-control” (ἐκρατεία) was in opposition to his sensuality. He had unlawfully married Drusilla who was the wife of Azizus, the king of Emesa (Jos. Ant. xx. 7, 2). His references to the judgment to come might well have been directed against the governor’s murder of Jonathan, the high priest.—G.B.S. none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Cæsar.” (v. 10, 11.) Some one might say, How is it, that having been told, “Thou must also bear witness of Me in Rome,” (ch. xxiii. 11), he, as if unbelieving, did this? God forbid: nay, he did it, because he so strongly believed. For it would have been a tempting of God to be bold on account of that declaration, and to cast himself into numberless dangers, and to say: “Let us see if God is able even thus to deliver me.” But not so does Paul; no, he does his part, all that in him lies, committing the whole to God. Quietly also he reproves the governor: for, “If, says he, I am an offender, thou doest well: but if not, why dost thou give me up?” “No man,” he says, “may sacrifice me.” He put him in fear, so that even if he wished, he could not sacrifice him to them; while also as an excuse to them he had Paul’s appeal to allege. “Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Cæsar? unto Cæsar shalt thou go. And after certain days king Agrippa and Bernice came unto Cæsarea to salute Festus.” (v. 12, 13.) Observe, he communicates the matter to Agrippa, so that there should be other hearers once more, both the king, and the army, and Bernice. Thereupon a speech in his exculpation. “And when they had been there many days, Festus declared Paul’s cause unto the king, saying, There is a certain man left in bonds by Felix: about whom, when I was at Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me, desiring to have judgment against him. To whom I answered, It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that he which is accused have the accusers face to face, and have license to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him. Therefore, when they were come hither, without any delay on the morrow I sat on the judgment seat, and commanded the man to be brought forth. Against whom when the accusers stood up, they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed: but had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And because I doubted of such manner of questions, I asked him whether he would go to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these matters. But when Paul had appealed to be reserved unto the hearing of Augustus, I commanded him to be kept till I might send him to Cæsar. Then Agrippa said unto Festus, I would also hear the man myself. Tomorrow, said he, thou shalt hear him.” (v. 14–22.) And observe a crimination of the Jews, not from Paul, but also from the governor. “Desiring,” he says, “to have judgment against him.” To whom I said, to their shame, that “it is not the manner of the Romans,” before giving an opportunity to speak for himself, “to sacrifice a man.” But I did give him (such opportunity), and I found no fault in him. “Because I doubted,” says he, of “such manner of questions:” he casts a veil also over his own wrong. Then the other desires to see him. (b) But let us look again at what has been said.1127

Acts XXV. 23

"And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth.”

See what an audience is gathered together for Paul. Having collected all his guards, the governor is come, and the king, and the tribunes, “with the principal men,” it says, “of the city.” Then Paul being brought forth, see how he is proclaimed as conqueror. Festus himself acquits him from the charges, for what says Festus? “And Festus said, King Agrippa, and all men which are here present with us, ye see this man, about whom all the multitude of the Jews have dealt with me, both at Jerusalem, and also here, crying that he ought not to live any longer. But when I found that he had committed nothing worthy of death, and that he himself hath appealed to Augustus, I have determined to send him. Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord. Wherefore I have brought him forth before you, and especially before thee, O king Agrippa, that, after examination had, I might have somewhat to write. For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crimes laid against him.” (v. 24–27.) Mark how he accuses them, while he acquits him. O what an abundance of justifications! After all these repeated examinations, the governor finds not how he may condemn him. They said he was worthy of death. On this account he said also: “When I found,” says he “that he had committed nothing worthy of death.—Of whom I have no certain thing to write to my lord.” This too is a proof of Paul’s spotlessness, that the judge found nothing to say concerning him. “Therefore I have brought him forth,” he says, “before you. For it seemeth to me unreasonable to send a prisoner, and not withal to signify the crime laid against him.” Such were the great straits into which the Jews brought themselves and their rulers! What then? “Agrippa said to Paul, Thou art permitted to speak for thyself.” (ch. xxvi. 1.) From his great desire to hear, the king permits him to speak. But Paul speaks out forthwith with boldness, not flattering, but for this reason saying that he is happy, namely, because (Agrippa) knew all. “Then Paul stretched forth the hand, and answered for himself. I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews. Especially because I know thee to be expert in all questions which are among the Jews: wherefore I beseech thee to hear me patiently.” (v. 2, 3.) And yet, had he been conscious of guilt, he should have feared at being tried in the presence of one who knew all the facts: but this is a mark of a clear conscience, not to shrink from a judge who has an accurate knowledge of the circumstances, but even to rejoice, and to call himself happy. “I beseech thee,” he says, “to hear me patiently.” Since he is about to lengthen out his speech, and to say something about himself, on this account, he premises an entreaty, and (then) says: “My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews: which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.” (v. 4, 5.) Then how should I have become a seditious person, who when young was (thus) testified of by all? Then too from his sect: “after the most straitest sect” says he, “of our religion I lived.” “What then, if though the sect indeed be worthy of admiration, thou art evil?” Touching this also I call all to witness— touching my life and conversation. “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” (v. 6–8.) Two arguments he lays down for the Resurrection: one, the argument from the prophets: and he does not bring forward any prophet (in particular,) but the doctrine itself as held by the Jews: the other and stronger one, the argument from the facts—(especially from this,) that Christ Himself held discourse with him. And he lays the ground for this by (other) arguments, relating accurately his former madness. Then too, with high commendation of the Jews, he says, “Night and day,” says he, “serving (God) look to attain unto.” So that even if I had not been of unblemished life, it is not for this (doctrine) that I ought to be brought to trial:—“for which hope, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.” And then another argument “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” Since, if such an opinion had not existed, if they had not been brought up in these dogmas, but they were now for the first time brought in, perhaps1138 some one might not have received the saying. Then he tells, how he persecuted: this also helps the proof: and he brings forward the chief priests as witnesses, and the “strange cities,” and that he heard Him saying to him, “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks,” and shows the mercifulness of God, that, though being persecuted He appeared (to men), and did that benefit not to me only, but also sent me as teacher to others: and shows also the prophecy, now come to pass, which he then heard, “Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee.” Showing all this, he says: “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, at midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about 1138 Old text omits ἴσως, and puts it as a question, “Who would not have received the saying?” me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And I said, Who art Thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; but rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee: delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins (v. 9–18):—observe1139 how mildly he discourses—God, he says, said (this) to me, “that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me.” By these things, says he, I was persuaded, by this vision He drew me to Himself, and so persuaded me, that I made no delay. “Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: but showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.” (v. 19, 20.) I therefore, who instructed others also concerning the most excellent way of living, how should I myself have become the author of sedition and contention? “For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me. Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come.” (v. 21, 22.) See how free from flattery his speech is, and how he ascribes the whole to God. Then his boldness—but neither do I now desist: and the sure grounds—for it is from the prophets that I urge the question, “Whether the Christ was to suffer:” then1140 the Resurrection and the promise, “Whether He, as the first to rise from the dead, should show light unto the people and to the Gentiles.” (v. 23.) Festus saw the boldness, and what says he? For Paul was all along addressing himself to the king—he was in a manner annoyed,1141 and says to him, “Thou art beside thyself, Paul:” for, “while he thus discoursed, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself: much learning doth make thee mad.” (v. 24.) What then 1139 This is the comment on “forgiveness of sins:” the ἐπιεικὲς consisting in the not enlarging upon the greatness and aggravation of their sins. In the mss. and Edd. this is placed at the end of v. 18, and then, “God said to me, I have appeared to thee,” and the rest repeated to “forgiveness of sins.” 1140 Mod. text “Whether He (as) first to rise from the dead should declare light: as if he had said, Christ as the first that rose dieth no more.” It is manifest from the declaring this to all, that they also (have to) expect it for themselves. Then Festus seeing the boldness, since he all along addressed himself to the king, not once ceasing to look full towards him, was as annoyed (ὥσπερ ἔπαθέ τι), and says, “Thou art mad, Paul.” And that he says this in annoyance (or passion), hear from what follows. “And as he thus discoursed,” etc. 1141 ὥσπερ ἔπαθέ τι. This is explained in the Recapitulation: “with a loud voice—οὕτω θυμοῦ ἦν καὶ ὀργῆς.” says Paul? With gentleness, “I am not mad,” says he, “most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.” (v. 25.) Then too he gives him to understand why, turning from him, he addressed his speech to the king: “For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him: for this thing was not done in a corner.” (v. 26.) He shows, that (the king) knows all perfectly; at the same time, all but saying to the Jews, And ye indeed ought to have known these things—for this is the meaning of that which he adds, “For this thing was not done in a corner. And Agrippa, said to Paul, ᾽Εν ὀλίγῳ thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” What is ἐν ὀλίγῳ?1142 “Within a little, παρὰ μικρόν. “And Paul said, I could pray to God,” καὶ ἐν ὀλίγῳ καὶ ἐν πολλᾥ, (that is) “I could pray to God,” for my part, not “in little” (but “in much”): he does not simply pray, he prays (not briefly, but) with largeness—“that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were such as I am.”1143 Then he adds, “except these 1142 Old text: “v. 27–29. Εὔξαιμην ἂν, φησίν, ἔγωγε οὐκ ἐν ὀλίγῳ, τί ἐστι; παρὰ μικρόν. Καὶ οὐχ ἅπλως εὔχεται ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπιτεταμένως. From the Recapitulation it appears that Chrys. supposes that Paul, as an ἰδιώτης, i.e. not conversant with the elegancies of Greek style, οὐκ ἐνόησεν τί ἐστιν ᾽Εν ὀλίγῳ ἀλλ᾽ ἐνόμισεν ὅτι ἐξ ὀλίγου: did not perceive what Agrippa’s phrase meant (viz. as here explained. παρὰ μικρόν), but supposed it to be the same as ἐξ ὀλίγου.” “With little ado”—i.e. thou makest short work to persuade me, as if this were an easy thing, to be done in brief: therefore Paul answers, Be it in little, or be it in much, I could pray to God, with no brief and hasty prayer, but ἐπιτεταμένως, much and earnestly.—For καὶ οὐχ ἅπλως, we read καὶ ἐν πολλῷ· οὐχ ἅ. and transpose τί ἐστιν ἐν ὀλίγῳ; παρὰ μικρόν, to its fitting place. Mod. text οὐκ ἐν ὀλίγῳ· τουτέστι, μικρόν, omitting παρὰ, meaning this as the explanation of St. Paul’s εὔξ. ἐν ὀλίγῳ. Of the Edd., Commel. Sav. Ben. give παρὰ, and so Par. Ben. 2, who however rejects the οὐκ. 1143 The correct interpretation of v. 28, 29 depends upon the ff. points: (1) Whether the remark of Agrippa is sincere or ironical. (2) Whether the true text in v. 29 is ἐν πολλῷ or ἐν μεράλῳ. (3) What noun, if any, is to be supplied with the adjectives ὀλίγῳ and μεγάλῳ (or πολλῷ). Regarding the first question, the considerations in favor of the view that Agrippa’s remark is ironical are (a) the frivolous character of the man, (b) the current use of Christian among Jews and Romans as a term of reproach and contempt. Touching the second point, we find that μεγάλῳ is favored by א A. B. Syr. Copt. Aram. Vulg., as against G. H. for πολλῷ. The former reading is adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, Westcott and Hort, and most modern critics, and the evidence in its favor may be considered decisive. Whether any noun is to be supplied to ὀλίγῳ and μεγάλῳ (as most) or not (as Meyer) is not important. In any case the sense must be completed. What do “in little” and “in great” mean? The sense may be completed by supplying (a) the idea of time—“in a little time,” i.e. almost. In this case, ἐν μεγάλῳ would have to be rendered “wholly” or “altogether,” a meaning which ἐν μεγάλῳ cannot well convey. Another rendering which might be derived from supplying the idea of time—differing but slightly from the foregoing—would be: “in a little time thou art persuading me!” i.e. dost thou think so soon to persuade me? and Paul replies: “Whether in a little time or in a long time—whether soon or late—I could wish,” etc. The first interpretation lays emphasis upon the state of Agrippa’s mind—persuaded almost—persuaded altogether; the bonds;” and yet it was matter of glory; true, but looking to their notion of it, therefore says he, “except these bonds.” (v. 27–29.)

(Recapitulation.) “And on the morrow,” etc. (v. 23.) The Jews desisted ever since Paul exercised his right of appeal.1144 Then also for him the theatre becomes a splendid one: “with great pomp” they were present. “And Festus said,” etc. “The whole multitude of the Jews—“not some of them only, and others not so—“both at Jerusalem, and also here,” they said “that he ought not to live any longer.” (v. 24.) “And I having found,” etc. It shows that he did right in appealing to Cæsar. For if1145 though they had no great matter to allege against him, yet those (at Jerusalem) were mad against him, with good reason may he go to Cæsar. “That after examination had by you,” he says, “I may get somewhat to write.” Observe how the matter is repeatedly put to the test. The Jews therefore may thank themselves for this vindication1146 (of Paul), which would come to the ears of those also who were at Rome. See how they become the unwilling heralds both of their own wickedness and of Paul’s virtue, even to the emperor himself: so that Paul was carried away (to Rome) with more renown than if he had gone thither without bonds: for not as an impostor and a deceiver, after so second upon the element of time required to accomplish the persuasion (ironically spoken of). (b) The idea of labor, trouble or argument may be supplied thus: “Easily—with few words—or with little trouble—thou persuaded me!” and Paul’s answer is: Whether with little (labor) or with much, I would to God that,” etc. This view we prefer, because, (a) it harmonizes best with the natural meaning of ἐν μεγάλῳ which (if the true reading) requires taking both phrases in a quantitative sense. (b) It is favored by the evidently ironical character of Agrippa’s remark. There is no ground for the opinion of Chrys. (followed by Calvin) that ἐν ὀλίγῳ is used in different senses in the language of Agrippa and Paul, much less for the idea that Paul did not understand what ἐν ὀλίγῳ meant!—G.B.S. 1144 ᾽Απέστησαν λοιπὸν οἱ ᾽Ι. τῇ ἀφέσει χρησαμένου ἐκείνου A. B. (C. has lost a leaf here). Mod. text ἐφέσει. Cat. ᾽Επέστησαν λοιπὸν οἱ ᾽Ι τῇ ἐφέσει χρησάμενοι ἐκείνου. If this be the true reading, it should seem to belong to πᾶν τὸ πλ. τῶν ᾽Ιουδ., viz. “‘concerning whom all the multitude of the Jews besought me:’ the Jews thereupon had set upon him, using his, Festus’ permission.” But ἀπεστ. and ἐφέσει give a better sense as comment on v. 23, i.e. “No mention now of the Jews—they had left him, when he had made his appeal.”—Then, μετὰ πολλῆς φαντ. (mod. text adds ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ) πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ᾽Ι. παρῆσαν οὐχ οἱ μὲν οἱ δὲ οὔ. Which is not true, for it could not be said that all the Jews were present at this hearing before Agrippa. We read μετὰ π. φ. παρῆσαν. Then from v. 24, “πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος” sc. ἐνέτυχόν μοι. 1145 Εἰ γὰρ οὐδὲν μὲν εἶχον δεινὸν εἰπεῖν. i.e. “As far as the matter of accusation was concerned, he knew that he had nothing to fear: ἐκεῖνοι δὲ ἐμεμήνεσαν, but the people yonder (at Jerusalem) were mad against him: therefore εἰκότως ἐπ ἐκεῖνον ἔρχεται, no wonder he is for going to Cæsar.” 1146 The ἀπολογία is Festus’ written report of the hearings before him, which would be sent to Rome, and would at once testify to Paul’s innocence, and to the malignity of the Jews. many judges had acquitted him, was he now carried thither. Quit therefore of all charges,1147 among those with whom he was bred and born, and not only so, (but) thus free from all suspicion, he makes his appearance at Rome. “Then Paul,” etc. (ch. xxvi. 1–3.) And he said not, Why is this? once for all I have appealed to Cæsar: I have been tried many times: when will there be an end of this? but what did he? Again he is ready to render an account, and that, before the man who was the best informed on the subject; and with much boldness, seeing they were not his judges to condemn him: but still, though they were not his judges, since that declaration was in force, “Unto Cæsar shalt thou go, he renders an account and gives full answers, “touching all the things,” and not merely on one and another here and there. They accuse me of sedition, accuse me of heresy, accuse me that I have profaned the temple: “touching all these things I answer for myself:” now that these are not things in accordance with my ways, my accusers themselves are witnesses: “my manner of life from my youth,” etc. (v. 4.) which is what he says on a former occasion “Being a zealot.” (ch. xxii. 3.) And when the whole people was present, then he challenges their testimony: not1148 before the tribunal, but before Lysias, and again here, when more were present: whereas in that hearing there needed not much vindication of himself, since Lysias’ letter exculpated him. “Know all the Jews,” he says, “which knew me from the beginning.” And he does not say what kind of life his was, but leaves it to their own conscience, and lays the whole stress on his sect, as he would not have chosen that sect, if he had been a man of evil disposition and bad character (πονηρὸς καὶ μοχθηρός). “But, for this hope” (mss. and Edd. αἱρέσεως) he says, “I stand and am judged.” (v. 6, 7.) This hope is honored among themselves also, because of this they pray, because of this they worship, that unto this they may attain: this same do I show forth. Why then, it is acting like madmen, to be doing all things for the sake of attaining to this, and yet to persecute him who believes in the same. “I indeed thought with myself,” that is, I determined, “to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” (v. 9.) I was not one of Christ’s disciples: among those who fought against Him, was I. Whence also he is a witness who has a right to be believed, because he, a man who was doing num- 1147 Πάντα τοίνυν ἀποδυσάμενος, not as Ben. “omnibus ergo relictis, apud quos natus, etc.” but in the sense of the phrase ἀποδύεσθαι (ἐγκλήματα) which is frequent in Chrys. That is, “the consequence is that Paul makes his first appearance at Rome, not merely as one who has cleared himself of all charges brought against him at home, but, after these repeated examinations, clear from all suspicion.”—Below οἷατε κυρίων οὐκ ὄντων τῶν καταδικαζόντων αὐτόν: the sense intended may be, “seeing they were not his judges, even if they wished to condemn him.” 1148 Mod. text “But not before the tribunal of Lysias alone does he this, but also before Festus, and again here.” Ben. cites the old text only to condemn it. Inconsiderately: for it was in the hearing ἐπὶ Λυσίου xxii. 3–5. (Lysias had no “tribunal”) and here, that St. Paul thus challenged the testimony of the Jews: not before Felix, which is what is meant by ἐκεῖ, still less before Festus. berless things, makes war on the believers, persuading them to blaspheme, stirring up all against them, cities, rulers, and by himself doing all this of his own accord, was thus suddenly changed. Then again the witnesses, those who were with him: next he shows what just cause he had to be persuaded, both from the light, and from the prophets, and from the results, and from the things which have now taken place. See accordingly, how both from the prophets, and from these particulars, he confirms the proof to them. For that he may not seem to be broaching some novelty, although he had great things to say, yet he again takes refuge with the prophets, and puts this as a question for discussion.1149 Now this had a stronger claim upon belief, as having actually come to pass: but since he alone saw (Christ), he again fetches proof of it from the prophets. And see how he does not discourse alike in the court of justice, and in the assembly (of his own people); there indeed he says, “ye slew Him:” but here no such thing, that he might not kindle their anger more: but he shows the same thing, by saying, “Whether the Christ was to suffer.” He so frees them from accusations: for the prophets, he says, say this. Therefore receive ye also the rest. Since he has mentioned the vision, he then without fear goes on to speak also of the good wrought by it. “To turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God. For to this end have I appeared unto thee” (v. 16–18), not to punish, but to make thee an Apostle. He shows the evils which possess unbelievers, “Satan, darkness;” the good things belonging to believers, light, God, “the inheritance of the saints. Whereupon, O king Agrippa,” etc. (v. 19, 20.) He not only exhorts them to repent, but also to show forth a life worthy of admiration. And see how everywhere the Gentiles are admitted into connection with the people (Israel): for those who were present were of the Gentiles. “Testifying,” he says, “both to great and small,” (v. 22) that is, both to distinguished and undistinguished. This is also for the soldiers. Observe: having left the post of defendant, he took up that of teacher—and therefore also it is that Festus says to him, “Thou art beside thyself”—but then, that he may not seem to be himself the teacher, he brings in the prophets, and Moses: “Whether the Christ was to suffer, whether He as the first to rise from the dead should show light both to the people, and to the Gentiles.” (v. 23.) “And Festus said with a loud voice”—in such anger and displeasure (did he speak)—“Paul, thou art beside thyself.” What then said Paul? “I am not mad,” etc. “For this thing,” he says, “was not done in a corner.” (v. 25, 26.) Here he speaks of the Cross, of the Resurrection: that the doctrine was come to every part of the world. “King Agrippa,” he says, “believest thou”—he does not say, the Resurrection, but—“the prophets?” (v. 27.) Then he forestalls him, and says: “I know that thou believest.” ᾽Εν ὀλίγῳ (i.e. within a little,) 1149 καὶ τοῦτο μέσον τίθησι. The innovator not understanding the phrase, and its reference to Εἰ παθητὸς ὁ Χριστὸς etc., substitutes, “And puts their (words) in the midst.”—The meaning is: “He had greater things to say than what the prophets had said:” he could say, “The Christ whom ye slew is risen, for I have seen Him: but instead of this, he put it as a subject for discussion, Did the prophets teach that the Christ was to suffer and to rise again?” “almost thou persuadeth the to be a Christian.” (v. 28.) Paul did not understand what the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ meant: he thought it meant ἐξ ὀλιγου (i.e. with little cost or trouble), wherefore also he answers (as) to this: so unlearned was he.1150 And he said not, I do not wish (that), but, “I pray that not only thou, but also all that hear.” Mark how free from flattery his speech is.—“I pray that this day they may be all such as I am, except these bonds.” (v. 29.) He, the man that glories in his bonds, that puts them forth as a golden chain, deprecates them for these men: for they were as yet too weak in their minds, and it was rather in condescension that he so spake. For what could be better than those bonds which always in his Epistles he prefers (to all things else), saying, “Paul, a prisoner of Jesus Christ:” (Eph. iii. 1) and again, “On this account I am bound with this chain” (Acts xxviii. 20), “but the word of God is not bound;” and, “Even unto bonds, as an evil-doer.” (2 Tim. ii. 9.) The punishment was twofold. For if indeed he had been so bound, as with a view to his good, the thing would have carried with it some consolation: but now (he is bound) both “as an evil-doer,” and as with a view to very ill consequences; yet for none of these things cared he.1151

Such is a soul winged with heavenly love. For if those who cherish the foul (earthly passion which men call) love, think nothing either glorious of precious, but those things alone which tend to gratify their lust, they think both glorious and honorable, and their mistress is everything to them; much more do those, who have been taken captive by this heavenly love, think nothing of the cost (τὰ ἐπιτίμια). But if we do not understand what I am saying, it is no marvel, while we are unskilled in this Divine Wisdom. For if any one be caught with the fire of Christ’s love, he becomes such as a man would become who dwelt alone upon the earth, so utterly careless is he for glory or disgrace: but just as if he dwelt alone, he would care for nothing, no more does he in this case. As for trials, he so despises them, both scourges and imprisonments, as though the body in which he suffers these things were another’s and not his own, or as though he had got a body made of adamant: while as for the sweet things of this life, he so laughs them to scorn, is so insensible to them, as we are insensible of dead bodies, being ourselves dead. He is as far from being taken captive by 1150 See above, p. 310, note 1, and *. Yet some modern commentators assert that ἐν ὀλίγῳ cannot mean, as Chrys. says, παρὰ μικρόν: that this sense requires ὀλίγου, or ὀλίγου δεῖν, or παῤ ὀλίγον: so that, in their view, Chrysostom’s remark οὕτως ἰδιώτης ἦν would be quite out of place.—In the next sentence οὐ βούλομαι, all our mss. and Edd. But Ben. renders it without the negative Et non dixit, Vellem. 1151 He is commenting upon 2 Tim. ii. 9. “I suffer trouble as an evil-doer even unto bonds.” To others, this might seem a twofold aggravation: both that he was treated as a malefactor, and that his destruction was intended. For if indeed he was put in bonds ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀγάθῳ, the thing bore its comfort with it, and such was the case to him, but not in their intention; which was, that he should be in chains καὶ ὡς κακούργος καὶ ὡς ἐπὶ τοῖς δεινοῖς. Of the mss. A. C. have ὡς ἐπὶ τοῖς δεινοῖς ἀλλούς· ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς τούτων ἐφρόντιζεν. Β. ἁλούς· and so mod. text. But ἀλλοὺς seems to be only the abbreviation of the following ἀλλ᾽ οὐδενὸς. any passion, as the gold refined in the fire and purified is free from alloy. For even as flies would not dart into the midst of a flame, but fly from it, so the passions dare not even to come near this man. Would that I could bring forward examples of all this from among ourselves: but since we are at a loss for such, we must needs betake ourselves to this same Paul. Observe him then, how he felt towards the whole world. “The world is crucified unto me,” he says, “and I unto the world” (Gal. vi. 14): I am dead to the world, and the world is dead to me. And again: “It is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me.”1152 (ib. Gal. ii. 20.) And, to show you that he was as it were in solitude, and so looked upon the things present, hear himself saying, “While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen.” (2 Cor. iv. 18.) What sayest thou? Answer me. And yet what thou sayest is the contrary; thou seest the things invisible, and the visible thou seest not. Such eyes as thou hadst gotten, such are the eyes which are given by Christ: for as these bodily eyes see indeed the things that are seen, but things unseen they see not: so those (heavenly eyes) do the contrary: none that beholds the invisible things, beholds the visible: no one beholding the things seen, beholds the invisible. Or is not this the case with us also? For when having turned our mind inwards we think of any of the unseen things, our views become raised above the things on earth.1153 Let us despise glory: let us be willing to be laughed at rather than to be praised. For he indeed who is laughed at is nothing hurt: but he who is praised is much hurt. Let us not think much of those things which terrify men, but as we do in the case of children, this let us do here: namely, if we see any one terrifying children, we do not hold that man in admiration: since in fact whoever does frighten, only frightens children; for were it a man, he could not frighten him. Just as those who frighten (children in sport), do this either by drawing up their eyelids, or by otherwise distorting their face, but with the eye looking naturally and mild they would not be able to do this: so these others do this, by distorting their mental vision (τὸ διορατικὸν τἥς διανοίας). So that of a mild man and beautiful in soul nobody would be afraid; on the contrary, we all respect him, honor and venerate him. See ye not, how the man who causes terror is also an object of hatred and abhorrence to us all? For of those things which are only able to terrify what do we not turn away from? Is it not so with wild beasts, with sounds, with sights, with places, with the air, such as darkness? Let us not therefore think it a great thing, if men fear us. For, in the first place, no man indeed is frightened at us: and, secondly, it is no great thing (if they were). Virtue is a great good: and see how great. However wretched we may deem the things by means of which it consists, yet we admire virtue itself, and count them blessed 1152 Mod. text adds, “To say this, belongs to Paul only: ours it is, who are so far removed from him as the heaven is from the earth, to hide our faces, so that we dare not even to open our mouth.” 1153 μετέωροι τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἡμῖν γίνονται αι οψεις. Unable to discover any meaning in this, (Ben. sublimes nobis sunt: operationum oculi), we conjecture τῶν ἐπιγειῶν. (that have it). For who would not count the patient sufferer blessed, although poverty and such like things seem to be wretched? When therefore it shines forth through those things which seem to be wretched, see how surpassingly great this is! Thinkest thou much, O man, because thou art in power? And what sort of power? say, was it conferred by appointment? (If so,) of men thou hast received power: appoint thyself to it from within. For the ruler is not he who is so called, but he who is really so. For as a king could not make a physician or an orator, so neither can he make a ruler: since it is not the (imperial) letters nor the name that makes a ruler. For, if you will, let any man build a medicine-shop, let him also have pupils, let him have instruments too and drugs, and let him visit those who are sick: are these things sufficient to make a physician? By no means: but there is need of art, and without that, not only do these things profit nothing, but they even hurt: since it were better that he who is not a physician should not even possess medicines. He that possesses them not, neither saves nor destroys: but he that possesses them, destroys, if he knows not how to use them: since the healing power is not only in the nature of the medicines, but also in the art of the person applying them: where this is not, all is marred. Such also is the ruler: he has for instruments, his voice, anger, executioners, banishments, honors, gifts, and praises; he has also for medicines, the law; has also for his patients, men; for a place to practise in, the court of justice; for pupils, he has the soldiers: if then he know not the science of healing, all these profit him nothing. The judge is a physician of souls, not of bodies: but if this art of healing the bodies needs so much care, much more that of healing the soul, since the soul is of more importance than the body. Then not the mere having the name of ruler is to be a ruler: since others also are called by great names: as Paul, Peter, James, and John: but the names do not make them that which they are called, as neither does my name make me (to be that which John was); I bear indeed the same name with that blessed man, but I am not the same thing (ὁμώνυμος, οὐ μὴν συνώνυμος), I am not John, but am called so. In the same way they are not rulers, but are called so. But those others are rulers even without these adjuncts, just as also a physician, though he may not actually practise his science, yet if he have it in his soul, he is a physician. Those are rulers, who bear rule over themselves. For there are these four things,1154 soul, family; city, world: and the things form a regular progression (ὁδᾥ προβαίνει). He therefore that is to superintend a family, and order it well, must first bring his own soul into order; for it is his family: but if he cannot order his own family, where there is but one soul, where he himself is master, where he is always along with himself, how shall he order others? He that is able to regulate his own soul, and makes the one part to rule, the other to be subject, this man will be able to regulate a family also: but he that can do this by a family, can do it by a city also: and if by a city, then also by the 1154 mss. and Edd., τρία γὰρ ταῦτά ἐστι ψυχῇ (only F. has ψυχή): “there are for the soul these three subjects.”— Below, mss. and Edd. οἰκοδομεῖν for οἰκονομεῖν. world. But if he cannot do this for his own soul, how then shall he be able to do it for the world? These things have been spoken by me, that we may not be excited about offices of rule; that we may know what ruling is: for this (which is so called) is not ruling, but a there object of derision, mere slavery, and many other names one might call it by. Tell me, what is proper to a ruler? is it not to help one’s subjects, and to do them good? What then, if this be not the case? how shall he help others, who has not helped himself? he who has numberless tyrannies of the passions in his own soul, how shall he root out those of others? Again, with respect to “luxury” or delightful living: the true luxury or delight is not this (which is so called), but quite another thing. For as we have shown that the ruler is not he who is so called, but another (who has something more than the name), so the person who lives indeed in delight is another sort of person (than he whom we so describe). For “luxury” or delightful living seems indeed to be, the enjoying pleasure and the gratifying the belly: yet it is not this thing, but the contrary: it is, to have a soul worthy of admiration, and to be in a state of pleasure. For let there be a man eating, drinking, and wantoning; then let him suffer cares and loss of spirits: can this man be said to be in a state of delight? Therefore, it is not eating and drinking, it is the being in pleasure, that makes true luxury or delightful living. Let there be a man who gets only dry bread, and let him be filled with gladness: is not this pleasure? Well then, it is the true luxury. Let us see then, to whom this befalls—whether to the rich, or to those who are not rich? Neither to the one part altogether, nor to the other, but to those who so order their own souls, that they may not have many grounds for sorrows. And where is such a life as this to be found? for I see you all eager and wishing to hear what this life is which has no sorrows. Well then, let this be acknowledged first by you, that this is pleasure, this the true luxury, to have no sorrow to cause annoyance; and ask not of me meats, and wine, and sauces, and silken robes, and a sumptuous table. But if I shall show that apart from all these such a life as that is present (within our reach), then welcome thou this pleasure, and this life: for the most part of painful things happen to us from our not calculating things as we ought. Who then will have the most sorrows—he that cares for none of these things, or he that cares for them? He that fears changes, or he that does not fear? He that is in dread of jealousy, of envy, of false accusations, of plottings, of destruction, or he that stands aloof from these fears? He that wants many things, or he that wants nothing? He that is a slave to masters without number, or he that is a slave to none? He that has need of many things, or he that is free? He that has one lord to fear, or he that fears despots innumerable? Well then, greater is the pleasure here. This then let us pursue, and not be excited about the things present: but let us laugh to scorn all the pomp of life, and everywhere practise moderation, that we may be enabled so to pass through this life, that it may be without pain, and to attain unto the good things promised, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXVI. 30–32

“And when he had thus spoken, the king rose up, and the governor, and Bernice, and they that sat with them: and when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds. Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Cæsar.”

See how again also they pass sentence in his favor, and after having said, “Thou art beside thyself,” (v. 24) they acquit him, as undeserving not only of death, but also of bonds, and indeed would have released him entirely, if he had not appealed to Cæsar. But this was done providentially, that he should also depart with bonds. “Unto bonds,” he says, “as an evil doer.” (1 Tim. ii. 9.) For if his Lord “was reckoned among the transgressors” (Mark xv. 28), much more he: but as the Lord did not share with them in their character, so neither did Paul. For in this is seen the marvellous thing, the being mixed up with such, and yet receiving no harm from them. “And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus’ band. And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with us. And the next day we touched at Sidon.” (ch. xxvii. 1–3.) See how far Aristarchus also accompanies Paul. To good and useful purpose is Aristarchus present, as he would take back the report of all to Macedonia. “And Julius courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto his friends to refresh himself. Julius gave Paul liberty,” it says, acting “courteously, that he might refresh himself;” as it was but natural that he should be much the worse from his bonds and the fear, and the being dragged hither and thither. See how the writer does not hide this either, that Paul wished “to refresh himself. And when we had launched from thence, we sailed under Cyprus, because the winds were contrary.” (v. 4.) Again trials, again contrary winds. See how the life of the saints is thus interwoven throughout: escaped from the court of justice, they fall in with shipwreck and storm. “And when we had sailed over the sea of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra, a city of Lycia. And there the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing into Italy; and he put us therein.” (v. 5, 6.) “A ship of Alexandria,” it says. It is likely that both those (in the former ship) would bear to Asia the report of what had befallen Paul, and that these1155 would do the same in Lycia. See how God does not innovate or change the order of nature, but suffers them to sail into the unfavorable winds. But even so the miracle is wrought. That they may sail safely, He did not let them go out in the (open) sea, but they always sailed near the land. “And when we had sailed slowly many 1155 Καὶ τούτους, meaning perhaps those who remained at Myra. days, and scarce were come over against Cnidus, the wind not suffering us, we sailed under Crete, over against Salmone; and, hardly passing it, came unto a place which is called the fair havens; nigh whereunto was the city of Lasea. Now when much time was spent, and when sailing was now dangerous, because the fast was now already past, Paul admonished them.” (v. 7–9.) By “the fast” here, I suppose he means that of the Jews.1156 For they departed thence a long time after the Pentecost, so that it was much about midwinter that they arrived at the coasts of Crete. And this too was no slight miracle, that they also should be saved on his account. “Paul admonished them, and said unto them, Sirs, I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much damage, not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives. Nevertheless the centurion believed the master and the owner of the ship, more than those things which were spoken by Paul. And because the haven was not commodious to winter in, the more part advised to depart thence also, if by any means they might attain to Phenice, and there to winter; which is an haven of Crete, and lieth toward the southwest and northwest. And when the south wind blew softly, supposing that they had obtained their purpose, loosing thence, they sailed close to Crete. But not long after there arose against it a tempestuous wind, called Euroclydon.1157 And when the ship was caught, and could not bear up into the wind, we let her drive” (R.V. “were driven.”) (v. 10–15.) Paul therefore advised them to remain, and he foretells what would come of it: but they, being in a hurry, and being prevented by the place, wished to winter at Phenice. Mark then the providential ordering of the events: first indeed, “when the south wind blew softly, supposing they had obtained their purpose,” they loosed the vessel, and came forth; then when the wind bore down upon them, they gave way to it driving them, and were with difficulty saved. “And running under a certain island which is called Clauda, we had much work to come by the boat: which when they had taken up, they used helps, undergirding the ship; and, fearing lest they should fall 1156 The fast referred to was that which occurred on the great day of atonement (Lev. xxiii. 27) i.e. on the tenth of the seventh month (Tisri). This would be about the end of September, after the autumnal equinox, when navigation was considered dangerous.—G.B.S. 1157 Preponderant authority favors the reading εὐρακύλων from εὖρος, the S. E. wind and the Latin Aquilo, a N. wind (so א, B* A. Vulgate Erasmus Mill, Bengel, Olshausen, Hackett, Tischendorf, Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, R.V.) If εὐροκλύδων is read, it is disputed whether the first part of the word is εὖρος (Alford, Gloag, Howson,) or εὐρύς, broad. Meyer defends the latter reading, on the ground that the phrase ὁ καλοὐμενος requires that the word ἐυρ. denote a name and not merely the direction of the wind and that it is easier to suppose that this reading should be modified into the former than the reverse. Alford supposes that εὐρακύλων was the name of the wind, which the Greek sailors did not understand and pronounced εὐροκλύδων. Meyer’s argument is inadequate, and the probabilities favor the reading εὐρακλύδων with the meaning, N. E. wind, a signification, moreover, which answers all the conditions of the narrative. (See Bib. Dict. sub voce.)—G.B.S. into the quicksands,1158 strake sail,1159 and so were driven. And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day they lightened the ship; and the third day we cast out with our own hands the tackling of the ship. And when neither sun nor stars in many days appeared, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was then taken away. But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and loss.” (v. 16–21.) Then after so great a storm he does not speak as insultingly over them, but as wishing that at any rate he might be believed for the future. Wherefore also he alleges what had taken place for a testimony of the truth of what was about to be said by him. “And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man’s life among you, but of the ship. For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve, saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Cæsar: and, lo God hath given thee all them that sail with thee. Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer, for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me. Howbeit we must be cast upon a certain island.” (v. 22–26.) And he foretells two things; both that they must be cast upon an island, and that though the ship would be lost, those who were in it should be saved—which thing he spoke not of conjecture, but of prophecy—and that he “must be brought before Cæsar.” But this that he says, “God hath given thee all,” is not spoken boastfully, but in the wish to win those who were sailing in the ship: for (he spoke thus), not that they might feel themselves bound to him, but that they might believe what he was saying. “God hath given thee;” as much (as to say), They are worthy indeed of death, since they would not listen to thee: however, this is done out of favor to thee. “But when the fourteenth night was come, as we were driven up and down in Adria, about midnight the shipmen deemed that they drew near to some country; and sounded, and found it twenty fathoms; and when they had gone a little further, they sounded again, and found it fifteen fathoms. Then fearing lest they should have fallen upon rocks, they cast four anchors out of the stern, and wished for the day. And as the shipmen were about to flee out of the ship, when they had let down the boat into the sea, under color as though they would have cast anchors out of the foreship, Paul said to the centurion and to the soldiers, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved. Then the soldiers cut off the ropes of the boat, and let her fall off.” (v. 27–32.) The sailors however, were about to escape, having no faith in what was said: but the centurion does believe Paul, 1158 Rather, “on the Syrtis” (εἰς τὴν Σύρτιν.) There were two shoals on the coast of Africa, called by this name, the Syrtis Major and the Syrtis Minor. The former to the S. W. of Crete is the one here referred to.—G.B.S. 1159 R.V. “they lowered the gear” (σκεῦος). The word σκεῦος—utensil, implement—is in itself indefinite and must be understood from the context. It has here been taken to mean “anchor;” “mast” (Olshausen); “sail” (Meyer, Lechler, Hackett, A.V.): “gear,” meaning the ropes and topsails in order to set the ship in a direction off shore.—G.B.S. For he says, If these flee, “ye cannot be saved:” so saying, not on this account, but that he might restrain them, and the prophecy might not fall to the ground. See how as in a church they are instructed by the calmness of Paul’s behavior, how he saved them out of the very midst of the dangers. And it is of providential ordering that Paul is disbelieved, that after proof of the facts, he might be believed: which accordingly was the case. And he exhorts them again to take some meat, and they do as he bids them, and he takes some first, to persuade them not by word, but also by act, that the storm did them no harm, but rather was a benefit to their souls. “And while the day was coming on, Paul besought them all to take meat, saying, This day is the fourteenth day that ye have tarried and continued fasting having taken nothing.” (v. 33.) 1160(b) And how, say you, did they go without food, having taken nothing? how did they bear it? Their fear possessed them, and did not let them fall into a desire of food, being, as they were, at the point of extreme jeopardy; (f) but they had no care for food. “Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you. And when he had thus spoken, he took bread, and gave thanks to God in presence of them all: and when he had broken it, he began to eat. Then were they all of good cheer, and they also took some meat,” (v. 34–36) seeing that there was no question about their lives being saved. (d) “And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls. And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, and cast out the wheat into the sea. And when it was day, they knew not the land: but they discovered a certain creek with a shore, into the which they were minded, if it were possible, to thrust in the ship. And when they had taken up the anchors, they committed themselves unto the sea, and loosed the rudder bands, and hoisted up the mainsail to the 1160 The confusion here has arisen from the scribe’s taking the four last portions a, c, e, g, i.e. 4, 5, 6, 7, and inserting between them the first three b, f, d, but in the order b, d, f, i.e. 1, 3, 2: so that the confused order becomes 4, (1), 5, (3), 6, (2), 7. The texts also needed to be redistruted. Of our mss. A, C, omit all the latter part d, e, f, g: so that B and Cat. are the authorities here followed for the old text. (of N. we have no collation).—In (f), for ἅτε οὐ περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν αὐτῶν ὄντος τοῦ λόγου which we have referred to, “Then were they of good cheer,” viz. because they believed Paul’s assurance that their lives were safe, mod. text substitutes “(they had no care for food,) ἅτε οὐ περὶ τῶν τυχόντων ὄντος τοῦ κινδύνου.” In (d), “κατεῖχον,” τοὺς οἴακας τῇ πνεούσῃ δόντες, the meaning seems to be, they bore right down (upon the shore), letting the rudder-handles go, so that the wind was right astern: πόλλακις γὰρ οὐχ οὕτῳ ποιοῦσιν, for oftentimes they steer not so, but more or less transverse to the line of the wind. Κατέφερον τὸ σκεῦος, τ. ἐ. τὰ ἰστία: what this can mean, we do not understand: but above in v. 17, old text has χαλάσαντες τὸ σκεῦος for χαλ. τὰ ἰστία: hence we read here κατεφέροντο (χαλάσαντες, or some such word) τὸ σκεῦος, τ. ε. τὰ ἰ.—For ἐγκοπτομένης τῆς ῥU+0026 192·μης we read with the Catena ἐγκ. τῆς πρύμνης. Mod. text substitutes ἐγκόπτοντες (Sav. τος) τοῦ πνεύματος τὴν ῥU+0026 192·μην. wind, and made toward shore.” (v. 37–41.) “They made towards shore,” having given the rudder-handles to the wind: for oftentimes they do it not in this way. They were borne along, having loosed the rigging, i.e. the sails. “And falling into a place where two seas met, they ran the ship aground; and the forepart stuck fast, and remained unmovable, but the hinder part was broken with the violence of the waves;” for when there is a strong wind, this is the consequence, the stern bearing the brunt (of the storm). (a) “And the soldiers’ counsel was to kill the prisoners, lest any of them should swim out, and escape.” (v. 42.) Again the devil tries to hinder the prophecy, and they had a mind to kill some, but the centurion suffered them not, that he might save Paul, so much was the centurion attached to him. “But the centurion, willing to save Paul, kept them from their purpose; and commanded that they which could swim should cast themselves first into the sea, and get to land: and the rest, some on boards, and some on broken pieces of the ship. And so it came to pass, that they escaped all safe to land.” (v. 43, 44.) “And when they were escaped, then they knew that the island was called Melita.” (ch. xxviii. 1.) Do you mark what good came of the storm? Why then it was no mark of their being forsaken, that the storm came upon them. (c) Now this that happened was in consequence of the season of the year; but the wonder is greater, that at such a season they were saved from the midst of the dangers, both he, and for his sake the rest, (e) and this too in the Hadriatic. There were two hundred and seventy-six souls in all: no small matter this also, if indeed they believed. The voyage was at an unseasonable time. (g) It is natural to suppose they would ask the reason why they were sailing, and would learn all. Nor was it for nothing that the voyage was so protracted; it afforded Paul an opportunity for teaching.

(Recapitulation.) And Paul says, “I perceive that (this voyage will be) with hurt and loss.” (v. 10.) And observe how unassuming the expression is. That he may not seem to prophesy, but to speak as of conjecture, “I perceive,” says he. For they would not have received it, had he said this at the outset. In fact he does prophesy on this former occasion, as he does afterward, and says (there), “The God whom I serve,” leading them on. Then how comes it that it was not “with loss” (of any) “of their lives?” It would have been so, but that God brought them safe through it. For as far as depended on the nature of the thing, they had perished, but God prevented it. Then, to show that it was not from conjecture that he so spake, the master of the ship said the contrary (v. 11), and he a man of experience in the matter: so far was it from being the case that Paul’s advice was given from conjecture. Moreover, the place suggested this same (which the master said), “being not commodious;” and it was evident that from conjecture “the more part advised” (v. 12) as they did, rather than Paul. Then, severe the storm (that ensued), deep the darkness: and that they may not forget, the vessel also goes to pieces, and the corn is flung out and all beside, that they may not have it in their power after this to be shameless. For this is why the vessel goes to pieces, and1161 their souls are tightly braced. Moreover, both the storm and the darkness contributed not a little to his obtaining the hearing he did. Accordingly observe how the centurion does as he bids him, insomuch that he even let the boat go, and destroyed it. And if the sailors did not as yet comply with his bidding, yet afterwards they do so: for in fact this is a reckless sort of people. (v. 13–20.) “Sirs, ye should have hearkened to me,” etc. (v. 21.) One is not likely to have a good reception, when he chides in the midst of calamity; but1162 when he tells them what more there is (to come) of the calamity, and then predicts the good, then he is acceptable. Therefore he attacks them then first, when “all hope that they should be saved was taken away:” that none may say, Nothing has come of it. And their fear also bears witness. Moreover, the place is a trying one, for it was in the Adriatic, and then their long abstinence. They were in the midst of death. It was now the fourteenth day that they were going without food, having taken nothing. “Wherefore,” said he, “I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health” (v. 34), that ye should eat, lest ye perish of hunger. Observe, his giving thanks after all that had happened strengthened them. For this showed an assured mind that they would be saved. (b) “Then were they all of good cheer; and they also took some meat.” (v. 36.) And not only so, but henceforth they so cast all their care upon Paul, that they even cast out the corn (v. 37), being so many. (a) Two hundred and seventy-six souls (v. 38): whence had they victuals?1163 (c) See how they do their part as men, and how Paul does not forbid them. “And when it was day,” etc., “they loosed the rudder-bands.” (v. 39, 40.) And the vessel goes to pieces in the daytime, that they may not be clean dissolved with the terror: that you may see the prophecy brought out as fact. “And the soldiers’ 1161 Καὶ ἐπισφίγγονται αὐτῶν αἱ ψυχαί. Hom. in Matt. p. 60, A. ἐπισφ. is applied to the action of salt in stopping corruption; and ib. 167 B. Christians are the salt of the earth, ἵνα ἐπισφίγγωμεν τοὺς διαρρέοντας. Here in a somewhat similar sense, “the vessel goes to pieces and their (dissolute) souls (which were in danger of going to pieces) are powerfully constricted, held in a close strain, braced to the uttermost.” Mod. text omits this, and for ἵνα μὴ λάθωνται—ἀναισχυντεῖν, substitutes, “That they may not perish, the corn is thrown out and all the rest.”—Below, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν καὶ τὰ πλείονα λέγῃ τῆς συμφορᾶς: mod. text absurdly substitutes παρατρέχῃ: we insert after this the clause τότε τὰ χρηστὰ προλέγει which our mss. have below after καὶ ὁ φόβος μαρτυρεῖ. 1162 Καὶ ἐπισφίγγονται αὐτῶν αἱ ψυχαί. Hom. in Matt. p. 60, A. ἐπισφ. is applied to the action of salt in stopping corruption; and ib. 167 B. Christians are the salt of the earth, ἵνα ἐπισφίγγωμεν τοὺς διαρρέοντας. Here in a somewhat similar sense, “the vessel goes to pieces and their (dissolute) souls (which were in danger of going to pieces) are powerfully constricted, held in a close strain, braced to the uttermost.” Mod. text omits this, and for ἵνα μὴ λάθωνται—ἀναισχυντεῖν, substitutes, “That they may not perish, the corn is thrown out and all the rest.”—Below, ἀλλ᾽ ὅταν καὶ τὰ πλείονα λέγῃ τῆς συμφορᾶς: mod. text absurdly substitutes παρατρέχῃ: we insert after this the clause τότε τὰ χρηστὰ προλέγει which our mss. have below after καὶ ὁ φόβος μαρτυρεῖ. 1163 πόθεν τὰ σιτηρεσία εἶχον; i.e. what were they to subsist upon, having thrown out the rest of the corn? But they trusted Paul’s assurance for all. counsel,” etc. (v. 42.) Do you mark that in this respect also they were given to Paul? since for his sake the centurion suffered them not to be slain. So confessedly wicked do those men seem to me to have been: insomuch that they would have chosen even to slay them: but some swam on shore, others were borne on boards, and they all were thus saved, and the prophecy received accomplishment; (a prophecy,) although not solemn from length of time, since he did not deliver it a number of years before, but keeping close to the nature of the things themselves: (still a prophecy it was,) for all was beyond the reach of hope. And (so) it was through themselves being saved that they learnt who Paul was. But some one may say: why did he not save the ship? That they might perceive how great a danger they had escaped: and that the whole matter depended, not on the help of man, but on God’s hand saving them independently of a ship. So that righteous men, though they may be in a tempest, or on the sea, or in the deep, suffer nothing dreadful, but even save others together with themselves. If (here was) a ship in danger and suffering wreck, and prisoners were saved for Paul’s sake, consider what a thing it is to have a holy man in a house: for many are the tempests which assail us also, tempests far more grievous than these (natural ones), but He can also give1164 us to be delivered, if only we obey holy men as those (in the ship) did, if we do what they enjoin. For they are not simply saved, but themselves also contributed to other men’s believing (πίστιν εἰσήνεγκαν). Though the holy man be in bonds, he does greater works than those who are free. And look how this was the case here. The free centurion stood in need of his bound prisoner: the skilful pilot was in want of him who was no pilot—nay rather, of him who was the true pilot. For he steered as pilot not a vessel of this (earthly) kind, but the Church of the whole world, having learnt of Him Who is Lord also of the sea; (steered it,) not by the art of man, but by the wisdom of the Spirit. In this vessel are many shipwrecks, many waves, spirits of wickedness, “from within are fightings, from without are fears” (2 Cor. vii. 5): so that he was the true pilot. Look at our whole life: it is just such (as was this voyage). For at one time we meet with kindliness, at another with a tempest; sometimes from our own want of counsel, sometimes from our idleness, we fall into numberless evils; from our not hearkening to Paul, when we are eager to go somewhither, where he bids us not. For Paul is sailing even now with us, only not bound as he was then: he admonishes us even now, and says to those who are (sailing) on this sea, “take heed unto yourselves: for after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you” (Acts xx. 29): and again, “In the last times perilous times shall come: and men shall be lovers of their own selves, lovers of money, boasters.” (2 Tim. iii. 2.) This is more grievous than all storms. Let us therefore abide where he bids us—in faith, in the safe haven: let us hearken unto him rather than to the pilot that is within us, that is, our own reason. Let us not straightway do 1164 χαρίσασθαι i.e. to the holy man, to be saved for his sake, in like manner as “He gave (κεχάρισται) to Paul them that sailed with him,” v. 24. just what this may suggest; not what the owner of the ship: no, but what Paul suggests: he has passed through many such tempests. Let us not learn (to our cost) by experience, but before the experience let us “avoid both harm and loss.” Hear what he says: “They that will be rich fall into temptation.” (1 Tim. vi. 9.) Let us therefore obey him; else, see what they suffered, because they did not take his counsel. And again he tells in another place what causes shipwrecks: “Who,” he says, “have made shipwreck concerning the faith. But do thou continue in the things which thou hast learned and wast assured of.” (1 Tim. i. 19.) Let us obey Paul: though we be in the midst of a tempest, we shall surely be freed from the dangers: though we remain without food fourteen days, though hope of safety may have left us, though we be in darkness and mist, by doing his bidding, we shall be freed from the dangers. Let us think that the whole world is a ship, and in this the evildoers and those who have numberless vices, some rulers, others guards, others just men, as Paul was, others prisoners, those bound by their sins: if then we do as Paul bids us, we perish not in our bonds, but are released from them: God will give us also to him. Or think you not that sins and passions are grievous bonds? for it is not the hands only that are bound, but the whole man. For tell me, when any one possessed of much money uses it not, nor spends it, but keeps it close, is he not bound more grievously than any prisoner by his miserliness, a bond that cannot be broken? What again, when a man gives himself up to (the belief in) Fate, is not he too bound with other fetters? What, when he gives himself up to observations (of times)? What, when to omens? are not these more grievous than all bonds? What again, when he gives himself up to an unreasonable lust and to love? Who shall break in pieces these bonds for you? There is need of God’s help that they may be loosed. But when there are both bonds and tempest, think how great is the amount of dangers. For which of them is not enough to destroy? The hunger, the tempest, the wickedness of those on board, the unfitness of the season? But against all these, Paul’s glory stood its ground. So is it now: let us keep the saints near us, and there will be no tempest: or rather, though there be a tempest, there will be great calm and tranquillity, and freedom from dangers: since that widow had the saint for her friend, and the death of her child was loosed, and she received back her son alive again. (1 Kings xvii. 17.) Where the feet of saints step, there will be nothing painful; and if such should happen, it is for proving us and for the greater glory of God. Accustom the floor of thy house to be trodden by such feet, and an evil spirit will not tread there. For as where a sweet odor is, there a bad odor will not find place: so where the holy unguent is, there the evil spirit is choked, and it gladdens those who are near it, it delights, it refreshes the soul. Where thorns are, there are wild beasts: where hospitality is, there are no thorns: for almsgiving having entered in, more keenly than any sickle it destroys the thorns, more violently than any fire. Be not thou afraid: (the wicked one) fears the tracks of saints, as foxes do lions. For “the righteous,” it says, “is as bold as alion.” (Prov. xxviii. 1.) Let us bring these lions into our house, and all the wild beasts are put to flight, the lions not needing to roar, but simply to utter their voice. For not so much does the roaring of a lion put the wild beasts to flight, as the prayer of a righteous man puts to flight evil spirits: let him but speak, they cower. And where are such men now to be found, you will say? Everywhere, if we believe, if we seek, if we take pains. Where hast thou sought, tell me? When didst thou take this work in hand? When didst thou make this thy business? But if thou seekest not, marvel not that thou dost not find. For “he that seeketh findeth” (Matt. vii. 7), not he that seeketh not. Listen to those who live in deserts: away with thy gold and silver: (such holy men) are to be found in every part of the world. Though thou receive not such an one in thy house, yet go thou to him, live with the man, be at his dwelling-place, that thou mayest be able to obtain and enjoy his blessing. For a great thing it is to receive a blessing from the saints: which let us be careful to obtain, that being helped by their prayers we may enjoy mercy from God, through the grace and loving-kindness of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXVIII. 1

“And the barbarous people showed us no little kindness: for they kindled a fire, and received us every one, because of the present rain, and because of the cold. And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.”

“Showed,” he says, “no little kindness to us—barbarians” (as they were1165)—“having kindled a fire:” else it were of no use that their lives be saved, if the wintry weather must destroy them. Then Paul having taken brushwood, laid it on the fire. See how active he is; observe how we nowhere find him doing miracles for the sake of doing them, but only upon emergency. Both during the storm when there was a cause he prophesied, not for the sake of prophesying, and here again in the first instance he lays on brushwood:—nothing for vain display, but (with a simple view) to their being preserved, and enjoying some warmth. Then a viper “fastened on his hand. And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.” (v. 4.) Well also was this permitted, that they should both see the thing and utter the thought, in order that, when the result ensued, there might be no disbelieving the miracle. Observe their good feeling (towards the distressed), in saying this (not aloud, but) among themselves—observe (also) the natural judgment clearly expressed even among barbarians, and how they do not condemn without assigning a reason. And these also behold, that they may wonder the more. “And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm. Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.” (v. 5, 6.) They expected him, it says, to fall down dead: and again, having seen that nothing of the kind happened to him, they said, He is a god. Again (viz. as in ch. xiv. 11), another excess on the part of these men. “In the same quarters were possessions of the chief man of the island, whose name was Publius; who received us, and lodged us three days courteously. And it came to pass, that the father of Publius lay sick of a fever and of a bloody flux: to whom Paul entered in, and prayed, and laid his hands on him, and healed him.” (v. 7, 8.) Behold again another hospitable man, Publius, who was both rich and of great possessions: he had seen nothing, but purely out of compassion for their misfortune, he received them, and took care 1165 The Maltese, though undoubtedly civilized, were βάρβαροι in the Greek and Roman sense of speaking an unintelligible language (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 11). The word might be appropriately rendered “foreigners.” The Maltese were of Phoenician descent and spoke a mixed dialect.—G.B.S. of them. So that he was worthy to receive kindness: wherefore Paul as a requital for his receiving them, “healed him. So when this was done, others also, which had diseases in the island, came, and were healed: who also honored us with many honors; and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary” (v. 9, 10), both us and the rest. See how when they were quit of the storm, they did not become1166 more negligent, but what a liberal entertainment was given to them for Paul’s sake: and three months were they there, all of them provided with sustenance. See how all this is done for the sake of Paul, to the end that the prisoners should believe, and the soldiers, and the centurion. For if they were very stone, yet from the counsel they heard him giving, and from the prediction they had heard him making, and from the miracles they knew him to have wrought, and from the sustenance they by his means enjoyed, they must have got a very high notion of him. See, when the judgment is right, and not preoccupied by some passion, how immediately it gets right judgings, and gives sound verdicts. “And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux.1167 And landing at Syracuse, we tarried there three days. And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli: where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome. And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and the Three Taverns: whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.” (v. 11–15.) Already the preaching has reached to Sicily: see how it has run through (even to those lands): at Puteoli also they found some: others also came to meet them. Such was the eagerness of the brethren, it nothing disconcerted them, that Paul was in bonds. But observe also how Paul himself also was affected after the manner of men. For it says, “he took courage, when he saw the brethren.” Although he had worked so many miracles, nevertheless even from sight he received an accession (of confidence). From this we learn, that he was both comforted after the manner of men, and the contrary. “And when we came to Rome, Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him.” (v. 16.) Leave was given him to dwell by himself. No slight proof this also of his being held in much admiration: it is clear they did not number him among the rest. “And it came to pass, that after three days he called together them that were the chief of the Jews.” After three days he called the chief of the Jews, that their ears might not be preoccupied. And what had 1166 ἀμελεστέρους γενομένους, i.e. the impression left on their minds by the storm was not suffered to wear out, when the danger was over. What happened on shore, Paul’s miracles, the kindness and honors shown them by the barbarians for Paul’s sake, all helped to keep them from relapsing into indifference. 1167 Or with the sign of the Dioscuri. The reference is to the ships insigne, an image or picture of the divinities Castor and Pollux on the prow of the ship. In the current mythology they were the sons of Jupiter and Leda, and were regarded as the tutelary divinities of sailors.—G.B.S. he in common with them? for they would not (else) have been like to accuse him. Nevertheless, it was not for this that he cared; it was for the teaching that he was concerned, and that what he had to say might not offend them.

(Recapitulation.) “And the barbarians,” etc. (v. 2.) The Jews then, beholding all the many miracles they did, persecuted and harassed (Paul); but the barbarians, who had seen none, merely on the ground of his misfortune, were kind to him.—“No doubt,” say they, “this man is a murderer:” (v. 4). They do not simply pronounce their judgment, but say, “No doubt,” (i.e.) as any one may see “and vengeance,” say they, “suffereth him not to live.” Why then, they held also the doctrine of a Providence, and these barbarians were far more philosophic than the philosophers, who allow not the benefit of a Providence to extend to things “below the moon:” whereas (these barbarians) suppose God to be present everywhere, and that although a (guilty) man may escape many (a danger), he will not escape in the end. And they do not assail him forthwith, but for a time respect him on account of his misfortune: nor do they openly proclaim their surmise, but speak it “among themselves: a murderer;” for the bonds led them to suspect this. “They showed no small kindness,” and yet (some of them) were prisoners. Let those be ashamed that say, Do not do good to those in prison: let these barbarians shame us; for they knew not who these men were, but simply because they were in misfortune (they were kind): thus much they perceived, that they were human beings, and therefore they considered them to have a claim upon their humanity. “And for a great while,” it says, “they expected that he would die.” (v. 6.) But when he shook his hand, and flung off the beast, then they saw and were astonished. And the miracle did not take place suddenly, but the men went by the length of time, “after they had looked a great while,” so plainly was there no deceit, no haste here (συναρπαγή). “Publius,” it says, “lodged them courteously” (v. 7): two hundred and seventy-six persons. Consider how great the gain of his hospitality: not as of necessity, not as unwilling, but as reckoning it a gain he lodged them for three days: thereafter having met with his requital, he naturally honored Paul much more, when the others also received healing. “Who also,” it says, “honored us with many honors” (v. 10): not that he received wages, God forbid; but as it is written, “The workman is worthy of his meat. And when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary.” (Matt. x. 10.) It is plain that having thus received them, they also received the word of the preaching: for it is not to be supposed, that during an entire three months they would have had all this kindness shown them,1168 had these persons not believed strongly, and 1168 οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐν τριμήνῳ τοσούτῳ διελέχθησαν μὴ σφόδρα αὐτῶν πιστευσάντων. (Mod. text τοσαῦτα διελέχθη.) This is evidently corrupt. The context requires (as we have given in the translation), “would not have been so hospitably and liberally entertained, such a number as there were of them, two hundred and seventysix souls and this for a period of three months:” but in διελέχθ. perhaps διηλέγχθησαν is latent: “they would not have been so honored etc., but rather would have been convicted,” etc.—In what follows, the parts had fallen herein exhibited the fruits (of their conversion): so that from this we may see a strong proof of the great number there was of those that believed. Even this was enough to establish (Paul’s) credit with those (his fellow-voyagers). Observe how in all this voyage they nowhere touched at a city, but (were cast) on an island, and passed the entire winter (there, or) sailing— those being herein under training for faith, his fellow-voyagers, I mean. (a) “And after three months we departed in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the isle, whose sign was Castor and Pollux.” (v. 11.) Probably this was painted on it: so addicted were they to their idols. (d) “And when the south wind blew, we came the next day to Puteoli: where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome.” (v. 13, 14.) (b) Observe them tarrying a while, and again hasting onwards. (e) “And from thence, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us as far as Appii forum, and the Three Taverns” (v. 15): not fearing the danger. (c) Paul therefore was now so much respected, that he was even permitted to be by himself: for if even before this they used him kindly, much more would they now. (g) “He was suffered,” it says, “to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept him.” (v. 16.) That it might not be possible for any plot to be laid against him there either—for there could be no raising of sedition now. So that in fact they were not keeping Paul in custody, but guarding him, so that nothing unpleasant should happen: for it was not possible now, in so great a city, and with the Emperor there, and with Paul’s appeal, for anything to be done contrary to order. So surely is it the case, that always through the things which seem to be against us, all things turn out for us. “With the soldier”—for he was Paul’s guard. “And having called together the chief of the Jews” (v. 17), he discourses to them, who both depart gainsaying, and are taunted by him, yet they dare not say anything: for it was not permitted them to deal with his matter at their own will. For this is a marvellous thing, that not by the things which seem to be for our security, but by their very opposites, all comes to be for us. And that you may learn this—Pharaoh commanded the infants to be cast into the river. (Exod. i. 22.) Unless the infants had been cast forth, Moses would not have been saved, he would not have been brought up in the palace. When he was safe, he was not in honor; when he was exposed, then he was in honor. But God did this, to show His riches of resource and contrivance. The Jew threatened him, saying, “Wouldest thou kill me?” (ib. 14) and this too was of profit to him. It was of God’s providence, in order that he should see that vision in the desert, in order that the proper time should be completed, that he should learn philosophy in the desert, and there live in security. And in all the plottings of the Jews against him the same thing happens: then he becomes more illustrious. As also in the case of Aaron; they rose up against him, and thereby made him more illustrious (Num. xvi., xvii.): that so his ordination should be unquestionable, that he might be held in out of their places thus, 2, 4, 6: 3, 5: 1, 7. Mod. text in e, ὅτι φοβηθέντες τὸν κίνδυνον ἐξῆλθον, connecting this with the first clause of f, καὶ ταῦτα ἱκανὰ ἐκείνους πιστώσασθαι. admiration for the future also from the plates of brass (τὥν πετάλων τοὕ χαλκοὕ). Of course you know the history: wherefore I pass over the narration. And if ye will, let us go over the same examples from the beginning.

Cain slew his brother, but in this he rather benefited him: for hear what Scripture says, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me” (Gen. iv. 10): and again in another place, “To the blood that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” (Heb. xii. 24.) He freed him from the uncertainty of the future, he increased his reward: we have all learnt hereby what love God had for him. For what was he injured? Not a whit, in that he received his end sooner. For say, what do they gain, who die more slowly? Nothing: for the having good days does not depend on the living many years or few years, but in the using life properly. The Three Children were thrown into the furnace, and through this they became more illustrious: Daniel was cast into the pit, and thence was he made more renowned. (Dan. iii. and vi.) You see that trials in every case bring forth great good even in this life, much more in the life to come: but as to malice, the case is the same, as if a man having a reed should set himself to fight with the fire: it seems indeed to beat the fire, but it makes it brighter, and only consumes itself. For the malice of the wicked becomes food and an occasion of splendor to virtue: for by God’s turning the unrighteousness to good account, our character shines forth all the more. Again, when the devil works anything of this kind, he makes those more illustrious that endure. How then, you will say, was this not the case with Adam, but, on the contrary, he became more disgraced? Nay, in this case of all others God turned (the malice of) that (wicked one) to good account: but if (Adam) was the worse for it, it was he that injured himself: for it is the wrongs that are done to us by others that become the means of great good to us, not so the wrongs which are done by ourselves. As indeed, because the fact is that when hurt by others, we grieve, but not so when hurt by ourselves, therefore it is that God shows, that he who suffers unjustly at the hands of another, gets renown, but he who injures himself, receives hurt: that so we may bear the former courageously, but not the latter. And besides, the whole thing there was Adam’s own doing. Wherefore didst thou the woman’s bidding? (Gen. iii. 6.) Wherefore when she counselled thee contrary (to God), didst thou not repel her? Thou wast assuredly thyself the cause. Else, if the devil was the cause, at this rate all that are tempted ought to perish: but if all do not perish, the cause (of our destruction) rests with ourselves.1169 “But,” you will say, “all that are tempted ought (at 1169 The dialogue seems to proceed thus. “If the devil was the cause of Adam’s fall, at this rate it ought to follow that all whom the devil tempts should perish (ἔδει κατὰ τοῦτο πάντας τοὺς πειραζομένους ἀπόλλυσθαι): if this be not the case, as certainly it is not, then, the cause (of our perishing) is with ourselves (εἰ δὲ μὴ ἀπόλλυνται, παῤ ἡμᾶς ἡ αἰτία).” Then: ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἔδει, φησὶ, πάντας τοὺς πειραζομένους κατορθοῦν· οὐ· παῤ ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἡ αἰτία· ἔδει, φησὶ, καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ διαβόλου ἀπόλλυσθαι. “But,” say you, “(at this rate) all that are tempted ought to succeed (against the Tempter, to come off victorious from the encounter).” No: for the cause (of our being tempted) is with ourselves. “Then people ought to perish even without the devil:” i.e. ‘It should follow that rate) to succeed.” No: for the cause is in ourselves. “At that rate it ought to follow that (some) perish without the devil’s having anything to do with it.” Yes: and in fact many do perish without the devil’s being concerned in it: for surely the devil does not bring about all (our evil doings); no, much comes also from our own sluggishness by itself alone: and if he too is anywhere concerned as a cause, it is from our offering the occasion. For say, why did the devil prevail in Judas’ case? When “Satan entered into him” (John xiii. 27), you will say. Yes, but hear the cause: it was because “he was a thief, and bare what was put in the bag.” (ib. xii. 6.) It was he that himself gave the devil a wide room for entering into him: so that it is not the devil who puts into us the beginning, it is we that receive and invite him. “But,” you will say, “if there were no devil, the evils would not have become great.” True, but then our punishment would admit of no plea for mitigation: but as it is, beloved, our punishment is more mild, whereas if we had wrought the evils of ourselves, the chastisements would be intolerable. For say, if Adam, without any counsel, had committed the sin he did, who would have snatched him out of the dangers? “But he would not have sinned,” you will say? What right hast thou to say this? For he who had so little solidity, that was so inert and so ready for folly as to receive such advice as this, much more would he without any counsel have become this (that he did become). What devil incited the brethren of Joseph to envy? If then we be watchful brethren, the devil becomes to us the cause even of renown. Thus, what was Job the worse for his falling into such helplessness of distress? “Speak not of this instance,” you will say: “(Job was not the worse,) but the weak person is the worse.” Yes, and the weak person is the worse, even if there be no devil. “But in a greater degree,” you will say, “when there is the devil’s power working along with him.” True, but he is the less punished, when he has sinned through the devil’s working with him; for the punishments are not the same for all sins. Let us not deceive ourselves: the devil is not the cause of our taking harm, if we be watchful:1170 rather what he does, is to awake us out of our sleep; what he does, is to keep us on the alert. Let us for a while examine these things: suppose there were no wild beasts, no irregular states of the atmosphere; no sicknesses, no pains, no sorrows, nor anything else of the kind: what would not man have become? A hog rather than a man, revelling in gluttony that those who perish, perish independently of the tempter.’ Yes: in fact many do,” etc. In the printed text ἀλλ᾽ ἔδει—κατορθοῦν,.…ἔδει ἀπόλλυσθαι are put interrogatively, and in place of the οὐ παῤ ἡμᾶς γὰρ ἡ αἰτία of the mss. (which we point Οὐ. παῤ ἡμᾶς γ. ἡ. ἀ.) it has ἤ, εἰ παῤ ἡ. ἡ. ἀ. 1170 Hom. xxiii.in Gen. § 6, p. 215, A. “I exhort you never to lay the blame upon Satan, but upon your own remissness. I say not this to exculpate him, for he ‘goeth about,’ etc. 1 Pet. v. 8, but to put ourselves in more security, that we may not exculpate ourselves when we so easily go over to the evil one, that we may not speak those heartless, senseless words, ‘Why has God left the evil one so much freedom to seduce men.’ These words betoken the greatest ingratitude. Consider this: God has left him that freedom, to this very end, that by fear of the enemy he may keep us ever watchful and sober.” and drunkenness, and troubled by none of those things. But as it is, cares and anxieties are an exercise and discipline of philosophy, a method for the best of training. For say, let a man be brought up in a palace, having no pain, nor care, nor anxiety, and having neither cause for anger nor failure, but whatever he sets his mind upon, that let him do, in that let him succeed, and have all men obeying him: (see whether) such a man would not become more irrational than any wild beast. But as it is, our reverses and our afflictions are as it were a whetstone to sharpen us. For this reason the poor are for the most part wiser than the rich, as being driven about and tost by many waves. Thus a body also, being idle and without motion, is sickly and unsightly: but that which is exercised, and suffers labor and hardships, is more comely and healthy: and this we should find to hold also in the case of the soul. Iron also, lying unused, is spoilt, but if worked it shines brightly; and in like manner a soul which is kept in motion. Now these reverses are precisely what keeps the soul in motion. Arts again perish, when the soul is not active: but it is active when it has not everything plain before it: it is made active by adverse things. If there were no adverse things, there would be nothing to stir it: thus, if everything existed ready-made in beautiful sort, art would not have found wherein to exercise itself. So, if all things were level to our understanding, the soul would not find wherein to exert itself: if it had to be carried about everywhere, it would be an unsightly object. See you not, that we exhort nurses not to make a practice of carrying children always, that they may not bring them into a habit (of wanting to be carried) and so make them helpless? This is why those children which are brought up under the eyes of their parents are weak, in consequence of the indulgence, which by sparing them too much injures their health. It is a good thing, even pain in moderation; a good thing, care; a good thing, want; for1171 they make us strong: good also are their opposites: but each of these when in excess destroys us; and the one relaxes, but the other (by overmuch tension) breaks us. Seest thou not, that Christ also thus trains His own disciples? If they needed these things, much more do we. But if we need them, let us not grieve, but even rejoice in our afflictions. For these are remedies, answering to our wounds, some of them bitter, others mild; but either of them by itself would be useless. Let us therefore return thanks to God for all these things: for He does not suffer them to happen at random, but for the benefit 1171 The printed text, ἰσχυροὺς γὰρ ἡμᾶς ποιεῖ καλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐναντία. Ben., fortes enim nos reddunt quæ bona et contraria sunt. But καλὰ καὶ τὰ ἐναντία clearly answers to καλὸν καὶ λυπὴ σύμμετρος, καλὸν καὶ φροντὶς, καλὸν καὶ ἔνδεια. Only it may be doubted whether τὰ ἐναντία is to be taken here as above, “Good also are adverse things, or, “their opposites,” i.e. “freedom from sorrow, and care, and want, if in moderation.” But the context speaks for the latter: viz. “(In moderation), for each of them (both these things and of their opposites) being out of measure destroys: and as the one leaves no solidity or stability (καὶ τὸ μὲν χαυνοῖ, i.e. immoderate joy, ease, comfort), so the other by excessive tension breaks.”—So below by ταῦτα we understand “these things and their opposites,” which are described as τὰ μὲν πικρὰ, τὰ δὲ ἥμερα (mod text ἡδέα). of our souls. Therefore, showing forth our gratitude, let us return Him thanks, let us glorify Him, let us bear up courageously, considering that it is but for a time, and stretching forward our minds to the things future, that we may both lightly bear the things present, and be counted worthy to attain unto the good things to come, through the grace and mercy of His only begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Acts XXVIII. 17–20

“And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. Who, when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me. But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Cæsar; not that I had aught to accuse my nation of. For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”

He wished to exculpate both himself and others; himself, that they might not accuse him, and by so doing hurt themselves; and those (others), that it might not seem that the whole thing was of their doing. For it was likely that a report was prevalent, that he had been delivered up by the Jews; and this was enough to alarm them. He therefore addresses himself to this, and defends himself as to his own conduct.1172 “How then is it reasonable,” it might be said, “that they should deliver thee up without a cause?” The Roman governors, he says, bear me witness, who wished to let me go. “How was it then that they did not let (thee) go?” “When the Jews spake against it,” he says. Observe how he extenuates (in speaking of) their charges against him.1173 Since if he had wished to aggravate matters, he might have used them so as to bear harder upon them. Wherefore, he says, “I was constrained to appeal unto Cæsar:” so that his whole speech is of a forgiving nature. What then? didst thou this, that 1172 Paul’s prompt summoning of the unbelieving Jews was due as Chrys. reminds us, to his desire to conciliate them and thus to prevent the rise of new obstacles to the progress of the gospel. The apostle might naturally suppose that the Jews of Jerusalem, who were bent upon destroying him, had lodged information against him with their brethren at Rome and that his appearance as a prisoner might still further excite their prejudice and opposition. This view of Paul’s action removes the objection that he could not have given attention to the Jews before making the acquaintance of the Christian church (Zeller). He had, however, made their acquaintance; the brethren had gone out to meet him on his approach to the city and he had probably spent the most of the three days referred to in their company. Zeller has objected still more zealously to Paul’s statement. “I have done nothing against this people or the customs of the fathers.” Paul’s meaning, however, is, that he had never sought the destruction or subversion of the Jewish law and customs, but had ever labored in the line of the Messianic fulfilment of them. Meyer fitly says: “His antagonism to the law was directed against justification by the Law.” 1173 viz. by saying only ἀντιλεγόντων τῶν ᾽Ιουδ., whereas they had shown the utmost malignity against him, accusing him of crimes which they could not prove, and “saying that he was not fit to live:” but he is so forbearing, that though he might have turned all this against them, he sinks the mention of it, etc. thou mightest accuse them? No, he says: “Not that I had aught to accuse my nation of:” but that I might escape the danger. For it is for your sakes “that I am bound with this chain.” So far am I, he says, from any hostile feeling towards you. Then they also were so subdued by his speech, that they too apologized for those of their own nation: “And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came showed or spake any harm of thee.” (v. 21.) Neither through letters, nor through men, have they made known any harm of thee. Nevertheless, we wish to hear from thyself: “But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest” (v. 22): and then forestalled him by showing their own sentiments. “For as concerning this sect, it is known to us, that everywhere it is spoken against. And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the Law of Moses and out of the Prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.” (v. 23, 24.) They said not, we speak against it, but “it is spoken against.” Then he did not immediately answer, but gave them a day, and they came to him, and he discoursed, it says, “both out of the Law of Moses, and out of the Prophets. And some believed, and some believed not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: for the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.” (v. 25–27.) But when they departed, as they were opposed to each other, then he reproaches them, not because he wished to reproach those (that believed not), but to confirm these (that believed). “Well said Esaias,” says he to them. So that to the Gentiles it is given to know this mystery. No wonder then, if they did gainsay: this was foretold from the first. Then again he moves their jealousy (on the score) of them of the Gentiles. “Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it. And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves. And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. Amen.” (v. 28–31.) It shows the freedom he had now: without hindrance in Rome, he who had been hindered in Judea; and he remained teaching there for two years. What of the (years) after these?1174

Rom. I. 1, 2

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God, (which He promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures.)”

Moses having written five books, has nowhere put his own name to them, neither have they who after him put together the history of events after him, no nor yet has Matthew, nor John, nor Mark, nor Luke; but the blessed Paul everywhere in his Epistles sets1189 his own name. Now why was this? Because they were writing to people, who were present, and it had been superfluous to show themselves when they were present. But this man sent his writings from afar and in the form of a letter, for which cause also the addition of the name was necessary. But if in the Epistle to the Hebrews he does not do the same, this too is after his own wise judgment.1190 For since they felt prejudiced against him, lest on hearing the name at the outstart, they should stop up all admission to his discourse, he subtly won their attention by concealing the name. But if some Prophets and Solomon have put their names, this I leave as a subject for you to look further into hereafter, why some of them wished to put it so, and some not. For you are not to learn everything from me, but to take pains yourselves also and enquire further, lest ye become more dull-witted.

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.” Why did God change his name, and call him Paul who was Saul? It was, that he might not even in this respect come short of the Apostles, but that that preëminence which the chief of the Disciples had, he might also acquire (Mark iii. 16); and have whereon to ground a closer union with them. And he calls himself, the servant of Christ, yet not merely this;1191 for there be many sorts of servitude. One owing to the Creation, according to which it says, “for all are Thy servants” (Ps. cxix. 91); and according to which it says, “Nebuchadnezzar, My servant” (Jer. xxv. 9), for the work is the servant of Him which made it. Another kind is that from the faith, of which it saith, “But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from a pure heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you: being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (Rom. vi. 17, 18.) Another is that from civil subjection (πολιτείας), after which it saith, “Moses my servant is dead” (Jos. i. 2); and indeed all the Jews were servants, but Moses in a special way as shining most brightly in the community. Since then, in all the 1189 In every one of his Epistles prefixes (Savile). 1190 This expression is significant as showing the confidence of Chrys. in the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It need hardly be said that the reason for the omission of the Apostle’s name is purely fanciful and that the non-Pauline character of the Epistle is almost demonstrable.—G.B.S. 1191 Or, “not in one way only.” forms of the marvellous servitude, Paul was a servant, this he puts in the room of the greatest title of dignity, saying, “a servant of Jesus Christ.” And the Names appertaining to the dispensation1192 he sets forth, going on upwards from the lowest. For with the Name Jesus, did the Angel come from Heaven when He was conceived of the Virgin, and Christ He is called from being anointed, which also itself belonged to the flesh. And with what oil, it may be asked, was He anointed? It was not with oil that He was anointed, but with the Spirit. And Scripture has instances of calling such “Christs”: inasmuch as the Spirit is the chief point in the unction, and that for which the oil is used. And where does it call those “Christs” who are not anointed with oil? “Touch not,” it says, “Mine anointed, and do My prophets no harm” (Ps. cv. 15), but at that time the institution of anointing with oil did not yet even exist.

“Called an Apostle.” He styles himself “called” in all his Epistles, so showing his own candor (εὐγνωμοσύνην), and that it was not of his own seeking that he found, but that when called he came near and obeyed. And the faithful, he styles, “called to be saints,”1193 but while they had been called so far as to be believers, he had besides a different thing committed to his hands, namely, the Apostleship, a thing full of countless blessings, and at once greater than and comprehensive of, all the gifts.

And what more need one say of it, than that whatsoever Christ was doing when present, this he committed to their hands when He departed. Which also Paul cries aloud, speaking thereof and magnifying the dignity of the Apostles’ office; “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech by us;” i.e. in Christ’s stead. “Separated to the Gospel of God.” (2 Cor. v. 20.) For as in a house, each one is set apart for divers works; thus also in the Church, there be divers distributions of ministrations. And herein he seems to me to hint, that he was not appointed by lot only, but that of old and from the first he was ordained to this office; which also Jeremy saith, that God spake concerning himself, “Before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.” (Jer. i. 5.) For in that he was writing to a vainglorious city, and one every way puffed up, he therefore uses every mode of showing that his election was of God. For he Himself called him, and Himself separated him. And he does this, that he may make the Epistle deserve credit, and meet an easy reception. “To the Gospel of God.” Not Matthew then alone is an Evangelist, nor Mark, as neither was this man alone an Apostle, but they also; even if he be 1192 οἰκονομίας, viz. the concealment of His glory in the Incarnation. 1193 It is noticeable that in the New Testament the apostles call the body of believers “saints,” but never apply this term to themselves or to one another. In later times the body of believers returned the compliment and fixed the term as a title upon the Apostles, New Testament writers, Church Fathers, and a large number of Christians more or less distinguished for learning or piety. Most Christians find the title more appropriate to the two first classes than to the two last.—G.B.S. said prëeminently to be this, and they that. And he calleth it the Gospel, not for those good things only which have been brought to pass, but also for those which are to come. And how comes he to say, that the Gospel “of God” is preached by himself? for he says, “separated to the Gospel of God”—for the Father was manifest, even before the Gospels. Yet even if He were manifest, it was to the Jews only, and not even to all of these as were fitting. For neither did they know Him to be a Father, and many things did they conceive unworthily of Him. Wherefore also Christ saith, “The true worshippers” shall come, and that “the Father seeketh such to worship Him.” (John iv. 23.) But it was afterwards that He Himself with the Son was unveiled to the whole world, which Christ also spake of beforehand, and said, “that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou has sent.” (John xvii. 3.) But he calls it the “Gospel” of God, to cheer the hearer at the outstart. For he came not with tidings to make the countenance sad, as did the prophets with their accusations, and charges, and reproofs, but with glad tidings, even the “Gospel of God;” countless treasures of abiding and unchangeable blessings.

Ver. 2. “Which He promised afore by His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures.”

For the Lord, saith he, “shall give the word to them that proclaim glad tidings with great power” (Ps. lxviii. 12, Sept.); and again, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace.” (Is. lii. 7; Rom. x. 15.) See here both the name of the Gospel expressly and the temper of it, laid down in the Old Testament. For, we do not proclaim it by words only, he means, but also by acts done; since neither was it human, but both divine and unspeakable, and transcending all nature. Now since they have laid against it the charge of novelty also, He shows it to be older than the Greeks, and described aforetime in the Prophets. And if He gave it not from the beginning because of those that were unwilling to receive it, still, they that were willing did hear it. “Your father Abraham,” He says, “rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it, and was glad.” (John viii. 56.) How then comes He to say, “Many prophets desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them?” (Matt. xiii. 17.) He means not so, as ye see and hear, the Flesh itself, and the very miracles before your eyes. But let me beg you to look and see what a very long time ago these things were foretold. For when God is about to do openly some great things, He announces them of a long time before, to practise men’s hearing for the reception of them when they come.

“In the Holy Scriptures.” Because the Prophets not only spake, but also writ what they spake; nor did they write only, but also shadowed them forth by actions, as Abraham when he led up Isaac, and Moses when he lifted up the Serpent, and when he spread out his hands1194 against Amalek, and when he offered the Paschal Lamb.

Ver. 3. “Concerning His Son which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh.”

Rom. I. 8

“First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”

An exordium worthy of this blessed spirit, and able to teach all men to offer unto God the firstlings of their good deeds and words, and to render thanks not only for their own, but also for others’ well-doings: which also maketh the soul pure from envy and grudging, and draweth God in a greater measure towards the loving spirit of them that so render thanks. Wherefore also elsewhere he says, “Blessed be God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessing.” (Eph. i. 3.) And it is fitting that we render thanks not only when rich, but also when poor, not when in health only, but also when sick, not when we thrive only, but also when we have to bear the reverse. For when our affairs are borne onward with a fair wind, to be thankful is not matter of wonder. But when no small tempests be upon us, and the vessel veers about and is in jeopardy, then is the great time for displaying patience and goodness of heart. For this cause Job also gained a crown from hence, and the shameless mouth of the devil did he stop, and show clearly that not even when he saw good days was it through his wealth that he was thankful, but through his much love toward God. And see too what things he is thankful for: not for things earthly and perishing, as power and authority and glory (for these things are of no account), but for real blessings, faith and boldness of speech. And with how much feeling1198 he gives thanks: for he saith not “to God,” but “to my God,” which also the Prophets do, so making that which is common to all their own. And what is there wonderful in the Prophets doing so? For God himself plainly does it continually to His servants, calling Himself the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, as peculiarly theirs. “That your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” What then, had the whole world heard of the faith of the Romans? Yes, the whole, according to him. (Or, since that time, πἅσα ἐξ ἐκείνου). And it is not a thing unlikely. For the city was not one of no note, but as being upon a sort of eminence it was on every account conspicuous. But consider, I pray, the power of the preaching, how in a short time by means of publicans and fishermen it took hold upon the very head of all cities, and Syrians became the teachers and guides of Romans. He attests then two excellencies in them, both that they believed, and that they believed with boldness, and that so great as that the fame of them reached into all the world. “For your faith,” he says “is spoken of throughout the whole world. Your faith,” not your verbal disputations, nor your questionings, nor your syllogisms. And yet there were there many hindrances to the teaching. 1198 διαθέσεως, see Ernesti Lex. Technol. in v. For having recently acquired the empire of the world they were elated, and lived in riches and luxury, and fishermen brought the preaching there, and they Jews and of the Jews, a nation hated and had in abomination among all men; and they were bidden to worship the Crucified, Who was brought up in Judea. And with the doctrine the teachers proclaimed also an austere life to men who were practised in softness, and were agitated about things present. And they that proclaimed it were poor and common men, of no family, and born of men of no family. But none of these things hindered the course of the word. So great was the power of the Crucified as to carry the word round everywhere. “For it is spoken of,” he says, “in all the world.” He says not, it is manifested, but, is spoken of, as if all men had them in their mouths. And indeed when he bears witness of this in the Thessalonians, he adds another thing also. For after saying, “from you sounded out the word of God,” he adds, “so that we need not to speak anything.” (1 Thess. i. 8.) For the disciples had come into the place of teachers, by their boldness of speech instructing all, and drawing them to themselves. For the preaching came not anywhere to a stand, but went over the whole world more rapidly than fire. But here there is only thus much—“it is spoken of.” He well says that “it is spoken of,” showing that there was no need to add aught to what was said, or to take away. For a messenger’s business is this, to convey from one to another only what is told him. For which cause also the priest is called a “messenger” (Mal. ii. 7), because he speaks not his own words, but those of Him that sent him. And yet Peter had preached there. But he reckons what was his, to be his own as well. In such degree, as I said before, was he beyond measure clear of all grudging!

Ver. 9. “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the Gospel of His Son.” Words these of an Apostle’s bowels of affection, the showing forth this of fatherly concernment! 1199 And what is it which he says, and why does he call God to witness? He had to declare his feeling toward them. Since then he had not as yet ever seen them, he therefore called no man to witness, but Him Who entereth in the hearts. For since he was saying, “I love you,” and as a token thereof alleged his praying continually for them, and wishing to come to them, and neither was this self-evident, he betakes himself to the trustworthy testimony. Will then any one of you be able to boast that he remembers, when praying at his house (ἐπὶ τἥς οἰκίας) the entire body of the Church? I think not. But Paul drew near to God in behalf not of one city only, but of the whole world, and this not once, or twice, or thrice, but continually. But if the continually bearing any one about in one’s memory would not happen without much love; to have any in one’s prayers, and to have them there continually, think what great affection and friendship that implies. But when he says, “Whom I serve with my spirit in the Gospel of His Son,” he shows us at once the grace of God, and also his own humble-mindedness; the grace of God because He entrusted to him so great a 1199 Four mss. διδασκαλίας, a father’s mode of Teaching. S. κηδεμονίας. matter; but his own humility, because he imputes it all not to his own zeal, but to the assistance of the Spirit. But the addition of “the Gospel,” shows the kind of ministry. For there are many and diverse modes of service. And as under kings all are ranged under one that beareth kingly power, and all have not to minister (διακονοὕνται) about the same thing, but to one belongeth the ministry of ruling armies and to another that of ordering cities and to another again that of keeping treasures in the storehouses, thus also in spiritual things, one serveth God and laboreth (λατρεύει καὶδουλεύει) in believing and ordering his own life well, and another in undertaking the care of strangers, and another in taking in hand the patronship of them that be in need. As even during the Apostle’s own time, they of Stephen’s company served God in the guardianship of the widows, others (ἄλλοι2 mss., all ὡν) in the teaching of the word, of whom also Paul was serving in the preaching of the Gospel. And this was the fashion of his service: for it was to this that he was appointed. On this account, he not only calls God to witness, but also says what he was entrusted with, to show that having so great things put into his hands, he would not have called Him Who trusted them to him to witness what was false. And therewith he wished to make another point out also, viz. that he could not but have this love and care for them. For that they might not say “who art thou? and, from whence? that thou sayest that thou art anxious over a city so great, and most imperial,” he shows that he must needs have this care,1200 if at least the sort of service that was committed to him, was to declare the Gospel: for he that hath this put into his hands, must needs have continually upon his mind them that are to receive the word. And he shows another thing besides this by saying, “in my spirit;” that this service is much higher than either the Gentile or the Jewish. For the Gentile is both fleshly and in error, and the Jewish is true indeed, yet even this is fleshly. But that of the Church is the opposite of the Gentile, but more lofty than the Jewish by a great deal. For the mode of our service is not with sheep and oxen and smoke and fat, but by a spiritual soul, which Christ also shows in saying that “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” (John iv. 24.)

“In the Gospel of His Son.” Having said above that it was the Father’s Gospel, here he says it is the Son’s. So indifferent is it to say the Father’s or the Son’s! For he had learnt from that blessed voice that the things of the Father are the Son’s, and the things of the Son are the Father’s. For “all Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine.” (John xvii. 10.)

“That without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers.” This is the part of genuine love, and he seems indeed to be saying some one thing, yet states four things even here. Both that he remembers, and that he does so continually, and that it is in his prayers, and that it is to ask great things for them.

Rom. I. 18

“For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness.”

Observe the discretion of Paul, how after encouraging by the gentler things, he turns his discourse to the more fearful. For after saying that the Gospel is the cause of salvation and of life, that it is the power of God, that it gendereth salvation and righteousness, he mentions what might well make them fear that were heedless of it. For since in general most men are not drawn so much by the promise of what is good as by the fear of what is painful, he draws them on both sides. For this cause too did God not only promise a kingdom, but also threaten hell. And the Prophets spake thus with the Jews, ever intermingling the evil with the good. For this cause too Paul thus varies his discourse, yet not any how, but he sets first the good things, and after the evil, to show that the former came of the guiding purpose of God, but the latter of the wickedness of the backsliding. And in this way the prophet puts the good first, saying, “If ye be willing and will obey me, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if ye be not willing and will not obey me, the sword shall devour you.” (Is. i. 19, 20.) So here too does Paul conduct his discourse. But observe him; Christ, he means, came to bring forgiveness, righteousness, life, yet not in any way, but by the Cross, which is greatest too and wonderful, that He not only gave such things, but that He also suffered such things. If then ye insolently scorn the gifts, then will the penalties await you. And see how he raises his language, “For the wrath of God,” he says, “is revealed from heaven.” Whence does this appear? If it be a believer who says this, we will tell him of the declarations of Christ, but if the unbeliever and the Grecian, him Paul silences, by what he says presently of the judgment of God, bringing an uncontrovertible demonstration from the things which were done by them. And this too is by far the most striking point in him, how he exhibits those who speak against the truth, as themselves bearing witness by the things which they do daily, and say, to the doctrines of the truth. But of this in the sequel: but for the present, let us keep to what is set before us. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.” And indeed even here this often takes place in famines and pestilences and wars: for each individually and all in common are punished. What will be the new thing then? That the chastisement will be greater, and common to all, and not by the same rules. For now what takes place is for correction; but then for vengeance.1213 And this also St. Paul showed, when he said, “We are chastened 1213 The author does not make it plain in what he understands the revelation of God’s wrath here spoken of to consist. He mentions famines and pestilences as things in which it “often takes place.” Paul evidently means that God’s wrath is manifest in the judicial hardening of the people for their sins (vid. vv. 21, 28). Their shameful deeds and lives are the penalty of their sin. “God punishes their sin by sin” (Weiss), that is, He made them reap now, that we should not be condemned with the world.” (1 Cor. xi. 32.) And now indeed to many such things usually seem to come not of the wrath from above, but of the malice of man. But then the punishment from God shall be manifest, when the Judge, sitting upon the fearful tribunal, shall command some to be dragged to the furnaces, and some to the outer darkness,1214 and some to other inexorable and intolerable punishments. And why is it that he does not speak as plainly as this, the Son of God is coming with ten thousand angels, and will call each man to account, but says, that “the wrath of God is revealed?” His hearers were as yet novices, and therefore he draws them first by things quite allowed by them. And besides what is here mentioned, he also seems to me to be aiming against the Greeks. And this is why he makes his beginning from this, but afterwards he introduces the subject of Christ’s judgment.

“Against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” Here he showeth that the ways of ungodliness are many, and that of truth, one. For error is a thing various and multiform and compound, but the truth is one. And after speaking of doctrines he speaks of life, mentioning the unrighteousness of men. For there be various kinds of unrighteousness also. One is in money affairs, as when any one deals unrighteously by his neighbor in these; and another in regard to women, when a man leaves his own wife, and breaks in upon the marriage of another. For St. Paul calls this also defrauding, saying thus, “That no man go beyond or defraud his brother in the matter.” (1 Thess. iv. 6.) Others again injure not the wife or property, but the reputation of their neighbor, and this too is unrighteousness. For “a good name is better than great riches.” (Prov. xxii. 1.) But some say that this also is said of Paul about doctrines. Still there is nothing to prevent its having been said of both. But what it is “to hold the truth in unrighteousness,” learn from the sequel.

Ver. 19. “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them.”

But this glory they invested stocks and stones with. As then he which is entrusted with the goods of the king, and is ordered to spend them upon the king’s glory, if he waste these upon robbers, and harlots, and witches, and make these splendid out of the king’s stores, the bitter fruit in sinful lives of their sinful choices and acts. The view of Ritschl that ὀργὴ θεοῦ is here eschatological in meaning seems very inadequately supported (vid. Godet on Romans—Am. ed. p. 102).—G.B.S. 1214 St. Basil speaks similarly of various punishments, Regulæ. Br. Tr. int. 267, ed. Ben. text ii. p. 507. Theophylact on Matt. viii. 12, seems to allude to this passage. Both say that “outer darkness” implies an “inner,” but seemingly in opposite senses, Theoph. taking ἔσω to be towards Heaven. Origen on Matt. xxii. 13 makes it a temporary punishment. St. Chrys. on Matt. xxii. 13. St. Aug. on Ps. vi. 6. St. Jerome on Matt. viii. 12, take it otherwise. See also St. Bas. on Ps. 33 (4), 11, text i. 151 e. See Maldonatus on Matt. viii. 12, and St. Chrys. on Rom. xvi. 16, infra on the difference of punishments. he is punished as having done the kingdom the greatest wrong. Thus they also who after having received the knowledge of God and of His glory, invested idols therewith, “held the truth in unrighteousness,” and, at least as far as was in their power, dealt unrighteously by the knowledge, by not using it upon fitting objects. Now, has what was said become clear to you, or must one make it still clearer? Perhaps it were needful to say somewhat more. What then is it which is here said? The knowledge of Himself God placed in men from the beginning. But this knowledge they invested stocks and stones with, and so dealt unrighteously to the truth, as far at least as they might. For it abideth unchanged, having its own glory immutable. “And whence is it plain that He placed in them this knowledge, O Paul?” “Because,” saith he, “that which may be known of Him is manifest in them.” This, however, is an assertion, not a proof. But do thou make it good, and show me that the knowledge of God was plain to them, and that they willingly turned aside. Whence was it plain then? did He send them a voice from above? By no means. But what was able to draw them to Him more than a voice, that He did, by putting before them the Creation, so that both wise, and unlearned, and Scythian, and barbarian, having through sight learned the beauty of the things which were seen, might mount up to God.1215 Wherefore he says,

Ver. 20. “For the invisible things of Him from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made.”

Which also the prophet said, “The heavens declare the glory of God.” (Ps. xix. 1.) For what will the Greeks (i.e. Heathen) say in that day? That “we were ignorant of Thee?” Did ye then not hear the heaven sending forth a voice by the sight, while the well-ordered harmony of all things spake out more clearly than a trumpet? Did ye not see the hours of night and day abiding unmoved continually, the goodly order of winter, spring, and the other seasons remaining both sure and unmoved, the tractableness (εὐγνωμοσύνην) of the sea amid all its turbulence and waves? All things abiding in order and by their beauty and their grandeur, preaching aloud of the Creator? For all these things and more than these doth Paul sum up in saying, “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.” And yet it is not for this God hath made these things, even if this came of it. For it was not to bereave them of all excuse, that He set before them so great a system of teaching, but that they might come to know Him. But by not having recognized1216 Him they deprived themselves of every excuse, and then to show how they are bereaved of excuse, he says,

Ver. 21. “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God.”

Rom. I. 26, 27

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another.”

All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases. But behold how here too, as in the case of the doctrines, he deprives them of excuse, by saying of the women, that “they changed the natural use.” For no one, he means, can say that it was by being hindered of legitimate intercourse that they came to this pass, or that it was from having no means to fulfil their desire that they were driven into this monstrous insaneness. For the changing implies possession. Which also when discoursing upon the doctrines he said, “They changed the truth of God for a lie.” And with regard to the men again, he shows the same thing by saying, “Leaving the natural use of the woman.” And in a like way with those, these he also puts out of all means of defending themselves by charging them not only that they had the means of gratification, and left that which they had, and went after another, but that having dishonored that which was natural, they ran after that which was contrary to nature. But that which is contrary to nature hath in it an irksomeness and displeasingness, so that they could not fairly allege even pleasure. For genuine pleasure is that which is according to nature. But when God hath left one, then all things are turned upside down. And thus not only was their doctrine Satanical, but their life too was diabolical. Now when he was discoursing of their doctrines, he put before them the world and man’s understanding, telling them that, by the judgment afforded them by God, they might through the things which are seen, have been led as by the hand to the Creator, and then, by not willing to do so, they remained inexcusable. Here in the place of the world he sets the pleasure according to nature, which they would have enjoyed with more sense of security and greater gladheartedness, and so have been far removed from shameful deeds. But they would not; whence they are quite out of the pale of pardon, and have done an insult to nature itself. And a yet more disgraceful thing than these is it, when even the women seek after these intercourses, who ought to have more sense of shame than men. And here too the judgment of Paul is worthy of admiration, how having fallen upon two opposite matters he accomplishes them both with all exactness. For he wished both to speak chastely and to sting the hearer. Now both these things were not in his power to do,1223 but one hindered the other. For if you 1223 3 mss. ταῦτα δὲ (βουλομένῳ) ἀμφότερα οὐκ ἐνὸν (κατορθοῦν). (Sav. ἐνῆν) but in these one cannot succeed merely by wishing it. speak chastely you shall not be able to bear hard upon the hearer. But if you are minded to touch him to the quick, you are forced to lay the naked facts before him in plain terms. But his discreet and holy soul was able to do both with exactness, and by naming nature has at once given additional force to his accusation, and also used this as a sort of veil, to keep the chasteness of his description. And next, having reproached the women first, he goes on to the men also, and says, “And likewise also the men leaving the natural use of the woman.” Which is an evident proof of the last degree of corruptness, when both sexes are abandoned, and both he that was ordained to be the instructor of the woman, and she who was bid to become an helpmate to the man, work the deeds of enemies against one another. And reflect too how significantly he uses his words. For he does not say that they were enamoured of, and lusted after one another, but, “they burned in their lust one toward another.” You see that the whole of desire comes of an exorbitancy which endureth not to abide within its proper limits. For everything which transgresseth the laws by God appointed, lusteth after monstrous things and not those which be customary. For as many oftentimes having left the desire of food get to feed upon earth and small1224 stones, and others being possessed by excessive thirst often long even for mire, thus these also ran into this ebullition of lawless love. But if you say, and whence came this intensity of lust? It was from the desertion of God:1225 and whence is the desertion of God? from the lawlessness of them that left Him; “men with men working that which is unseemly.” Do not, he means, because you have heard that they burned, suppose that the evil was only in desire. For the greater part of it came of their luxuriousness, which also kindled into flame their lust. And this is why he did not say being swept along or being overtaken,1226 an expression he uses elsewhere; but what? working. They made a business of the sin, and not only a business, but even one zealously followed up. And he called it not lust, but that which is unseemly, and that properly.1227 For they both dishonored nature, and trampled on the laws. And see the great confusion which fell out on both sides. For not only was the head turned downwards but the feet too were upwards, and they became enemies to themselves and to one another, bringing in a pernicious kind of strife, and one even more lawless than any civil war, and one rife in divisions, and of varied form. For they divided this into four new, and lawless kinds. Since (3 mss. whence) this war was not twofold or threefold, but even fourfold. Consider then. It was meet, that the twain should be one, I mean the woman and the man. For “the twain,” 1224 μικρὰς, mss. the fem. is used of jewels. The Translator once had some earth which the natives of Mozambique eat in this way; it becomes a dram to them, its taste is like magnesia with iron, which last would give it a stimulant property. There are some other instances, but cases of madness are perhaps intended. 1225 3 mss. I should say,.…and if you ask whence is the desertion of God, I shall answer you again. 1226 Gal. 6, 1. προληφθέντες, but 5 mss. παραλ. 1227 κυρίως, perhaps “as by name.” it says, “shall be one flesh.” (Gen. ii. 24.) But this the desire of intercourse effected, and united the sexes to one another. This desire the devil having taken away, and having turned the course thereof into another fashion, he thus sundered the sexes from one another, and made the one to become two parts in opposition to the law of God. For it says, “the two shall be one flesh;” but he divided the one flesh into two: here then is one war. Again, these same two parts he provoked to war both against themselves and against one another. For even women again abused women, and not men only. And the men stood against one an- other, and against the female sex, as happens in a battle by night. You see a second and third war, and a fourth and fifth; there is also another, for beside what have been mentioned they also behaved lawlessly against nature itself. For when the Devil saw that this desire it is, principally, which draws the sexes together, he was bent on cutting through the tie, so as to destroy the race, not only by their not copulating lawfully, but also by their being stirred up to war, and in sedition against one another.

“And receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” See how he goes again to the fountain head of the evil, namely, the impiety that comes of their doctrines, and this he says is a reward of that lawlessness. For since in speaking of hell and punishment, it seemed he would not at present be credible to the ungodly and deliberate choosers of such a life, but even scorned, he shows that the punishment was in this pleasure itself. (So Plato Theæt. p. 176, 7.) But if they perceive it not, but are still pleased, be not amazed. For even they that are mad, and are afflicted with phrenzy (cf. Soph. Aj. 265–277) while doing themselves much injury and making themselves such objects of compassion, that others weep over them themselves smile and revel over what has happened. Yet we do not only for this not say that they are quit of punishment, but for this very reason are under a more grievous vengeance, in that they are unconscious of the plight they are in. For it is not the disordered but those who are sound whose votes one has to gain. Yet of old the matter seemed even to be a law,1228 and a certain law-giver among them bade the domestic slaves neither to use unguents when dry (i.e. except in bathing) nor to keep youths, giving the free this place of honor, or rather of shamefulness. Yet they, however, did not think the thing shameful, but as being a grand privilege, and one too great for slaves, the Athenian people, the wisest of people, and Solon who is so great amongst them, permitted it to the free alone. And sundry other books of the philosophers may one see full of this disease. But 1228 See Müller’s Dorians, 1. iv. c. 4, §6, where it is shown that this charge is more than exaggerated from confounding earlier times with later. Aristotle, Pol. ii. and Plato, Leg. i. 636, accuse the Lacedæmonians in like manner, but see Xen. de Rep. Lac. ii. 13. Ælian. v. H. iii. I. 12, and other writers quoted by Müller. At Athens opinion was, according to Plato, rather lax than positively immoral: it may be doubted if Solon’s law (Aesch. in Tim. 19, 25,) was meant to bear the worst sense, though censured by Plutarch in almost the same terms as here. That there was however a fearful prevalence of this vice among the heathen cannot be disputed. we do not therefore say that the thing was made lawful, but that they who received this law were pitiable, and objects for many tears. For these are treated in the same way as women that play the whore. Or rather their plight is more miserable. For in the case of the one the intercourse, even if lawless, is yet according to nature: but this is contrary both to law and nature. For even if there were no hell, and no punishment had been threatened, this were worse than any punishment. Yet if you say “they found pleasure in it,” you tell me what adds to the vengeance. For suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully. But that I may show the atrocity in a yet clearer light, bear with me in one more example. Now if any one condemned a virgin to live in close dens (θαλομευομένην), and to have intercourse with unreasoning brutes, and then she was pleased with such intercourse, would she not for this be especially a worthy object of tears, as being unable to be freed from this misery owing to her not even perceiving the misery? It is plain surely to every one. But if that were a grievous thing, neither is this less so than that. For to be insulted by one’s own kinsmen is more piteous than to be so by strangers: these I say (5 mss. “I consider”) are even worse than murderers: since to die even is better than to live under such insolency. For the murderer dissevers the soul from the body, but this man ruins the soul with the body. And name what sin you will, none will you mention equal to this lawlessness. And if they that suffer such things perceived them, they would accept ten thousand deaths so they might not suffer this evil. For there is not, there surely is not, a more grievous evil than this insolent dealing. For if when discoursing about fornication Paul said, that “Every sin which a man doeth is without the body, but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body” (1 Cor. vi. 18); what shall we say of this madness, which is so much worse than fornication as cannot even be expressed? For I should not only say that thou hast become a woman, but that thou hast lost thy manhood, and hast neither changed into that nature nor kept that which thou haddest, but thou hast been a traitor to both of them at once, and deserving both of men and women to be driven out and stoned, as having wronged either sex. And that thou mayest learn what the real force of this is, if any one were to come and assure you that he would make you a dog instead of being a man, would you not flee from him as a plague? But, lo! thou hast not made thyself a dog out of a man, but an animal more disgraceful than this. For this is useful unto service, but he that hath thus given himself up is serviceable for nothing. Or again, if any one threatened to make men travail and be brought to bed, should we not be filled with indignation? But lo! now they that have run into this fury have done more grievously by themselves. For it is not the same thing to change into the nature of women, as to continue a man and yet to have become a woman; or rather neither this nor that. But if you would know the enormity of the evil from other grounds, ask on what account the lawgivers punish them that make men eunuchs, and you will see that it is abso- lutely for no other reason than because they mutilate nature. And yet the injustice they do is nothing to this. For there have been those that were mutilated and were in many cases useful after their mutilation. But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. How many hells shall be enough for such? But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration! And they know it well that have been at the place, and have seen with their eyes that scourge divinely sent, and the effect of the lightnings from above. (Jude 7.) Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time! For whereas many thought scorn of His words, by His deeds did God show them the image thereof in a certain novel way. For that rain was unwonted, for that the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable? Oh, what madness! Oh, what distraction! Whence came this lust lewdly revelling and making man’s nature all that enemies could? or even worse than that, by as much as the soul is better than the body. Oh, ye that were more senseless than irrational creatures, and more shameless than dogs! for in no case does such intercourse take place with them, but nature acknowledgeth her own limits. But ye have even made our race dishonored below things irrational, by such indignities inflicted upon and by each other. Whence then were these evils born? Of luxury; of not knowing God. For so soon as any have cast out the fear of Him, all that is good straightway goes to ruin.1229

Rom. I. 28

“Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”

Lest he should seem to be hinting at them by delaying in his discourse so long over the unnatural sin, he next passes on to other kinds of sins also, and for this cause he carries on the whole of his discourse as of other persons. And as he always does when discoursing with believers about sins, and wishing to show that they are to be avoided, he brings the Gentiles in, and says, “Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the other Gentiles which know not God.” (1 Thess. iv. 5.) And again: “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.” (ib. 13.) And so here too he shows that it was to them the sins belonged, and deprives them of all excuse. For he says, that their daring deeds came not of ignorance, but of practice. And this is why he did not say, “and as they knew not God;” but “as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge;” as much as to say, that the sin was one of a perverted determination of obstinacy, more than of a sudden ravishment, and shows that it was not the flesh (as some heretics say) but the mind,1230 to the wicked lust whereof the sins belonged, and that it was thence the fount of the evils flowed.1231 For since the mind is become undistinguishing,1232 all else is then dragged out of course and overturned, when he is corrupted that held the reins! (Plat. Phaedr. 246 A. B.)

Rom. II. 17, 18

“Behold,1246thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the Law.”

After saying that the Gentile wanteth nothing appertaining to salvation if he be a doer of the Law, and after making that wonderful comparison, he goes on to set down the glories of the Jews, owing to which they thought scorn of the Gentiles: and first the very name itself, which was of great majesty, as the name Christian is now. For even then the distinction which the appellation made was great. And so he begins from this, and see how he takes it down. For he does not say, Behold, thou art a Jew, but “art called” so, “and makest thy boast in God;” that is, as being loved by Him, and honored above all other men. And here he seems to me to be gently mocking their unreasonableness, and great madness after glory, because they misused this gift not to their own salvation, but to set themselves up against the rest of mankind, and to despise them. “And knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent.” Indeed this is a disadvantage, if without working: yet still it seemed to be an advantage, and so he states it with accuracy. For he does not say, thou doest, but knowest; and approvest, not followest and doest.1247

Ver. 19. “And art confident that thou thyself.”

Here again he does not say that thou art “a guide of the blind,” but “thou art confident,” so thou boastest, he says. So great was the unreasonableness of the Jews. Wherefore he also repeats nearly the very words, which they used in their boastings. See for instance what they say in the Gospels. “Thou wast altogether (ὅλος 4 mss. ὅλως) born in sin, and dost thou teach us?” (John ix. 34.) And all men they utterly looked down upon, to convince them of which, Paul keeps extolling them and lowering the others, that so he may get more hold on them, and make his accusation the weightier. Wherefore he goes on adding the like things, 1246 One ms. appears to have εἰ δὲ “but if,” with most mss. of the N.T., instead of ἴδε, “behold,” which St. Chrysostom appears to have read with the present T. R. 1247 From the 17th verse on the apostle speaks of the Jew by name and clearly shows that he had him in mind from the beginning of the chapter. The correct text reads εἰ δὲ instead of ἴδε to which the question of v. 21 corresponds as apodosis. Chrys.’ interpretation of δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαρέροντα is that which is followed by the Vulgate (“probas utiliora”), most anct. vss., Wordsworth, Meyer, and our Eng. vss. The majority of modern commentators, however, adopt the interpretation: “testest things that differ.” So Weiss, Godet, Wilke (Clavis N.T.), Lange, Tholuck. Alford, Philippi. This interpretation has the advantage of following the original meaning of both verbs.—G.B.S. and making more of them by different ways of relating them. For “Thou art confident,” he saith, “that thou thyself art a leader of the blind,”

Ver. 20. “An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and truth, which is in the Law.”

Here again he says not, in the conscience and in actions and in well-doings, but “in the Law;” and after saying so, he does here also what he did with regard to the Gentiles. For as there he says, “for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself,” so saith he here also.

Ver. 21. “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?”

But there he frames his speech with more of sharpness, here with more of gentleness. For he does not say, However on this score thou deservest greater punishment, because though entrusted with so great things thou hast not made a good use of any of them, but he carries his discourse on by way of question, turning them on themselves (ἐντρέπων), and saying, “Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” And here I would have you look at the discretion of Paul in another case. For he sets down such advantages of the Jews, as came not of their own earnestness, but by a gift from above, and he shows not only that they are worthless to them if neglectful, but that they even bring with them increase of punishment. For neither is the being called a Jew any well doing of theirs, nor yet is the receiving of the Law, nor the other things he has just enumerated, but of the grace from above. And towards the beginning he had said, that the hearing of the Law is valueless unless the doing be thereto added (“for not the hearers of the Law,” he says, “are just before God,”) but now he shows further still, that not only the hearing, but, what is more than the hearing, the teaching of the Law itself will not be able to screen the teacher, unless he do what he says; and not only will it not screen him, but will even punish him the more. And he has used his expressions well too, since he does not say, Thou hast received the Law, but “Thou restest in the Law.” For the Jew was not wearied with going about to seek what was to be done, but had on easy terms the Law pointing the way leading to virtue. For if even the Gentiles have natural reason (and it is on this ground that these are better than they, in that they do the Law without hearing), yet still the others had greater facility. But if you say, I am not only a hearer, but even a teacher, this very thing is an aggravation of your punishment. For because they prided themselves upon this,1248 from this above all he shows them to be ridiculous. But when he says, “a guide of the blind, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes,” he is speaking their own pompous language. For they treated proselytes extremely 1248 The younger Buxtorf, in his preface to his father’s Synagoga Judaica, gives specimens of their language, as from Cad Hakkemach, “Such is the power of Circumcision, that none who is circumcised goeth down into Hell,” and R. Abraham, than the Israelites were “all wise, all understanding, all skilled in the Law.” See also Smith’s Select Discourses, No. 7. ill, and these were the names they called them by. And this is why he dwells at large upon what were supposed to be their praises, well knowing that what was said gave ground for greater accusation; “Which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the Law.” As if any one who had a picture of the king, were to draw nothing after it, and they that were not entrusted with it were to imitate it exactly even without the original. And then after mentioning the advantages they had from God, he tells them of their failings, bringing forward what the prophets accused them of. “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?”1249 For it was strictly forbidden them to touch any of the treasures upon the idols (so Field from the mss.: Vulg. “in the idol temples”) by reason of the defilement. But the tyranny of avarice, he says, has persuaded you (4 mss. and mar. “us”) to trample this Law also under foot. Then he brings the far more grievous charge afterwards, saying,

Ver. 23. “Thou that makest a boast in the Law through breaking the Law dishonorest thou God?”

There are two accusations which he makes, or rather three. Both that they dishonor, and dishonor that whereby they were honored; and that they dishonor Him that honored them, which was the utmost extreme of unfeelingness. And then, not to seem to be accusing them of his own mind, he brings in the Prophet as their accuser, here briefly and concisely as it were in a summary, but afterwards more in detail, and here Isaiah, and after that David, when he had shown the grounds of reproof to be more than one. For to show, he means, that it is not I who speak these things to your reproach, hear what Isaiah saith.

Ver. 24. “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.” (Is. lii. 5; Ez. xxxvi. 20, 23.)

See again another double accusation. For they not only commit insolence themselves, but even induce others to do so. What then is the use of your teaching when ye teach not your own selves? Above, however, he merely said this, but here he has even turned it round to the contrary. For not only yourselves, but even others, do ye not teach what should be done. And what is far worse—ye not only teach not the things of the Law, but ye even teach the opposite, viz. to blaspheme God, which is opposite to the Law. But the circumcision, 1249 There are three interpretations of ἱεροσυλεῖς (22) (1) “rob (heathen) temples.” So Wilke, Meyer, Godet, Philippi, Alford, Conybeare and Howson, R.V. (2) “Rob the temple” (at Jerusalem, by embezzling or withholding the temple-tribute). So Hofmann, Ewald, Lange, Weiss. (3) “commit sacrilege,” Calvin, Bengel, Luther, A.V. marg. of R.V. The contrast with ὁβδελ, τὰ εἴδωλα strongly favors (1) which is adopted by Chrys. That such robbery had taken place among the Jews seems implied in Acts xix. 37, and is clearly referred to in Josephus’ Ant. iv. 8, 10.—G.B.S. one will say, is a great thing. Yea, I also confess it, but when? when (So all mss. S. “then, when”) it hath the inward circumcision. And observe his judgment, in bringing in what he says about it so opportunely. For he did not begin straightway with it, since the conceit men had of it was great. But after he had shown them to have offended in that which was greater1250 and to be responsible for the blasphemy against God, then having henceforth possession of the reader’s judgment against them, and having stripped them of their pre-eminence, he introduces the discussion about circumcision, feeling sure that no one will any more advocate it, and says,

Ver. 25. “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law.”

And yet, were this not so, a man might have rejected it and said, What is circumcision? for is it any good deed on his part that hath it? is it any manifestation of a right choice? For it takes place at an unripe age, and those in the wilderness too remained uncircumcised for a long time. And from many other points of view also, one might look at it as not necessary. And yet it is not on this foot that he rejects it, but upon the most proper ground, from the case of Abraham. For this is the most exceeding victory,—to take the very reason for showing it to be of small regard, whence it was held by them in reverence. Now he might have said that even the prophets call the Jews uncircumcised. But this is no disparagement of circumcision, but of those that hold ill to it. For what he aims at is to show that even in the very best life, it has not the least force. This is what he next proves. And here he does not bring forward the Patriarch, but having previously overturned it upon other grounds, he keeps him till afterwards, when he brings in what he has to say of faith, on the words—“How then was it reckoned” to Abraham? “when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision?” For so long as it is struggling against the Gentile and the uncircumcised, he is unwilling to say aught of this, lest he should be over irksome to them. But when it comes in opposition to the faith, then he disengages himself more completely for a combat with it. Up to the present point then it is uncircumcision that the contest is against, and this is why he advances in His discourse in a subdued tone, and says,

“For circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the Law; but if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” For here he speaks of two uncircumcisions, and two circumcisions, as also two laws. For there is a natural law and there is a written law. But there is one also between these, that by works. And see how he points these three out, and brings them before you.

“For when the Gentiles,” he says, “which have not the Law.” What Law, say? The written one. “Do by nature the things of the Law.” Of what Law? Of that by works. “These having not the Law.” What Law? The written one. “Are a law unto themselves.” How so? By using the natural law. “Who show the work of the Law.” Of what law? Of that by actions. For that 1250 ἀπὸ τοῦ μείζονος. Perhaps “the more guilty,” as having offended with greater advantages. which is by writing lieth outside; but this is within, the natural one, and the other is in actions. And one the writing proclaims; and another, nature; and another, actions. Of this third there is need,1251 for the sake of which also those two exist, both the natural and the written. And if this be not present they are of no good, but even very great harm. And to show this in the case of the natural he said, “For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself.” But of the written Law, thus—“Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” Thus also there are two uncircumcisions, one that of nature, and the second from conduct: and one circumcision in the flesh, and the other from the will. I mean for instance, a man has been circumcised upon the eighth day; this is circumcision of the flesh: a man has done all the Law bids him; this is circumcision of the mind which St. Paul requires above all, yea rather the Law also. See now how having granted it in words, he in deed does away with it. For he does not say the circumcision is superfluous, the circumcision is of no profit, of no use. But what saith he? “Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keepest the Law.” (Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6.) He approves it so far, saying, I confess and deny not that the circumcision is honorable. But when? When it has the Law kept along with it.

“But if thou be a breaker of the Law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” He does not say, it is no more profitable, lest he should seem to insult it. But having stripped the Jew of it, he goes on to smite him. And this is no longer any insult to circumcision, but to him who through listlessness has lost the good of it. As then in the case of those who are in dignified stations and are after convicted of the greatest misdemeanors, the judges deprive them of the honors of their stations and then punish them; so has Paul also done. For after saying, if thou art a breaker of the Law, thy “circumcision is made uncircumcision,” and having shown him to be uncircumcised, he condemns him after that without scruple.

Ver. 26. “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be turned1252 into circumcision?” See how he acts. He does not say that the uncircumcision overcomes circumcision (for this was highly grating to those who then heard him), but that the uncircumcision hath become circumcision. And he next enquires what circumcision is, and what uncircumcision and he says that circumcision is well doing and uncircumcision is evil doing. And having 1251 See Butler, Anal. II. i. v. fin. 1252 Four mss. have μετατραπήσεται, both here and a little below: the others read λογισθήσεται here, and then contradict themselves, by putting τραπήσεται there. The old Edd. have περιτραπήσεται. Nearly all mss. of the N.T. have λογισθήσεται: so we must either think with Heyse that St. Chrysostom expresses his definite opinion in favor of μετατρ. or with Matthiae that he made a slip of memory. first transferred into the circumcision the uncircumcised, who has good deeds, and having thrust out the circumcised man that lived a corrupt life into the uncircumcision, he so gives the preference to the uncircumcised. And he does not say, To the uncircumcised, but goes on to the thing itself, speaking as follows: “Shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?” And he does not say “reckoned,” but “turned to,” which was more expressive. As also above he does not say thy circumcision is reckoned uncircumcision, but has been made so.

Ver. 27. “And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature judge?”

You see, he recognizes two uncircumcisions, one from nature, and the other from the will. Here, however, he speaks of that from nature, but does not pause here, but goes on, “if it fulfil the Law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law?” See his exquisite judgment. He does not say, that the uncircumcision which is from nature shall judge the circumcision, but while where the victory had been, he brings in the uncircumcision, yet where the defeat is, he does not expose the circumcision as defeated; but the Jew himself who had it, and so by the wording spares offending his hearer. And he does not say, “thee that hast the Law and the circumcision,” but yet more mildly, “thee who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the Law.” That is, such uncircumcision even stands up for the circumcision, for it has been wronged and comes to the Law’s assistance, for it has been insulted, and obtains a notable triumph. For then is the victory decided, when it is not by Jew that Jew is judged, but by the uncircumcised; as when he says, “The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment against this generation, and shall condemn it.” (Matt. xii. 41.) It is not then the Law that he dishonors (for he reverences it greatly), but him that does disgrace to the Law. Next, having settled these grounds clearly, he goes on confidently to define what the Jew really is; and he shows that it is not the Jew, nor the circumcision, but he that is no Jew, and uncircumcised, whom he is rejecting. And he seemeth indeed to stand up in its behalf, but yet does away with the opinion regarding it, securing men’s concurrence by the conclusion he comes to. For he shows not only that there is no difference between the Jew and the uncircumcised, but that the uncircumcised has even the advantage, if he take heed to himself, and that it is he that is really the Jew; and so he says:

Ver. 12. “For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly.”

Here he attacks them as doing all things for show.

Ver. 29. “But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.”

By saying this he sets aside all things bodily. For the circumcision is outwardly, and the sabbaths and the sacrifices and purifications: all of which he hints in a single word, when he says, “For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly.” But since much was made of the cir- cumcision, inasmuch1253 as even the sabbath gave way to it (John vii. 22), he has good reason for aiming more especially against it. But when he has said “in the spirit” he thereafter paves the way for the conversation1254 of the Church, and introduces the faith. For it too is in the heart and spirit and hath its praise of God. And how cometh he not to show that the Gentile which doeth aright is not inferior to the Jew which doeth aright, but that the Gentile which doeth aright is better than the Jew which breaketh the Law? It was that he might make the victory an undoubted one. For when this is agreed upon, of necessity the circumcision of the flesh is set aside, and the need of a good life is everywhere demonstrated. For when the Greek is saved without these, but the Jew with these is yet punished, Judaism stands by doing nothing. And by Greek he again means not the idolatrous Greek, but the religous and virtuous, and free from all legal observances.

Chap. iii. ver. 1. “What advantage then hath the Jew?”1255

Since he has set all aside, the hearing, the teaching, the name of the Jew, the circumcision, and all the other particulars by his saying that “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he which is one inwardly;” he next sees an objection which starts up, and against this makes his stand. Now what is this objection? If, he means, these things are no use, what reason was there for that nation being called, and the circumcision too being given? What does he then and how does he solve it? By the same means as he did before: for as there, he told, not of their praises, but the benefits of God; nor their well doings (for to be called a Jew and to know His Will and to approve the things which are more excellent, was no well doing of their own, but came of the grace of God: and this the Prophet also says, upbraiding them; 1253 It might be observed, that all St. Paul’s reasoning here and to the Galatians holds against circumcision and the Sabbath alike. 1254 πολιτείU+0026 139·. We want a word to express at once the spiritual citizenship and the corresponding life. 1255 The passage iii. 1–8 considers four possible objections. (1) “This placing of Jews and Gentiles in the same condition, takes away all the theocratic prerogatives.” (v. 1.) No, answers Paul, they have a great advantage as to light and privilege, though none as to righteousness. (v. 2.) (2) “They have the O.T. scriptures, you say; but what if those scriptures have not attained their end in bringing the Jews to believe in Jesus as the Messiah? If some have not believed, does not that render void God’s promises to his people in the O.T., so that he is no longer bound by them?” (v. 3.) The answer is: “No, God is faithful to his promises in all conditions (v. 4). (3) “Then the unbelief of the Jews seems to be the occasion of eliciting God’s faithfulness. The conclusion would be that falseness contributes to God’s glory.” To this Paul gives no specific reply but develops the argument so as to show that it leads to a (5) position: “Let us do evil that good may come.” (v. 8.) He thinks it enough to exhibit the logical conclusion of such an objection. It is enough to know that it obliterates all moral distinctions and impugns the justice of God. Paul might have shown that from God’s overruling of sin to his praise the approval of sin does not follow. But he is content to make it clear that the objection is inconsistent with a righteous judgment of the world.—G.B.S. “He hath not done so to any nation, neither hath he showed His judgments unto them;” (Ps. cxlvii. 20.) and Moses again; “Ask now whether there hath been any such thing as this?” he says, “did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, and live?”) (Deut. iv. 32, 33), this then he does here also. For as, when speaking of circumcision, he did not say, Circumcision is valueless without a good life, but, Circumcision is of value with a good life, pointing out the same thing but in a more subdued tone. And again he does not say, If thou be a breaker of the Law, thou who art circumcised art no whit profited, but “thy circumcision is made uncircumcision:” and after this again, “the uncircumcision,” saith he, shall “judge,” not the circumcision, but “thee that dost transgress the Law,” so sparing the things of the Law, and smiting the persons. So he doth here also. For after setting before himself this objection, and saying, “what advantage then hath the Jew?” he says not, None, but he concurs with the statement, and confutes it again by the sequel, and shows that they were even punished owing to this preëminence. And how he does so, I will tell you when I have stated the objection. “What advantage then,” he says, “hath the Jew,” or “what profit is there of circumcision?”

Ver. 2. “Much every way: chiefly, because that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.”

Do you see that, as I said above, it is not their well doings, but the benefits of God, that he everywhere counts up? And what is the word ἐπιστεύθησαν? (they were trusted.) It means, that they had the Law put into their hands because He held them1256 to be of so much account that He entrusted to them oracles which came down from above. I know indeed that some take the “entrusted” not of the Jews, but of the oracles, as much as to say, the Law was believed in. But the context does not admit of this being held good. For in the first place he is saying this with a view to accuse them, and to show that, though in the enjoyment of many a blessing from above, they yet showed great ingratitude. Then, the context also makes this clear. For he goes on to say, “For what if some did not believe?” If they did not believe, how do some say, the oracles were believed in?1257 What does he mean then? Why that God entrusted the same to them, and not that they trusted to the oracles:1258 how else will the context make sense? For he farther goes on to say,

Ver. 3. “For what if some did not believe?”1259

Rom. III. 9–18

“What then have we more1267than they?1268For we have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues have they used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.”

He had accused the Gentiles, he had accused the Jews; it came next in order to mention the righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those that used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater punishment, then after this the salvation which is by grace was necessary. Speak then of it, O Paul, and display it. But as yet he does not venture, as having an eye to the violence of the Jews, and so turns afresh to his accusation of them; and first he brings in as accuser, David speaking of the same things at length, which Isaiah mentioned all in short compass, so furnishing a strong curb for them, so that they might not bound off, nor any of his hearers, while the matters of faith were laid open to them, might after this start away; being beforehand safely held down by the accusations of the prophets. For there are three excesses which the prophet lays down; he says that all of them together did evil, and that they did not do good indifferently with evil, but that they followed 1267 So St. Chrysostom here and in the next homily, but in both places some mss. (and Vulg. ante Field) had inserted the common reading of the text of the N.T. “what then? are we better than they? No, in no wise.” 1268 The meaning of προεχόμεθα here is much disputed. What is its subject? Most agree (vs. Olshausen, Reiche) that it is ᾽Ιουδαῖοι. Is προεχ. middle or passive? If middle, it may mean (1) Do we hold (a place) before them? Are we superior to them (the Gentiles) as respects the condition of sinfulness? So Vulgate (“proecellimus”) Luther, Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, Baur, De Wette, Alford, Weiss; or (2) Do we hold before us (any protection)? Have we any excuse or pretext? So Meyer, Godet, Schaff, on the ground that (1) is against the admitted advantage of the few (vv. 1, 2). If passive, it can mean (a) Are we held superior to them? This is substantially the same as (1) or (b) Are we surpassed by them? This is the sense given in the trans. of the R.V.: “Are we in worse case than they?” It connects v. 9 immediately with the special points of v. 1–8. It seems to me that it is better to suppose that he here breaks away from these special objections and recurs to the larger subject. In this view the προ in compos. points back to such passages as i. 18–32; ii. 15 and 17–29. The argument is: “We have established the sinfulness of all; therefore we Jews have no advantage in relation to sin, repentance and justification.”—G.B.S. after wickedness alone, and followed it also with all earnestness. And next that they should not say, “What then, if these things were said to others?” he goes on:

Ver. 19. “Now we know that what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law.”

This then is why, next to Isaiah, who confessedly aimed at them, he brought in David; that he might show that these things also belonged to the same subject. For what need was there, he means, that a prophet who was sent for your correction should accuse other people. For neither was the Law given to any else than you. And for what reason did he not say, we know that what things soever the prophet saith, but what things soever the Law saith? It is because Paul uses to call the whole Old Testament the Law. And in another place he says, “Do ye not hear the Law, that Abraham had two sons?” (Gal. iv. 21, 22.) And here he calls the Psalm the Law1269 when he says, “We know that what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law.” Next he shows that neither are these things he said merely for accusation’s sake, but that he1270 may again be paving the way for faith. So close is the relationship of the Old Testament with the New, since even the accusations and reproofs were entirely with a view to this, that the door of faith might open brightly upon them that hear it. For since it was the principal bane of the Jews that they were so conceited with themselves (which thing he mentioned as he went on, “how that being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and going about to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not themselves to the righteousness of God”) (Rom. x. 3), the Law and the Prophet by being beforehand with them cast down their high thoughts, and laid low their conceit, that being brought to a consideration of their own sins, and having emptied out the whole of their unreasonableness, and seen themselves in danger of the last extremity, they might with much earnestness run unto Him Who offered them the remission of their sins, and accept grace through faith. And this it is then which St. Paul hints even here, when he says,

“Now we know that what things soever the Law saith, it saith to them who are under the Law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.”

Here then he exhibits them as destitute of the boldness of speech which comes of works, and only using a parade of words and behaving in a barefaced way. And this is why he uses so literal an expression, saying, “that every mouth may be stopped,” so pointing out the barefaced and almost uncontrollable pomposity of their language, and that their tongue was now curbed in the strictest sense. For as an unsupportable torrent, so had it been borne along. But the prophet stopped it. And when Paul saith, “that every mouth may be stopped,” 1269 The term Law was commonly applied to all the Pentateuch by Jewish writers: but to the Psalms not so. They, however, viewed the whole Old Testament as an evolved form of the Law. 1270 So Field with 2 mss: others “that the Word,” one mss. and Vulg. “that the Law.” what he means is, not that the reason of their sinning was that their mouth might be stopped, but that the reason of their being reproved was that they might not commit this very sin in ignorance. “And all the world may become guilty before God.” He does not say the Jew, but the whole of mankind.1271 For the phrase, “that every mouth may be stopped,” is the language of a person hinting at them, although he has not stated it clearly, so as to prevent the language being too harsh. But the words “that all the world may become guilty before God,” are spoken at once both of Jews and of Greeks. Now this is no slight thing with a view to take down their unreasonableness. Since even here they have no advantage over the Gentiles, but are alike given up as far as salvation is concerned. For he would be in strict propriety called a guilty person, who cannot help himself to any excuse, but needeth the assistance of another: and such was the plight of all of us, in that we had lost the things pertaining to salvation.

Ver. 20. “For by the Law is the knowledge of sin.”

He springs upon the Law again, with forbearance however (for what he says is not an accusation of it, but of the listlessness of the Jews). Yet nevertheless he has been earnest here with a view (as he was going to introduce his discourse about faith) to show its utter feebleness. For if thou boastest in the Law, he means, it puts thee to the greater shame: it solemnly parades forth your sins before you. Only he does not word it in this harsh way, but again in a subdued tone; “For by the Law is the knowledge of sin.” And so the punishment is greater, but1272 that because of the Jew. For the Law accomplished the disclosure of sin to you, but it was your duty then to flee it. Since then you have not fled you have pulled the punishment more sorely on yourself, and the good deed of the Law has been made to you a supply of greater vengeance. Now then having added to their fear, he next brings in the things of grace, as having brought them to a strong desire of the remission of their sins, and says,

Ver. 21. “But now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested.”1273

Rom. IV. 1, 2

“What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.”

He had said (5 mss. εἶπεν), that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded, and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but “righteousness. Therein” (he says) “is the righteousness of God revealed.” (Rom. i. 17.) For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not “righteousness” only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great. However, he nevertheless draws support for this from what he is at present upon, and carries his discourse forward by the method of question. And this he is always in the habit of doing both for clearness sake, and for the sake of confidence in what is said. Above, for instance, he did it, where he says, “What advantage then hath the Jew?” (ib. iii. 1.) and, “What then have we more than they?”1293 (ib. 9) and again, “where then is boasting? it is excluded” (Rom. iii. 27): and here, “what then shall we say that Abraham our father?” etc. Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon (περιουσία νίκης πολλἥς). For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light. And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship (συγγενείας γνησίας) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship1294 with him. And then he says, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not before God.” 1293 Rom. iii. 9, τί οὖν προκατέχομεν περισσόν; as 2 mss. of Matt. read at the beginning of the last Homily. So too some mss. of the text, and the Syriac version. 1294 ἀγχιστείαν, which the orators use for right of inheritance as next of kin. See verses 13, 14; c. viii. 17; ix. 8; Gal. iii. 7, 15, 16, 18; Heb. ix. 16, 26; which renders it probable that there is reference to the death of Christ, (see Rev. xiii. 8.) and so to the idea of “Testament,” in the Ep. to the Galatians. After saying that God “justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith,” and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this righteous man the subject of the whole struggle; and that not without special meaning. Wherefore also he sets him up very high by calling him “forefather,” and putting a constraint upon them to comply with him in all points. For, Tell me not, he would say, about the Jews, nor bring this man or that before me. For I will go up to the very head of all, and the source whence circumcision took its rise. For “if Abraham,” he says, “was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not before God.”1295 What is here said is not plain, and so one must make it plainer. For there are two “gloryings,” one of works, and one of faith. After saying then, “if he was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God;” he points out that he might have whereof to glory from faith also,1296 yea and much greater reason for it. For the great power of Paul is especially displayed in this, that he turns what is objected to the other side, and shows that what seemed rather to be on the side of salvation by works, viz. glorying or boldness of claim (παρρησιάζεσθαι) belonged much more truly to that by faith. For he that glorieth in his works has his own labors to put forward: but he that finds his honor in having faith in God, has a much greater ground for glorying to show, in that it is God that he glorifieth and magnifieth. For those things which the nature of the visible world tells him not of, in receiving these by faith in Him, he at once displays sincere love towards Him, and heralds His power clearly forth. Now this is the character of the noblest soul, and the philosophic1297 spirit, and lofty mind. For to abstain from stealing and murdering is trifling sort of acquirement, but to believe that it is possible for God to do things impossible requires a soul of no mean stature, and earnestly affected towards Him; for this is a sign of sincere love. For he indeed honors God, who fulfils the commandments, but he doth so in a much greater degree who thus followeth wisdom (φιλοσοφὥν) by his faith. The former obeys Him, but the latter receives that opinion of Him which is fitting, and glorifies Him, and feels wonder at Him more than that evinced by works. For that glorying pertains to him that does aright, but this glorifieth God, and lieth wholly in Him. For he glorieth at conceiving great things concerning Him, which redound to His glory. And this is why he speaks of having whereof to glory before God. And not for this only, but 1295 St. Chrysostom understands πρὸς τὸν θεὸν not “as claiming credit with God,” but “glorying in reference to God,” in which He has a share. He takes the argument to be, “If Abraham was justified by works he hath not whereof to glory before God” (in this sense), “but can only glory in himself: as it is, he hath whereof to glory before God, and therefore was not justified by works.” 1296 4 mss. that he that is of faith might also have whereof to glory. 1297 φιλοσόφου γνώμης, the word is used (as frequently by Christian writers) in the sense of choosing wisdom for the guide of life. also for another reason: for he who is a believer glorieth again, not only because he loveth God in sincerity, but also because he hath enjoyed great honor and love from him. For as he shows his love to Him by having great thoughts about Him, (for this is a proof of love), so doth God also love him, though deserving to suffer for countless sins, not in freeing him from punishment only, but even by making him righteous. He then hath whereof to glory, as having been counted worthy of mighty love.

Ver. 4. “For1298 to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”

Then is not this last the greatest? he means. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned. But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor, and debtor too for no common things, but great and high ones. For to show his high-mindedness and spiritual understanding, he does not say “to him that believeth” merely, but Ver. 5. “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly.”

For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. Do not then suppose that this one is lowered in that it is not reckoned unto the former of grace. For this is the very thing that makes the believer glorious; the fact of his enjoying so great grace, of his displaying so great faith. And note too that the recompense is greater. For to the former a reward is given, to the latter righteousness. Now righteousness is much greater than a reward. For righteousness is a recompense which most fully comprehends several rewards. Therefore after proving this from Abraham, he introduces David also as giving his suffrage in favor of the statement made. What then doth David say? and whom doth he pronounce blessed? is it him that triumphs1299 in works, or him that hath enjoyed grace? him that hath obtained pardon and a gift? And when I speak of blessedness, I mean the chiefest of all good things; for as righteousness is greater than a reward, so is blessedness greater than righteousness. Having then shown that the righteousness is better, not owing to Abraham’s having received it only but also from reasonings (for he1300 hath whereof to boast, he says, before God1301); he again uses another mode of showing that it is more dignified, by bringing David in to give his suffrage this way. For he also, he says, pronounces him blessed who is so made righteous, saying,

Ver. 7. “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.”

Rom. IV. 23

“Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him for righteousness; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.”

After saying many great things of Abraham, and his faith, and righteousness, and honor before God, lest the hearer should say, What is this to us, for it is he that was justified? he places us close to the Patriarch again. So great is the power of spiritual words. For of one of the Gentiles, one who was recently come near, one who had done no work, he not only says that he is in nothing inferior to the Jew who believes (i.e. as a Jew), but not even to the Patriarch, but rather, if one must give utterance to the wondrous truth, even much greater. For so noble is our birth, that his faith is but the type of ours. And he does not say, If it was reckoned unto him, it is probable it will be also to us, that he might not make it matter of syllogism. But he speaks in authentic words of the divine law, and makes the whole a declaration of the Scripture. For why was it written, he says, save to make us see that we also were justified in this way? For it is the same God Whom we have believed, and upon the same matters, if it be not in the case of the same persons. And after speaking of our faith, he also mentions God’s unspeakable love towards man, which he ever presents on all sides, bringing the Cross before us. And this he now makes plain by saying,

Ver. 25. “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

See how after mentioning the cause of His death, he makes the same cause likewise a demonstration of the resurrection. For why, he means, was He crucified? Not for any sin of His own. And this is plain from the Resurrection. For if He were a sinner, how should He have risen? But if He rose, it is quite plain that He was not a sinner. But1326 if He was not a sinner, how came He to be crucified?—For others,—and if for others, then surely he rose again. Now to prevent your saying, How, when liable for so great sins, came we to be justified? he points out One that blotteth out all sins, that both from Abraham’s faith, whereby he was justified, and from the Saviour’s Passion, whereby we were freed from our sins, he might confirm what he had said. And after mentioning His Death, he speaks also of His Resurrection. For the purpose of His dying was not that He might hold us liable to punishment and in condemnation, but that He might do good unto us. For for this cause He both died and rose again, that He might make us righteous.

Rom. V. 12

“Wherefore as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon (διἥλθεν6 mss. εἴς…) all men, for that all have sinned.”

As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so doth the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? “Through the sin of one.” But what means, “for that all have sinned?” This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal.1339

Ver. 13. “For until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where there is no law.”

The phrase “till the Law” some think he used of the time before the giving of the Law—that of Abel, for instance, or of Noah, or of Abraham—till Moses was born. What was the sin in those days, at this rate? some say he means that in Paradise. For hitherto it was not done away, (he would say,) but the fruit of it was yet in vigor. For it had borne that death whereof all partake, which prevailed and lorded over us. Why then does he proceed, “But sin is not imputed when there is no law?” It was by way of objection from the Jews, say they who have spoken on our side,1340 that he laid this position down and said, if there be no sin without the Law, how came death to consume all those before the Law? But to me it seems that the sense presently to be given has more to be said for it, and suits better with 1339 This whole passage is introduced to show the glory and power of Christ’s salvation as able to conquer the power of sin and death. The case of Adam’s sin is not introduced for its own sake but as a background on which to exhibit the greatness of God’s grace. Two erroneous assumptions are often made in respect to this passage (1) that Adam’s sin and not God’s grace in Christ is the chief theme, and (2) that the Apostle intends here to set forth a theory of original sin. This verse contains four points (1) Sin came into the world by the agency of one man—Adam. (2) In consequence of sin came death. (3) In virtue of the causal relation between sin and death, the latter extended itself to all men, for the reason (4) that all sinned. The ὥσπερshows that this is used as an illustrative parallel to magnify the greatness of grace which is mightier than sin (cf. πολλῷ μᾶλλον vv. 15–17).—G.B.S. 1340 οἱ τὰ ἡμέτερα εἰρηκότες. The passage is corrupt in Savile: most mss. read φασὶν and λέγοντα. the Apostle’s meaning. And what sense is this? In saying, that “till the Law sin was in the world,” what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law.1341 If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death hath its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam’s disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for “death reigned,” he says, “from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned.”

How did it reign? “After the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.” Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? it will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider1342 of that righteousness which through His Cross1343 He graciously bestowed on us all. For this reason, at every turn he keeps to the “one,” and is continually bringing it before us, when he says, “As by one man sin entered into the world”—and, “If through the offence of one many be dead:” and, “Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift;” and, “The judgment was by one to condemnation:” and again, “If by one (or, the one) man’s offence death reigned by one;” and “Therefore as by the offence of one.” And again, “As by one man’s disobedience many (or, the many) were made sinners.” And so he letteth not go of the one, that when the Jew says to thee, How came it, that by the well-doing of this one Person, Christ, the world was saved? thou mightest be able to say to him, How by the disobedience of this one person, Adam, came it to be condemned? And yet sin and 1341 The apostle does not say that there can be no sin if there is no law. He says the exact contrary. He elsewhere says (iv. 15) that where there is no law there is no transgression. By “law” here he means positive, statutory commands and prohibitions. His meaning here is: God does not reckon ἁμαρτία as παράβασις where there is no explicit commandment. But sin was in the world during all this period previous to the Mosaic law, as proved by the reign of death. It extended its sway and penalty even to those who had not sinned, as Adam did, against positive enactment. We know well on what principle the apostle justifies his position that there is sin even where no written commandment is transgressed. The principle has been already developed viz.: there is a moral law implanted in the human heart (i. 19, 21; ii. 15). To offend against this is sin (though not transgression, which implies positive law) and induces death as its consequence.—G.B.S. 1342 πρόξενος. 1343 The comparison of the two Trees is very frequent in the Fathers; see St. Cyr. Cat. xiii. §19, p. 152, O.T. Tert. adv. Judæos, §13. grace are not equivalents, death and life are not equivalents, the Devil and God are not equivalents, but there is a boundless space between them. When then as well from the nature of the thing as from the power of Him that transacteth it, and from the very suitableness thereof (for it suiteth much better with God to save than to punish), the preëminence and victory is upon this side, what one word have you to say for unbelief, tell me? However, that what had been done was reasonable, he shows in the following words.

Ver. 15. “But not as the offence, so is also the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto the many.”

For what he says is somewhat of this kind. If sin had so extensive effects, and the sin of one man too; how can grace, and that the grace of God, not the Father only, but also the Son, do otherwise than be the more abundant of the two? For the latter is far the more reasonable supposition. For that one man should be punished on account of another does not seem to be much in accordance with reason. But for one to be saved on account of another is at once more suitable and more reasonable. If then the former took place, much more may the latter. Hence he has shown from these grounds the likelihood and reasonableness of it. For when the former had been made good, this would then be readily admitted. But that it is even necessarily so, he makes good from what follows. How then does he make it good?

Ver. 16. “And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift. For the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.”

And what is this that he is speaking of? It is that sin had power to bring in death and condemnation; but grace did not do away that one sin only, but also those that followed after in its train. Lest then the words “as” and “so” might seem to make the measure of the blessings and the evils equal, and that you might not think, upon hearing of Adam, that it was only that sin which he had brought in which was done away with, he says that it was from many offences that an indemnity was brought about. How is this plain? Because after the numberless sins committed after that in paradise, the matter issued in justification. But where righteousness is, there of necessity follows by all means life, and the countless blessings, as does death where sin was. For righteousness is more than life, since it is even the root of life. That there were several goods then brought in, and that it was not that sin only that was taken away, but all the rest along with it, he points out when he says, that “the gift was of many offences unto justification.” In which a proof is necessarily included, that death was also torn up by the roots. But since he had said, that the second was greater than the first, he is obliged to give further grounds again for this same thing. For, before, he had said that if one man’s sin slew all, much more will the grace of One have the power to save. After that he shows that it was not that sin only that was done away by the grace, but all the rest too, and that it was not that the sins were done away only, but that righteousness was given. And Christ did not merely do the same amount of good that Adam did of harm, but far more and greater good. Since then he had made such declarations as these, he wants again here also further confirmation of these. And how does he give this confirmation? He says,

Ver. 17. “For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift and (so Field with most mss.) of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”

What he says, amounts to this nearly. What armed death against the world? The one man’s eating from the tree only. If then death attained so great power from one offence, when it is found that certain received a grace and righteousness out of all proportion to that sin, how shall they still be liable to death? And for this cause, he does not here say “grace,” but “superabundance of grace.” For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of His grace, but even far more. For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above (John iii. 3) and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the Only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one Body with Him, and counted for His Flesh, and even as a Body with the Head, so were we united unto Him! All these things then Paul calls a “superabundance” of grace, showing that what we received was not a medicine only to countervail the wound, but even health, and comeliness, and honor, and glory and dignities far transcending our natural state. And of these each in itself was enough to do away with death, but when all manifestly run together in one, there is not the least vestige of it left, nor can a shadow of it be seen, so entirely is it done away. As then if any one were to cast a person who owed ten mites (ὀβόλους) into prison, and not the man himself only, but wife and children and servants for his sake; and another were to come and not to pay down the ten mites only, but to give also ten thousand talents of gold, and to lead the prisoner into the king’s courts, and to the throne of the highest power, and were to make him partaker of the highest honor and every kind of magnificence, the creditor would not be able to remember the ten mites; so hath our case been. For Christ hath paid down far more than we owe, yea as much more as the illimitable ocean is than a little drop. Do not then, O man, hesitate as thou seest so great a store of blessings, nor enquire how that mere spark of death and sin was done away, when such a sea of gifts was brought in upon it. For this is what Paul intimated by saying that “they who have received the abundance of the grace and righteousness shall reign in life.” And as he had now clearly demonstrated this, he again makes use of his former argument, clenching it by taking up the same word afresh, and saying that if for that offence all were punished, then they may be justified too by these means.1344 And so he says,

Ver. 18. “Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

And he insists again upon it, saying,

Ver. 19. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.

What he says seems indeed to involve no small question: but if any one attends to it diligently, this too will admit of an easy solution. What then is the question? It is the saying that through the offence of one many were made sinners. For the fact that when he had sinned and become mortal, those who were of him should be so also, is nothing unlikely. But how would it follow that from his disobedience another would become a sinner? For at this rate a man of this sort will not even deserve punishment, if, that is, it was not from his own self that he became a sinner. What then does the word “sinners” mean here? To me it seems to mean liable to punishment and condemned to death. Now that by Adam’s death we all became mortals, he had shown clearly and at large. But the question now is, for what purpose was this done? But this he does not go on to add: for it contributed nothing to his present object. For it is against a Jew that the contest is, who doubted and made scorn of the righteousness by One. And for this reason after showing that the punishment too was brought in by one upon all, the reason why this was so he has not added. For he is not for superfluities, but keeps merely to what is necessary. For this is what the principles of disputation did not oblige him to say any more than the Jew; and therefore he leaves it unsolved. But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation1345, if we be soberminded, that we are the gainers even by having become mortal, first, because it is not an immortal body in which we sin; secondly, because we get numberless grounds for being religious (φιλοσοφίας). For to be moderate, and to be temperate, and to be subdued, and to keep ourselves clear of all wickedness, is what death by its presence and by its being expected persuades us to. But following with these, or rather even before these, it hath introduced other greater blessings besides. For it is from hence that the crowns of the martyrs 1344 Chrys. has well apprehended v. 15–17 as an argument a fortiori. Here are three contrasts between the principles of sin and grace to show the superior power of the latter: (1) It is a much more reasonable and supposable case that many should find life in one man’s act than that many should suffer death in consequence of one man’s sin, v. 15. (2) The condemnation has in it (so to speak) only the power of one sin; the gracious gift overcomes many trespasses, v. 16. (3) Life in Christ must be greater than death in Adam.—G.B.S. 1345 i.e. since we have been redeemed. See on Rom. ix. 11. come, and the rewards of the Apostles. Thus was Abel justified, thus was Abraham, in having slain his son, thus was John, who for Christ’s sake was taken off, thus were the Three Children, thus was Daniel. For if we be so minded, not death only, but even the devil himself will be unable to hurt us. And besides there is this also to be said, that immortality awaits us, and after having been chastened a little while, we shall enjoy the blessings to come without fear, being as if in a sort of school in the present life, under instruction by means of disease, tribulation, temptations, and poverty, and the other apparent evils, with a view to our becoming fit for the reception of the blessings of the world to come.

Ver. 20. “Moreover the Law entered: that the offence might abound.”

Since then he had shown that the world was condemned from Adam, but from Christ was saved and freed from condemnation, he now seasonably enters upon the discussion of the Law, here again undermining the high notions of it. For it was so far from doing any good, he means, or from being any way helpful, but the disorder was only increased by its having come in. But the particle “that” again does not assign the cause, but the result. For the purpose of its being given was not “in order that” it might abound, for it was given to diminish and destroy the offence. But it resulted the opposite way, not owing to the nature of the Law, but owing to the listlessness of those who received it.1346 But why did he not say the Law was given, but “the Law entered by the way?” It was to show that the need of it was temporary, and not absolute or imperative. And this he says also to the Galatians, showing the very same thing another way. “For before faith came,” he says, “we were kept under the Law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” And so it was not for itself, but for another, that it kept the flock. For since the Jews were somewhat grossminded, and enervated, and indifferent to the gifts themselves, this was why the Law was given, that it might convict them the more, and clearly teach them their own condition, and by increasing the accusation might the more repress them. But be not thou afraid, for it was not that the punishment might be greater that this was done, but that the grace might be seen to be greater. And this is why he proceeds,

“But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.”

He does not say did abound, but “did much more abound.” For it was not remission from punishment only that He gave us, but that from sins, and life also. As if any were not merely to free a man with a fever from his disease, but to give him also beauty, and strength, 1346 The Author’s view of ἵνα πλεονάσῃ cannot be exegetically justified. Paul teaches that it was the purpose of the dispensation of law which came in between Adam and Christ to make transgression abound (cf. Gal. iii. 9). The meaning is not that its purpose in coming in alongside (παρεισῆλθεν) of this reign of sin was to increase sin; but to make sin appear as such, to exhibit it as transgression and to reveal it in its true character to the consciousness of men. Only through the law could sin appear as transgression and thus be apprehended by men in the clearest manner as contrary to God’s will (cf. iv. 15 and v. 13).—G.B.S. and rank; or again, were not to give one an hungered nourishment only, but were to put him in possession of great riches, and were to set him in the highest authority. And how did sin abound? some will say. The Law gave countless commands. Now since they transgressed them all, trangression became more abundant. Do you see what a great difference there is between grace and the Law? For the one became an addition to the condemnation, but the other, a further abundance of gifts. Having then mentioned the unspeakable munificence, he again discusses the beginning and the root both of death and of life. What then is the root of death? It is sin. Wherefore also he saith,

Ver. 21. “That as sin reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This he says to show that the latter ranks as a king, the former, death, as a soldier, being marshalled under the latter, and armed by it. If then the latter (i.e. sin) armed death, it is plain enough that the righteousness destructive hereof, which by grace was introduced, not only disarms death, but even destroys it, and undoes entirely the dominion thereof, in that it is the greatest of the two, as being brought in not by man and the devil, but by God and grace, and leading our life unto a goodlier estate, and to blessings unlimited. For of it there will never be any end (to give you a view of its superiority from this also). For the other cast us out of our present life, but grace, when it came, gave us not the present life, but the immortal and eternal one. But for all these things Christ is our voucher. Doubt not then for thy life if thou hast righteousness, for righteousness is greater than life as being mother of it.

Chap. vi. ver. 1. “What then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.”

He is again turning off to exhortation, yet introducing it not directly, lest he should seem to many to be irksome and vexing, but as if it rose out of the doctrines. For if, even so diversifying his address, he was afraid of their being offended at what he said, and therefore said, “I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort,” (Rom. xv. 15) much more would he have seemed to them, had he not done so, to be too harsh. Since then he showed the greatness of the grace by the greatness of the sins it healed, and owing to this it seemed in the eyes of the unthinking to be an encouragement to sin (for if the reason, they would say, why greater grace was shown, was because we had done great sins, let us not give over sinning, that grace may be more displayed still), now that they might not say this or suspect it, see how he turns the objection back again. First he does it by his deprecation. “God forbid.” And this he is in the habit of doing at things confessed on all hands to be absurd. And then he lays down an irrefragable argument. And what is it?

Ver. 2. “How shall we,” he says, “that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

Rom. VI. 5

“For if we have been planted together1355in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.” What I had before occasion to remark, that I mention here too, that he continually digresseth into exhortation, without making any twofold division as he does in the other Epistles, and setting apart the former portion for doctrines, and the latter for the care of moral instruction. Here then he does not do so, but blends the latter with the subject throughout, so as to gain it an easy admission. Here then he says there are two mortifyings, and two deaths, and that one is done by Christ in Baptism, and the other it is our duty to effect by earnestness afterwards. For that our former sins were buried, came of His gift. But the remaining dead to sin after baptism must be the work of our own earnestness, however much we find God here also giving us large help. For this is not the only thing Baptism has the power to do, to obliterate our former transgressions; for it also secures against subsequent ones. As then in the case of the former, thy contribution was faith that they might be obliterated, so also in those subsequent to this, show thou forth the change in thine aims, that thou mayest not defile thyself again. For it is this and the like that he is counselling thee when he says, “for if we have been planted together in the likeness of His Death, we shall be also in the likeness of His Resurrection.” Do you observe, how he rouses the hearer by leading him straightway up to his Master, and taking great pains to show the strong likeness? This is why he does not say “in death,” lest you should gainsay it, but, “in the likeness of His Death.” For our essence itself hath not died, but the man of sins, that is, wickedness. And he does not say, “for if we have been” partakers of “the likeness of His Death;” but what? “If we have been planted together,” so, by the mention of planting, giving a hint of the fruit resulting to us from it. For as His Body, by being buried in the earth, brought forth as the fruit of it the salvation of the world; thus ours also, being buried in baptism, bore as fruit righteousness, sanctification, adoption, countless blessings. And it will bear also hereafter the gift of the resurrection. Since then we were buried in water, He in earth, and we in regard to sin, He in regard to His Body, this is why he did not say, “we were planted together in His Death,” but “in the likeness of His Death.” For both the one and the other is death, but not that of the same subject. If then he says, “we have been planted together in His Death,1356 1355 Better: “United with him by the likeness” or “united with the likeness.” See, note *, p. 409.—G.B.S. 1356 The construction here is harsh, and seems to require “in the likeness of.” we shall be in that of His Resurrection,” speaking here of the Resurrection which (Gr. be of His Resurrection) is to come. For since when he was upon the subject of the Death before, and said, “Know ye not, brethren, that so many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His Death?” he had not made any clear statement about the Resurrection, but only about the way of life after baptism, bidding men walk in newness of life; therefore he here resumes the same subject, and proceeds to foretell to us clearly that Resurrection. And that you may know that he is not speaking of that resulting from baptism, but about the other, after saying, “for if we were planted together in the likeness of His Death,” he does not say that we shall be in the likeness of His Resurrection,1357 but we shall belong to the Resurrection.1358 For to prevent thy saying, and how, if we did not die as He died, are we to rise as He rose? when he mentioned the Death, he did not say, “planted together in the Death,” but, “in the likeness of His Death.” But when he mentioned the Resurrection, he did not say, “in the likeness of the Resurrection,” but we shall be “of the Resurrection” itself. And he does not say, We have been made, but we shall be, by this word again plainly meaning that Resurrection which has not yet taken place, but will hereafter. Then with a view to give credibility to what he says, he points out another Resurrection which is brought about here before that one, that from that which is present thou mayest believe also that which is to come. For after saying, “we shall be planted together in the Resurrection,” he adds,

Ver. 6. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.”

Rom. VI. 19

“I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members (so 4 mss. Sav. the members of your flesh) servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.”

Since he had required great strictness of life, charging us to be dead to the world, and to have died unto wickedness, and to abide with no notion towards the workings of sin, and seemed to be saying something great and burdensome, and too much for human nature; through a desire to show that he is not making any exorbitant demand, nor even as much as might be expected of one who enjoyed so great a gift, but one quite moderate and light, he proves it from contraries, and says, “I speak after the manner of men,” as much as to say, Going by human reasonings; by such as one usually meets with. For he signifies either this, or the moderateness of it, by the term applied, “after the manner of men.” For elsewhere he uses the same word. “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man” (1 Cor. x. 13), that is, moderate and small. “For as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” And truly the masters are very different ones, but still it is an equal amount of servitude that I ask. For men ought to give a much larger one, and so much the larger as this is a greater and better mastership than the other. Nevertheless I make no greater demand “because of the infirmity,” and that, he does not say of your free will or readiness of spirit, but “of your flesh,” so making what he says the less severe. And yet on one side there is uncleanness, on the other holiness: on the one iniquity, and on the other righteousness. And who is so wretched, he says, and in such straits as not to spend as much earnestness upon the service of Christ, as upon that of sin and the devil? Hear then what follows, and you will see clearly that we do not even spend this little. For when (stated in this naked way) it does not seem credible or easy to admit, and nobody would endure to hear that he does not serve Christ so much as he did serve the devil, he proves it by what follows, and renders it credible by bringing that slavery before us, and saying how they did serve him.1371

Rom. VII. 14

“For we know that the Law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.”

After having said that great evils had taken place, and that sin, taking occasion by the commandment, had grown stronger, and the opposite of what the Law mainly aimed at had been the result, and after having thrown the hearer into a great deal of perplexity, he goes on next to give the rationale of these events, after first clearing the Law of any ill suspicion. For lest—upon hearing that it was through the commandment that sin took that occasion, and that it was when it came that sin revived, and through it deceived and killed—any one should suppose the Law to be the source of these evils, he first sets forth its defence with considerable advantage, not clearing it from accusation only, but encircling it also with the utmost praise. And this he lays down, not as granting it for his own part, but as declaring a universal judgment. “For we know,” he says, “that the Law is spiritual.” As if he had said, This is an allowed thing, and self-evident, that it “is spiritual,” so far is it from being the cause of sin, or to blame for the evils that have happened. And observe, that he not only clears it of accusation, but bestows exceeding great praise upon it. For by calling it spiritual, he shows it to be a teacher of virtue and hostile to vice; for this is what being spiritual means, leading off from sin of every kind. And this the Law did do, by frightening, admonishing, chastening, correcting, recommending every kind of virtue. Whence then, was sin produced, if the teacher was so admirable? It was from the listlessness of its disciples. Wherefore he went on to say, “but I am carnal;” giving us a sketch now of man, as comporting himself in the Law, and before the Law.1390 “Sold under sin.” Because with death (he means) the throng 1390 Chrys. gives no hint of any controversy as to the interpretation of the passage vii. 14–25. In modern times the question has been greatly disputed: Whom does the apostle represent by the “I” who is waging such an unsuccessful combat with sin? Passing by the views that he refers to himself personally (Hofmann) and that he refers to the Jewish people under the old dispensation (Grotius, Reiche), two opinions have prevailed among interpreters (1) that he is representing the regenerate man. (For the arguments by which this view is supported see Hodge on Romans in loco). (2) That he is here personating the unregenerate man who, however, has become awakened under the law to a sense of his sinful condition. This view is preferred on the following grounds. (1) The connection of 14–25 with the argument of 7–13, which shows the power of the law to awaken the consciousness of sin and can therefore apply only to the Jew aroused by the law. (2) The relation of the passage to chap. viii. In vii. 25the apostle mounts to the Christian plane and in ch. viii. exults in the liberation from the conflict just described which Christ brings to the soul. (3) Much of the language of vii. 14–25 is inconsistent with the consciousness of a regenerate man and especially with Paul’s joyous and triumphant view of the Christian life. (4) The language throughout is appropriate, not, indeed, to the morally indifferent man, but to the unconverted Jew whom the law has awakened to a knowledge of his sin and need, and this is precisely the subject under of passions also came in. For when the body had become mortal, it was henceforth a necessary thing for it to receive concupiscence, and anger, and pain, and all the other passions, which required a great deal of wisdom (φιλοσοφίας) to prevent their flooding us, and sinking reason in the depth of sin. For in themselves they were not sin,1391 but, when their extravagancy was unbridled, it wrought this effect. Thus (that I may take one of them and examine it as a specimen) desire is not sin: but when it has run into extravagance, being not minded to keep within the laws of marriage,1392 but springing even upon other men’s wives; then the thing henceforward becomes adultery, yet not by reason of the desire, but by reason of its exorbitancy. And observe the wisdom of Paul. For after praising the Law, he hastens immediately to the earlier period, that he may show the state of our race, both then and at the time it received the Law, and make it plain how necessary the presence of grace was, a thing he labored on every occasion to prove. For when he says, “sold under sin,” he means it not of those who were under the Law only, but of those who had lived before the Law also, and of men from the very first. Next he mentions the way in which they were sold and made over.

Ver. 15. “For that which I do, I know not.”

What does the “I know not” mean?—I am ignorant. And when could this ever happen? For nobody ever sinned in ignorance. Seest thou, that if we do not receive his words with the proper caution, and keep looking to the object of the Apostle, countless incongruities will follow? For if they sinned through ignorance, then they did not deserve to be punished. As then he said above, “for without the Law sin is dead,” not meaning that they did not know they were sinning, but that they knew indeed, but not so distinctly; wherefore they were punished, but not so severely: and again; “I should not have known lust;” not meaning an entire ignorance of it, but referring to the most distinct knowledge of it; and said, that it also “wrought in me all manner of concupiscence,” not meaning to say that the commandment made the concupiscence, but that sin through the commandment introduces an intense degree of concupiscence; so here it is not absolute ignorance that he means by saying, “For what I do, I know not;” since how then would he have pleasure in the law of God in his inner man? What then is this, “I know not?” I get dizzy, he means, I feel carried away,1393 I find consideration in the earlier verses of the Chap. So Tholuck, De Wette, Alford, Olshausen, Lange, Meyer, Weiss, Godet). Chrys. rather takes for granted, than states the same view, in saying that it is “a sketch of man as comporting himself in the law and before the law.”—G.B.S. 1391 The words of the Fathers on this subject become more definite after the Pelagian Controversy. St. Aug. contr. Julianum, i. 2, §32. (Ben. t. 10), speak thus of concupiscence, (not in act, but as an inherited habit). “It is not however called sin in the sense of making one guilty, but in that it is caused by the guilt of the first man, and in that it rebels, and strives to draw us into guilt except grace aid us.” 1392 So Field from most mss. Sav. lawful marriage. 1393 ἐμποδισμὸς ταῖς βουλήσεσι. Arist. Rhet. ii. a violence done to me, I get tripped up without knowing how. Just as we often say, Such an one came and carried me away with him, without my knowing how; when it is not ignorance we mean as an excuse, but to show a sort of deceit, and circumvention, and plot. “For what I would, that I do not: but what I hate, that I do.” How then canst thou be said not to know what thou art doing? For if thou willest the good, and hatest the evil, this requires a perfect knowledge. Whence it appears that he says, “that I would not,” not as denying free will, or as adducing any constrained necessity. For if it was not willingly, but by compulsion, that we sinned, then the punishments that took place before would not be justifiable. But as in saying “I know not,” it was not ignorance he set before us, but what we have said; so in adding the “that I would not,” it is no necessity he signifies, but the disapproval he felt of what was done.1394 Since if this was not his meaning in saying, “That which I would not, that I do:” he would else have gone on, “But I do what I am compelled and enforced to.” For this is what is opposed to willing and power (ἐξουσίU+0026 139·). But now he does not say this, but in the place of it he has put the word, “that I hate,” that you might learn how when he says, “that I would not,” he does not deny the power. Now, what does the “that I would not” mean? It means, what I praise not, what I do not approve, what I love not. And in contradistinction to this, he adds what follows; “But what I hate, that I do.”

Ver. 16. “If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the Law, that it is good.”

You see here, that the understanding is not yet perverted, but keeps up its own noble character even during the action. For even if it does pursue vice, still it hates it the while, which would be great commendation, whether of the natural or the written Law. For that the Law is good, is (he says) plain, from the fact of my accusing myself, when I disobey the Law, and hate what has been done. And yet if the Law was to blame for the sin, how comes it that he felt a delight in it, yet hated what it orders to be done? For, “I consent,” he says, “unto the Law, that it is good.”

Ver 17, 18. “Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.”

On this text, those who find fault with the flesh, and contend it was no part of God’s creation, attack us. What are we to say then? Just what we did before, when discusssing the Law: that as there he makes sin answerable for everything so here also. For he does not say, that the flesh worketh it, but just the contrary, “it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.” But if he does say that “there dwelleth no good thing in it,” still this is no charge against 1394 This seems to have been Plato’s view of free-will. See Tenneman, Plat. Philos. iv. p. 34, οὐδεὶς ἕκων πονηρὸς, etc. the flesh. For the fact that “no good thing dwelleth in it,” does not show that it is evil itself. Now we admit, that the flesh is not so great as the soul, and is inferior to it, yet not contrary, or opposed to it, or evil; but that it is beneath the soul, as a harp beneath a harper, and as a ship under the pilot. And these are not contrary to those who guide and use them, but go with them entirely, yet are not of the same honor with the artist. As then a person who says, that the art resides not in the harp or the ship, but in the pilot or harper, is not finding fault with the instruments, but pointing out the great difference between them1395 and the artist; so Paul in saying, that “in my flesh dwelleth no good thing,” is not finding fault with the body, but pointing out the soul’s superiority. For this it is that has the whole duty or pilotage put into its hands, and that of playing. And this Paul here points out, giving the governing power to the soul, and after dividing man into these two things, the soul and the body, he says, that the flesh has less of reason, and is destitute of discretion, and ranks among things to be led, not among things that lead. But the soul has more wisdom, and can see what is to be done and what not, yet is not equal to pulling in the horse as it wishes. And this would be a charge not against the flesh only, but against the soul also, which knows indeed what it ought to do, but still does not carry out in practice what seems best to it. “For to will,” he says, “is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not.” Here again in the words, “I find not,” he does not speak of any ignorance or perplexity, but a kind of thwarting and crafty assault made by sin, which he therefore points more clearly out in the next words.

Ver. 19, 20. “For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me.”

Do you see, how he acquits the essence of the soul, as well as the essence of the flesh, from accusation, and removes it entirely to sinful actions? For if the soul willeth not the evil, it is cleared: and if he does not work it himself, the body too is set free, and the whole may be charged upon the evil moral choice. Now the essence of the soul and body and of that choice are not the same, for the two first are God’s works, and the other is a motion from ourselves towards whatever we please to direct it. For willing is indeed natural (ἕμφυτον), and is from God: but willing on this wise is our own, and from our own mind.

Ver. 21. “I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me.”

What he says is not very clear. What then is it that is said? I praise the law, he says, in my conscience, and I find it pleads on my side so far as I am desirous of doing what is right, and that it invigorates this wish. For as I feel a pleasure in it, so does it yield praise to my decision. Do you see how he shows, that the knowledge of what is good and what is not such is an original and fundamental part of our nature, and that the Law of Moses praises it, and 1395 So the mss. Sav. has τῆς τέχνης, which seems to have been put in to show that it was not the maker, but the user of the instrument, that was meant. getteth praise from it? For above he did not say so much as I get taught by the Law, but “I consent to the Law;” nor further on that I get instructed by it, but “I delight in” it. Now what is “I delight?” It is, I agree with it as right, as it does with me when wishing to do what is good. And so the willing what is good and the not willing what is evil was made a fundamental part of us from the first. But the Law, when it came, was made at once a stronger accuser in what was bad, and a greater praiser in what was good. Do you observe that in every place he bears witness to its having a kind of intensitiveness and additional advantage, yet nothing further? For though it praises and I delight in it, and wish what is good the “evil is” still “present with me,” and the agency of it has not been abolished. And thus the Law, with a man who determines upon doing anything good, only acts so far as auxiliary to him, as that it has the same wish as himself. Then since he had stated it indistinctly, as he goes on he gives a yet more distinct interpretation, by showing how the evil is present, how too the Law is a law to such a person only who has a mind to do what is good.

Ver. 22. “For I delight,” he says, “in the law of God after the inward man.” He means, for I knew even before this what was good, but when I find it set down in writing, I praise it.

Ver. 23. “But I see another law warring against the law of my mind.”

Here again he calls sin a law warring against the other, not in respect of good order, but from the strict obedience yielded to it by those who comply with it. As then it gives the name of master (κύριον Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13) to Mammon, and of god (Phil. iii. 19) to the belly, not because of their intrinsically deserving it, but because of the extreme obsequiousness of their subjects; so here he calls sin a law, owing to those who are so obsequious to it, and are afraid to leave it, just as those who have received the Law dread leaving the Law. This then, he means, is opposed to the law of nature; for this is what is meant by “the law of my mind.” And he next represents an array and battle, and refers1396 the whole struggle to the law of nature. For that of Moses was subsequently added over and above: yet still both the one and the other, the one as teaching, the other as praising what was right, wrought no great effects in this battle; so great was the thraldom of sin, overcoming and getting the upper hand as it did. And this Paul setting forth, and showing the decided (κατὰ κράτος) victory it had, says, “I see another law warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity.” He does not use the word conquering only, but “bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.” He does not say the bent of the flesh, or the nature of the flesh, but “the law of sin.” That is, the thrall, the power. In what sense then does he say, “Which is in my members?” Now what is this? Surely it does not make the members to be sin, but makes them as distinct from sin as possible. For that which is in a thing is diverse from that wherein 1396 Ver. and Sav. Marg. ἐντίθησι, which makes much the same sense; his conj. and 2 mss. ἀντιτίθησι, “sets in opposition.” it is. As then the commandment also is not evil, because by it sin took occasion, so neither is the nature of the flesh, even if sin subdues us by means of it. For in this way the soul will be evil, and much more so too, since it has authority in matters of action. But these things are not so, certainly they are not. Since neither if a tyrant and a robber were to take possession of a splendid mansion and a king’s court, would the circumstance be any discredit to the house, inasmuch as the entire blame would come on those who contrived such an act. But the enemies of the truth, along with their impiety, fall unawares also into great unreasonableness. For they do not accuse the flesh only, but they also disparage the Law. And yet if the flesh were evil, the Law would be good. For it wars against the Law, and opposes it. If, however, the Law be not good, then the flesh is good.1397 For it wars and fights against it even by their own account. How come they then to assert that both belong to the devil, putting things opposed to each other before us? Do you see, along with their impiety, how great is their unreasonableness also? But such doctrines as these are not the Church’s, for it is the sin only that she condemns; and both the Laws which God has given, both that of nature and that of Moses, she says are hostile to this, and not to the flesh; for the flesh she denies to be sin, for it is a work of God’s, and one very useful too in order to virtue, if we live soberly.

Ver. 24. “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?”

Do you notice what a great thraldom that of vice is, in that it overcomes even a mind that delighted in the Law? For no one can rejoin, he means, that I hate the Law and abhor it, and so sin overcomes me. For “I delight in it, and consent to it,” and flee for refuge to it, yet still it had not the power of saving one who had fled to it. But Christ saved even one that fled from Him. See what a vast advantage grace has! Yet the Apostle has not stated it thus; but with a sigh only, and a great lamentation, as if devoid of any to help him, he points out by his perplexity the might of Christ, and says, “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” The Law has not been able: conscience has proved unequal to it, though it praised what was good, and did not praise it only, but even fought against the contrary of it. For by the very words “warreth against” he shows that he was marshalled against it for his part. From what quarter then is one to hope for salvation?

Ver. 25. “I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Observe how he shows the necessity of having grace present with us, and that the welldoings herein belong alike to the Father and the Son. For if it is the Father Whom he thanketh, still the Son is the cause of this thanksgiving. But when you hear him say, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” do not suppose him to be accusing the flesh. 1397 It is peculiarly interesting to see how vigorously Chrys. combats the idea that the flesh is essentially evil, as if it were a current notion of his time. This view—derived from heathen sources—exerted a powerful influence in the Church from early times and became the fruitful source of ascetic rigors.—G.B.S. For he does not say “body of sin,” but “body of death:” that is, the mortal body—that which hath been overcome by death, not that which gendered death. And this is no proof of the evil of the flesh, but of the marring (ἐπηρείας, thwarting) it has undergone. As if any one who was take captive by the savages were to be said to belong to the savages, not as being a savage, but as being detained by them: so the body is said to be of death, as being held down thereby, not as producing it. Wherefore also it is not the body that he himself wishes to be delivered from, but the mortal body, hinting, as I have often said, that from its becoming subject to suffering,1398 it also became an easy prey to sin. Why then, it may be said, the thraldom of sin being so great before the times of grace, were men punished for sinning? Because they had such commands given them as might even under sin’s dominion be accomplished. For he did not draw them to the highest kind of conversation, but allowed them to enjoy wealth, and did not forbid having several wives, and to gratify anger in a just cause, and to make use of luxury within bounds.1399 (Matt. v. 38.) And so great was this condescension, that the written Law even required less than the law of nature. For the law of nature ordered one man to associate with one woman throughout. And this Christ shows in the words, “He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female.” (ib. xix. 4.) But the Law of Moses neither forbade the putting away of one and the taking in of another, nor prohibited the having of two1400 at once! (ib. v. 31.) And besides this there are also many other ordinances of the Law, that one might see those who were before its day fully performing, being instructed by the law of nature. They therefore who lived under the old dispensation had no hardship done them by so moderate a system of laws being imposed upon them. But if they were not, on these terms, able to get the upper hand, the charge is against their own listlessness. Wherefore Paul gives thanks, because Christ, without any rigorousness about these things, not only demanded no account of this moderate amount,1401 but even made us able to have a greater race set before us. And therefore he says, “I thank my God through Jesus Christ.” And letting the salvation which all agreed about pass, he goes from the points he had already made good, to another further point, in which he states that it was not our former sins only that we were freed from, but we were also made invincible for the future. For “there is,” he says, “now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh.” Yet he did not say it before he had first recalled to mind 1398 παθητὸν, which may also mean liable to passions. 1399 He is speaking of the actual precepts. Men under the Law were encouraged to higher aims, but it was in looking beyond the letter. 1400 The typical fitness of this permission is illustrated by the case of Sarah and Hagar; the coincidence of typical with moral fitness is in many cases above our understanding. 1401 So Field from 1 ms.: others “past sins:” Vulg. “our doings.” our former condition again in the words, “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.”

Chap. viii. ver. 1. “There is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.”

Then as the fact that many fall into sin even after baptism presented a difficulty (ἀντέπιπτεν), he consequently hastened to meet it, and says not merely “to them that are in Christ Jesus,” but adds, “who walk not after the flesh;” so showing that all afterward comes of our listlessness. For now we have the power of walking not after the flesh, but then it was a difficult task. Then he gives another proof of it by the sequel, in the words,

Ver. 2. “For the law of the Spirit of life hath made me free.”

It is the Spirit he is here calling the law of the Spirit. For as he calls sin the law of sin, so he here calls the Spirit the law of the Spirit. And yet he named that of Moses as such, where he says, “For we know that the Law is spiritual.” What then is the difference? A great and unbounded one. For that was spiritual, but this is a law of the Spirit. Now what is the distinction between this and that? The other was merely given by the Spirit, but this even furnisheth those that receive it with the Spirit in large measure. Wherefore also he called it the law of life1402 in contradistinction to that of sin, not that of Moses. For when he says, It freed me1403 from the law of sin and death, it is not the law of Moses that he is here speaking of, since in no case does he style it the law of sin: for how could he one that he had called “just and holy” so often, and destructive of sin too? but it is that which warreth against the law of the mind. For this grievous war did the grace of the Spirit put a stop to, by slaying sin, and making the contest light to us and crowning us at the outstart, and then drawing us to the struggle with abundant help. Next as it is ever his wont to turn from the Spirit to the Son and the Father, and to reckon all our estate to lean upon the Trinity,1404 so doth he here also. For after saying, “Who shall deliver me from the body of this death,” he pointed at the Father as doing this by the Son, then again at the Holy Spirit along with the Son. “For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free, he says. Then again, at the Father and the Son;

Ver. 3. “For what the Law could not do,” he saith, “in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

Again, he seems indeed to be disparaging the Law. But if any one attends strictly, he even highly praises it, by showing that it harmonizes with Christ, and gives preference to the same things. For he does not speak of the badness of the Law, but of “what it could not 1402 It may be right to consider τῆς ζωῆς as forming part of the attribute of νόμος in conformity with the Hebr. idiom; see Lee’s Gram. Art. 224, 8. 1403 “Thee” most mss., and Edd. before Field. 1404 τῇ τριάδι πάντα τὰ παῤ ἡμῶν λογιζόμενος, or “imputing all things (done) by us to the Trinity.” do;” and so again, “in that it was weak,” not, “in that it was mischievous, or designing.” And even weakness he does not ascribe to it, but to the flesh, as he says, “in that it was weak through the flesh,” using the word “flesh” here again not for the essence and subsistency itself, but giving its name to the more carnal sort of mind. In which way he acquits both the body and the Law of any accusation. Yet not in this way only, but by what comes next also. For supposing the Law to be of the contrary part, how was it Christ came to its assistance, and fulfilled its requisitions, and lent it a helping hand by condemning sin in the flesh? For this was what was lacking, since in the soul the Lord had condemned it long ago. What then? is it the greater thing that the Law accomplished, but the less that the Only-Begotten did? Surely not. For it was God that was the principal doer of that also, in that He gave us the law of nature, and added the written one to it. Again, there were no use of the greater, if the lesser had not been supplied. For what good is it to know what things ought to be done, if a man does not follow it out? None, for it were but a greater condemnation. And so He that hath saved the soul it is, Who hath made the flesh also easy to bridle. For to teach is easy, but to show besides a way in which these things were easily done, this is the marvel. Now it was for this that the Only-Begotten came, and did not depart before He had set us free from this difficulty. But what is greater, is the method of the victory; for He took none other flesh, but this very one which was beset with troubles. So it is as if any one were to see in the street a vile woman of the baser sort being beaten, and were to say he was her son, when he was the king’s, and so to get her free from those who ill treated her. And this He really did, in that He confessed that He was the Son of Man, and stood by it (i.e. the flesh), and condemned the sin. However, He did not endure to smite it besides; or rather, He smote it with the blow of His death, but in this very act it was not the smitten flesh which was condemned and perished, but the sin which had been smiting. And this is the greatest possible marvel. For if it were not in the flesh that the victory took place, it would not be so astonishing, since this the Law also wrought. But the wonder is, that it was with the flesh (μετὰ σαρκὸς) that His trophy was raised, and that what had been overthrown numberless times by sin, did itself get a glorious victory over it. For behold what strange things there were that took place! One was, that sin did not conquer the flesh; another, that sin was conquered, and conquered by it too. For it is not the same thing not to get conquered, and to conquer that which was continually overthrowing us. A third is, that it not only conquered it, but even chastised it. For by not sinning it kept from being conquered, but by dying also, He overcame and condemned it, having made the flesh, that before was so readily made a mock of by it, a plain object of fear to it. In this way then, He at once unnerved its power, and abolished the death by it introduced. For so long as it took hold of sinners, it with justice kept pressing to its end. But after finding a sinless body, when it had given it up to death, it was condemned as having acted unjustly. Do you observe, how many proofs of victory there are? The flesh not being conquered by sin, Its even conquering and condemning it, Its not condemning it barely, but condemning it as having sinned. For after having convicted it of injustice, he proceeds to condemn it, and that not by power and might barely, but even by the rules of justice. For this is what he means by saying, “for sin condemned sin in the flesh.” As if he had said that he had convicted it of great sin, and then condemned it. So you see it is sin that getteth condemned everywhere, and not the flesh, for this is even crowned with honor, and has to give sentence against the other. But if he does say that it was “in the likeness” of flesh that he sent the Son, do not therefore suppose that His flesh was of a different kind. For as he called it “sinful,” this was why he put the word “likeness.”1405 For sinful flesh it was not that Christ had, but like indeed to our sinful flesh, yet sinless, and in nature the same with us. And so even from this it is plain that by nature the flesh was not evil. For it was not by taking a different one instead of the former, nor by changing this same one in substance, that Christ caused it to regain the victory: but He let it abide in its own nature, and yet made it bind on the crown of victory over sin, and then after the victory raised it up, and made it immortal. What then, it may be said, is this to me, whether it was this flesh that these things happened in? Nay, it concerns thee very much. Wherefore also he proceeds:

Ver. 4. “That the righteousness1406 of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh.”

What meaneth this word, righteousness? Why, the end, the scope, the well-doing. For what was its design, and what did it enjoin? To be without sin. This then is made good to us (κατώρθωται ἡμἵν) now through Christ. And the making a stand against it, and the getting the better of it, came from Him. But it is for us to enjoy the victory. Then shall we never sin henceforth? We never shall unless we have become exceedingly relaxed and supine. And this is why he added, “to them that walk not after the flesh.” For lest, after hearing that Christ hath delivered thee from the war of sin, and that the requisition (δικαίωμα) of the Law is fulfilled in thee, by sin having been “condemned in the flesh,” thou shouldest break up all 1405 The Fathers lay great stress upon this phrase of the Apostles. August. contr. Faust. xiv. 5, argues, that this likeness consisted in our Lord’s flesh being mortal; death being the penalty of sin: vid. also de Nuptiis et Concupisc. 1. 12. vid. also Basil, Ep. 261, where writing against the Apollinarians, he interprets this text to mean, that whereas Christ had all affections of human nature, which implied the reality of His assumption of it, He had not those which infringe our nature, i.e. which arise from sin. Athanasius, writing against the same heretics, observes, that Christ’s sinlessness was like Adam’s before the fall (In Apoll. ii. 6): or as St. Cyril observes, greater than before the fall because He has a physical inability to sin, arising from His personality being Divine, vid. Cyr. Alex. in Esai. l. i. Orat. 4, fin. At the same time He took the flesh, not of Adam unfallen, but fallen, such as ours. Vid. Leont. contra Nest. et Eutych. lib. 2 apud Canis. vol. i. p. 568. Gall. xii. 681. Fulgent. Ep. ad. Regin. Tertull. de Carn. Christi. xvi. 1406 Aristotle defines δικαίωμα to be τὸ δίκαιον ὅταν πραχθῇ· but rather in the sense of correcting wrong than in the more general meaning: Eth. b. v. c. 7, §7. It may mean here what the Law claims of right. thy defences; therefore, in that place also, after saying, “there is therefore no condemnation,” he added, “to them that walk not after the flesh;” and here also, “that the requisition of the Law might be fulfilled in us,” he proceeds with the very same thing; or rather, not with it only, but even with a much stronger thing.1407 For after saying, “that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us that walk not after the flesh,” he proceeds, “but after the Spirit.”

So showing, that it is not only binding upon us to keep ourselves from evil deeds, but also to be adorned (κομᾅν) with good. For to give thee the crown is His; but it is thine to hold it fast when given. For the righteousness of the Law, that one should not become liable to its curse, Christ has accomplished for thee. Be not a traitor then to so great a gift, but keep guarding this goodly treasure. For in this passage he shows that the Font will not suffice to save us, unless, after coming from it, we display a life worthy of the Gift. And so he again advocates the Law in saying what he does. For when we have once become obedient to Christ, we must use all ways and plans so that its righteousness, which Christ fulfilled, may abide in us, and not come to naught.

Ver. 5. “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh.”

Yet even this is no disparaging of the flesh. For so long as it keeps its own place, nothing amiss cometh to pass. But when we let it have its own will in everything, and it passes over its proper bounds, and rises up against the soul, then it destroys and corrupts everything, yet not owing to its own nature, but to its being out of proportion, and the disorder thereupon ensuing. “But they that are after the Spirit do mind the things of the Spirit.”

Ver. 6. “For to be carnally minded is death.” He does not speak of the nature of the flesh, or the essence of the body, but of being carnally “minded,” which may be set right again, and abolished. And in saying thus, he does not ascribe to the flesh any reasoning power of its own. Far from it. But to set forth the grosser motion of the mind, and giving this a name from the inferior part, and in the same way as he often is in the habit of calling man in his entireness, and viewed as possessed of a soul, flesh. “But to be spiritually minded.” Here again he speaks of the spiritual mind, in the same way as he says further on, “But He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit” (ver. 27); and he points out many blessings resulting from this, both in the present life, and in that which is to come. For as the evils which being carnally minded introduces, are far outnumbered by those blessings which a spiritual mind affords. And this he points out in the words “life and peace.” The one is in contraposition to the first—for death is what he says to be carnally minded is. And the other in contraposition to the following. For after mentioning peace, he goes on,

Rom. VIII. 12, 13

“Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

After showing how great the reward of a spiritual life is, and that it maketh Christ to dwell in us, and that it quickeneth our mortal bodies, and wingeth them to heaven, and rendereth the way of virtue easier, he next fitly introduces an exhortation to this purpose. “Therefore” we ought “not to live after the flesh.” But this is not what he says, for he words it in a much more striking and powerful way, thus, “we are debtors to the Spirit.” For saying, “we are debtors not to the flesh,” indicates this. And this is a point he is everywhere giving proof of, that what God hath done for us is not matter of debt, but of mere grace. But after this, what we do is no longer matter of free-will offering, but of debt. For when he saith, “Ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men” (1 Cor. vii. 23); and when he writes, “Ye are not your own” (ib. vi. 19); and again in another passage he calls these selfsame things to their mind, in these words, “If (most mss. om. “if”) One died for all, then all died1415 that they should not henceforth live unto themselves.” (2 Cor. v. 15.) And it is to establish this that he says here also, “We are debtors;” then since he said we are “not” debtors “to the flesh,” lest you should again take him to be speaking against the nature of the flesh, he does not leave speaking, but proceeds, “to live after the flesh.” For there are many things which we do owe it, as giving it food, warmth, and rest, medicine when out of health, clothing, and a thousand other attentions. To prevent your supposing then that it is this ministration he is for abrogating when he says, “We are not debtors to the flesh,” he explains it by saying, “to live after the flesh.” For the care that I am for abrogating is, he means, that which leadeth to sin, as I should be for its having what is healing to it. And this he shows further on. For when he says, “Make not provision for the flesh,” he does not pause at this, but adds, “to fulfil the lusts thereof.” (Rom. xiii. 14.) And this instruction he gives us here also, meaning, Let it have attention shown it indeed, for we do owe it this, yet let us not live according to the flesh, that is, let us not make it the mistress of our life. For it must be the follower, not the leader, and it is not it that must regulate our life, but the laws of the Spirit must it receive. Having then defined this point, and having proved that we are debtors to the Spirit, to show next for what benefits it is that we are debtors, he does not speak of those past (a thing which serves as a most striking proof of his judgment), but those which were to come; although even the former were enough for the purpose. Yet still he does not set 1415 So St. Chrysostom reads, as appears from his Commentary on this passage. them down in the present case, or mention even those unspeakable blessings, but the things to come. For a benefit once for all conferred does not, for the most part, draw men on so much as one which is expected, and is to come. After adding this then, he first uses the pains and ills that come of living after the flesh, to put them in fear, in the following words; “For if ye live after the flesh ye shall die,” so intimating to us that deathless death, punishment, and vengeance in hell. Or rather if one were to look accurately into this, such an one is, even in this present life, dead. And this we have made clear to you in the last discourse. “But if ye through the Spirit, do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” You see that it is not the essence of the body whereof we are discoursing, but the deeds of the flesh. For he does not say, “if ye through the Spirit do mortify” the essence “of the body,” but “the deeds of” it, and these not all deeds, but such as are evil. And this is plain in what follows: for if ye do this, “ye shall live,” he says. And how is it in the nature of things for this to be, if it was all deeds that his language applied to? for seeing and hearing and speaking and walking are deeds of the body; and if we mortify these, we shall be so far from living, that we shall have to suffer the punishment of a manslayer. What sort of deeds then does he mean us to mortify? Those which tend toward wickedness, those which go after vice, which there is no other way of mortifying save through the Spirit. For by killing yourself you may put an end to the others.1416 And this you have no right to do. But to these (you can put an end) by the Spirit only. For if This be present, all the billows are laid low, and the passions cower under It, and nothing can exalt itself against us.1417 So you see how it is on things to come, as I said before, that he grounds his exhortations to us, and shows that we are debtors not owing to what has been already done only. For the advantage of the Spirit is not this only, that He hath set us free from our former sins, but that He rendereth us impregnable against future ones, and counts us worthy of the immortal life. Then, to state another reward also, he proceeds:

Ver. 14. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”

Now this is again a much greater honor than the first. And this is why he does not say merely, As many as live1418 by the Spirit of God, but, “as many as are led by the Spirit of God,” to show that he would have Him use such power over our life as a pilot doth over a ship, or a charioteer over a pair of horses. And it is not the body only, but the soul itself too, that he is for setting under reins of this sort. For he would not have even that independent, but place its authority1419 also under the power of the Spirit. For lest through a confidence 1416 Sav. τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἄλλας ἀποκτείναντα, σεαυτὸν ἀνελεῖν ἐστὶν; to give this sense we should punctuate τὰς μὲν γὰρ ἄλλας, ἀποκτ. ἑαυτὸν, ἀνελεῖν ἔστιν. 1417 κατεξανίσταται. The word used in the last Homily for the conduct of the covetous towards the poor. See p. 439. 1418 See Gal. v. 25, where “live” means “have life,” and is distinguished from “walk.” 1419 Or the command of it, ἐξουσίαν. in the Gift of the Font they should turn negligent of their conversation after it, he would say, that even supposing you receive baptism, yet if you are not minded to be “led by the Spirit” afterwards, you lose the dignity bestowed upon you, and the pre-eminence of your adoption. This is why he does not say, As many as have received the Spirit, but, “as many as are led by the Spirit,” that is, as many as live up to this all their life long, “they are the sons of God.” Then since this dignity was given to the Jews also, for it says, “I said ye are Gods, and all of you children of the Most High” (Ps. lxxxii. 6); and again, “I have nourished and brought up children” (Is. i. 2); and so, “Israel is My first-born” (Ex. iv. 22); and Paul too says, “Whose is the adoption” (Rom. ix. 4)—he next asserts the great difference between the latter and the former honor. For though the names are the same, he means, still, the things are not the same. And of these points he gives a clear demonstration, by introducing a comparison drawn both from the persons so advanced (κατορθούντων) and from what was given them, and from what was to come. And first he shows what they of old had given them. What then was this? “A spirit of bondage:” and so he thus proceeds,

Ver. 15. “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear.”

Then not staying to mention that which stands in contradistinction to bondage, that is, the spirit of freedom, he has named what is far greater, that of adoption, through which he at the same time brings in the other, saying, “But ye have received the Spirit of adoption.”

But this is plain. But what the spirit of bondage may be, is not so plain, and there is need of making it clearer. Now what he says is so far from being clear, that it is in fact very perplexing. For the people of the Jews did not receive the Spirit. What then is his meaning here? It is the letter he giveth this name to, for spiritual it was, and so he called the Law spiritual also, and the water from the Rock, and the Manna. “For they did eat,” he says, “of the same spiritual meat, and all drank of the same spiritual drink.” (1 Cor. x. 3, 4.) And to the Rock he gives this name, when he says, “For they drank of that spiritual Rock which followed them.” Now it is because all the rites then wrought were above nature that he calls them spiritual, and not because those who then partook of them received the Spirit. And in what sense were those letters, letters of bondage? Set before yourself the whole dispensation, and then you will have a clear view of this also. For recompenses were with them close at hand, and the reward followed forthwith, being at once proportionate, and like a kind of daily ration given to domestic servants, and terrors in abundance came to their height before their eyes, and their purifications concerned their bodies, and their continency extended but to their actions. But with us it is not so, since the imagination even and the conscience getteth purged out. For He does not say, “Thou shalt do no murder,” only, but even thou shalt not be angry: so too, it is not, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” but thou shalt not look unchastely. So that it is not to be from fear of present punishment, but out of desire towards Himself, that both our being habitually virtuous, and all our single good deeds are to come. Neither doth he promise a land flowing with milk and honey, but maketh us joint-heir with the Only- Begotten, so making us by every means stand aloof from things present, and promising to give such things especially as are worth the acceptance of men made sons of God, nothing, that is, of a sensible kind or corporeal, but spiritual all of them. And so they, even if they had the name of sons, were but as slaves; but we as having been made free, have received the adoption, and are waiting for Heaven. And with them He discoursed through the intervention of others, with us by Himself. And all that they did was through the impulse of fear, but the spiritual act through a coveting and a vehement desire. And this they show by the fact of their1420 overstepping the commandments. They, as hirelings and obstinate persons, so never left murmuring: but these do all for the pleasing of the Father. So too they blasphemed when they had benefits done them: but we are thankful at being jeoparded. And if there be need of punishing both of us upon our sinning, even in this case the difference is great. For it is not on being stoned and branded and maimed by the priests, as they were, that we are brought round. But it is enough for us to be cast out from our Father’s table, and to be out of sight for certain days. And with the Jews the honor of adoption was one of name only, but here the reality followed also, the cleansing of Baptism, the giving of the Spirit, the furnishing of the other blessings. And there are several other points besides, which go to show our high birth and their low condition. After intimating all these then by speaking of the Spirit, and fear, and the adoption, he gives a fresh proof again of having the Spirit of adoption. Now what is this? That “we cry, Abba, Father.” And how great this is, the initiated know (St. Cyr. Jer. Cat. 23, §11, p. 276, O.T.), being with good reason bidden to use this word first in the Prayer of the initiated. What then, it may be said, did not they also call God Father? Dost thou not hear Moses, when he says, “Thou desertedst the God that begot thee?” (Deut. xxxii. 15. LXX.) Dost thou not hear Malachi reproaching them, and saying, that “one God formed you,” and there is “one Father of you all?” (Mal. ii. 10. LXX.) Still, if these words and others besides are used, we do not find them anywhere calling God by the name, or praying in this language. But we all, priests and laymen, rulers and ruled, are ordered to pray herein. And this is the first language we give utterance to, after those marvellous throes, and that strange and unusual mode of labor. If in any other instances they so called Him, that was only of their own mind. But those in the state of grace do it through being moved by the in-working of the Spirit. For as there is a Spirit of Wisdom, after which they that were unwise became wise, and this discloses itself in their teaching: and a Spirit of Power there is, whereby the feeble raised up the dead, and drove out devils; a Spirit also of the gift of healing, and a Spirit of prophecy, and a Spirit of tongues, so also a Spirit of adoption. And as we know the Spirit of prophecy, in that he who hath it foretelleth things to come, not speaking of his own mind, but moved by the Grace; so too is the Spirit 1420 ὑπερβαίνειν means to go beyond as well as to go against. He refers to such things as St. Paul’s refusing sustenance from the Achæans. 1 Cor. ix. 4, etc. The tenses prove this to be St. Chrysostom’s meaning. of adoption, whereby he that is gifted with it calleth God, Father, as moved by the Spirit. Wishing to express this as a most true descent, he used also the Hebrew1421 tongue, for he does not say only, “Father,” but “Abba, Father,” which name is a special sign of true-born children to their fathers. After mentioning then the diversity resulting from their conversation, that resulting from the grace which had been given, and that from their freedom, he brings forward another demonstration of the superiority which goes with this adoption. Now of what kind is this?

Ver. 16. “The Spirit Itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

For it is not from the language merely, he says, that I make my assertion, but from the cause out of which the language has its birth; since it is from the Spirit suggesting it that we so speak. And this in another passage he has put into plainer words, thus: “God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba Father.” (Gal. iv. 6.) And what is that, “Spirit beareth witness with spirit?” The Comforter, he means, with that Gift, which is given unto us. For it is not of the Gift alone that it is the voice, but of the Comforter also who gave the Gift, He Himself having taught us through the Gift so to speak. But when the “Spirit beareth witness” what farther place for doubtfulness? For if it were a man, or angel, or archangel, or any other such power that promised this, then there might be reason in some doubting. But when it is the Highest Essence that bestoweth this Gift, and “beareth witness” by the very words He bade us use in prayer, who would doubt any more of our dignity? For not even when the Emperor elects any one, and proclaims in all men’s hearing the honor done him, does anybody venture to gainsay.

Ver. 17. “And if children, then heirs.”

Observe how he enhances the Gift by little and little. For since it is a possible case to be children, and yet not become heirs (for it is not by any means all children that are heirs), he adds this besides—that we are heirs. But the Jews, besides their not having the same adoption as we, were also cast out from the inheritance. For “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen” (Matt. xxi. 41): and before this, He said that “many shall come from the East and from the West, and shall sit down with Abraham, but the children of the Kingdom shall be cast out.” (ib. viii. 11, 12.) But even here he does not pause, but sets down something even greater than this. What may this be then? That we are heirs of God; and so he adds, “heirs of God.” And what is more still, that we are not simply heirs, but also “joints heirs with Christ.” Observe how ambitious he is of bringing us near to the Master. For since it is not all children that are heirs, he shows that we are both children and heirs; next, as it is not all heirs that are heirs to any great amount, 1421 i.e. the Syriac, which the Hebrew means in the N.T. probably in all cases—it being then the language of the Hebrews. he shows that we have this point with us too, as we are heirs of God. Again, since it were possible to be God’s heir, but in no sense “joint heir with” the Only-Begotten, he shows that we have this also. And consider his wisdom. For after throwing the distasteful part into a short compass, when he was saying what was to become of such as “live after the flesh,” for instance, that they “shall die,” when he comes to the more soothing part, he leadeth forth his discourse into a large room, and so expands it on the recompense of rewards, and in pointing out that the gifts too are manifold and great. For if even the being a child were a grace unspeakable, just think how great a thing it is to be heir! But if this be great, much more is it to be “joint heir.” Then to show that the Gift is not of grace only, and to give at the same time a credibility to what he says, he proceeds, “If so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.” If, he would say, we be sharers with Him in what is painful, much more shall it be so in what is good. For He who bestowed such blessings upon those who had wrought no good, how, when He seeth them laboring and suffering so much, shall he do else than give them greater requital? Having then shown that the thing was a matter of return, to make men give credit to what was said, and prevent any from doubting, he shows further that it has the virtue of a gift. The one he showed, that what was said might gain credit even with those that doubted, and that the receivers of it might not feel ashamed as being evermore receiving salvation for nought; and the other, that you might see that God outdoeth the toils by His recompenses. And the one he has shown in the words, “If so be that we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together.” But the other in proceeding to add;

Ver. 18. “The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in (Gr. εἰς) us.”

In what went before, he requires of the spiritual man the correcting of his habits (Mar. and 6 mss. passions), where he says, “Ye are not debtors to live after the flesh,” that such an one, for instance, should be above lust, anger, money, vainglory, grudging. But here having reminded them of the whole gift, both as given and as to come, and raised him up aloft with hopes, and placed him near to Christ, and showed him to be a joint-heir of the Only-Begotten; he now leads him forth with confidence even to dangers. For to get the better of the evil affections in us, is not the same thing with bearing up under those trials, scourges, famine, plunderings, bonds, chains, executions. For these last required much more of a noble and vigorous spirit. And observe how he at once allays and rouses the spirit of the combatants. For after he had shown that the rewards were greater than the labors, he both exhorts to greater efforts, and yet will not let them be elated, as being still outdone by the crowns given in requital. And in another passage he says, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor. iv. 17): it being the deeper sort of persons he was then speaking to. Here, however, he does not allow that the afflictions were light; but still he mingles comfort with them by the compensation which good things to come afford, in the words, “For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared,” and he does not say, with the rest (ἄνεσιν) that is to come, but what is much greater, “with the glory which is to come.” For it does not follow, that where rest is there is glory; but that where glory is there is rest, does follow: then as he had said that it is to come, he shows that it already is. For he does not say, that which is to be, but “which shall be revealed in us,” as if already existing but unrevealed. As also in another place he said in clearer words, “Our life is hid with Christ in God.”1422 Be then of a good heart about it. For already hath it been prepared, and awaiteth thy labors. But if it vexes you that it is yet to come, rather let this very thing rejoice you. For it is owing to its being great and unutterable, and transcending our present condition, that it is stored up there. And so he has not put barely “the sufferings of this present time,” but he speaks so as to show that it is not in quality only, but in quantity also, that the other life has the advantage. For these sufferings, whatever they are, are attached to our present life; but the blessings to come reach themselves out over ages without end. And since he had no way of giving a particular description of these, or of putting them before us in language, he gives them a name from what seems to be specially an object of desire with us, “glory.” For the summit of blessings and the sum of them, this seems to be. And to urge the hearer on in another way also, he gives a loftiness to his discourse by the mention of the creation, gaining two points by what he is next saying, the contempt of things present, and the desire of things to come, and a third beside these, or rather the first, is the showing how the human race is cared for on God’s part and in what honor He holds our nature. And besides this, all the doctrines of the philosophers, which they had framed for themselves about this world, as a sort of cobweb or child’s mound,1423 he throws down with this one doctrine. But that these things may stand in a clearer light, let us hear the Apostle’s own language.

Ver. 19, 20. “For the earnest expectation of the creation waiteth,” he says, “for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope.”

And the meaning is something of this kind. The creation itself is in the midst of its pangs, waiting for and expecting these good things whereof we have just now spoken. For “earnest expectation” (ἀποκαραδοκία, looking out) implies expecting intensely. And so his discourse becomes more emphatic, and he personifies this whole world as the prophets also do, when they introduce the floods clapping their hands, and little hills leaping, and mountains skipping, not that we are to fancy them alive, or ascribe any reasoning power to them, but that we may learn the greatness of the blessings, so great as to reach even to things 1422 Col. iii. 3. Ver. 4. confirms his application of it. 1423 Perhaps alluding to Il. xv. 362. without sense also.1424 The very same thing they do many times also in the case of afflicting things, since they bring in the vine lamenting, and the wine too, and the mountains, and the boardings1425 of the Temple howling, and in this case too it is that we may understand the extremity of the evils. It is then in imitation of these that the Apostle makes a living person of the creature here, and says that it groaneth and travaileth: not that he heard any groan conveyed from the earth and heaven to him, but that he might show the exceeding greatness of the good things to come; and the desire of freedom from the ills which now pervaded them. “For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same.” What is the meaning of, “the creation was made subject to vanity?” Why that it became corruptible. For what cause, and on what account? On account of thee, O man. For since thou hast taken a body mortal and liable to suffering, the earth too hath received a curse, and brought forth thorns and thistles. But that the heaven, when it is waxen old along with the earth, is to change afterwards to a better portion (λἥξιν v. p. 384) hear from the Prophet in his words; “Thou, O Lord, from the beginning hast founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a cloak shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed.” (Ps. cii. 25, 26.) Isaiah too declares the same, when he says, “Look to the heaven above, and upon the earth beneath, for the heavens are as a firmament of smoke,1426 and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall perish in like manner.” (Is. li. 6.). Now you see in what sense the creation is “in bondage to vanity,” and how it is to be freed from the ruined state. For the one says, “Thou shalt fold them up as a garment, and they shall be changed;” and Isaiah says, “and 1424 Chrysostom’s interpretation of ἡ κτίσις is undoubtedly correct in principle, although he probably gives to it too general an idea in calling it “this whole world”—reaching “even to things without sense also.” It is more likely that the apostle has in mind distinctively the irrational creation. (So Meyer, Godet, Thayer, Dwight). Nature is subject to “vanity”—i.e. the law of decay and death, and is poetically spoken of as awaiting the revelation of the sons of God in the hope of sharing in it. The apostle explains that the κτίσις was placed in this condition not of its own accord but on account of the will of God, who, however, subjected it to the forces of decay and death on the ground of hope. Hope was the attendant condition of this subjection which took place in consequence of the fall. Hence this condition is not final and the creation desires and groans to be delivered and to share in the “manifestation of the sons of God”—the revelation of them in their true character in the presence of the universe at the coming of Christ.—G.B.S. 1425 φατνώματα, Heb. שירות . Amos viii. 3. LXX. Hesych. σανιδώματα. See Schleusner, Lex. Gr. Vet. Test. for conjectures to account for the translation. 1426 Eng. “shall vanish away like smoke.” LXX. render נמלחו ἐστερεώθη, they give the same for נטה Is. xlv. 12. they that dwell therein shall perish in like manner,” not of course meaning an utter perishing. For neither do they that dwell therein, mankind, that is, undergo such an one, but a temporary one, and through it they are changed into an incorruptible (1 Cor. xv. 53) state, and so therefore will the creature be. And all this he showed by the way, by his saying “in like manner” (2 Pet. iii. 13), which Paul also says farther on. At present, however, he speaks about the bondage itself, and shows for what reason it became such, and gives ourselves as the cause of it. What then? Was it harshly treated on another’s account? By no means, for it was on my account that it was made. What wrong then is done it, which was made for my sake, when it suffereth these things for my correction? Or, indeed, one has no need to moot the question of right and wrong at all in the case of things void of soul and feeling. But Paul, since he had made it a living person, makes use of none of these topics I have mentioned, but another kind of language, as desiring to comfort the hearer with the utmost advantage. And of what kind is this? What have you to say? he means. It was evil intreated for thy sake, and became corruptible; yet it has had no wrong done it. For incorruptible will it be for thy sake again. This then is the meaning of “in hope.” But when he says, it was “not willingly” that it was made subject, it is not to show that it is possessed of judgment that he says so, but that you may learn that the whole is brought about by Christ’s care, and this is no achievement of its own. And now say in what hope?

Ver. 21. “That the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption.”

Now what is this creation? Not thyself alone, but that also which is thy inferior, and partaketh not of reason or sense, this too shall be a sharer in thy blessings. For “it shall be freed,” he says, “from the bondage of corruption,” that is, it shall no longer be corruptible, but shall go along with the beauty given to thy body; just as when this became corruptible, that became corruptible also; so now it is made incorruptible, that also shall follow it too. And to show this he proceeds. (εἰς) “Into the glorious liberty of the children of God.” That is, because of1427 their liberty. For as a nurse who is bringing up a king’s child, when he has come to his father’s power, does herself enjoy the good things along with him, thus also is the creation, he means. You see how in all respects man takes the lead, and that it is for his sake that all things are made. See how he solaces the struggler, and shows the unspeakable love of God toward man. For why, he would say, dost thou fret at thy temptations? thou art suffering for thyself, the creation for thee. Nor does he solace only, but also shows what he says to be trustworthy. For if the creation which was made entirely for thee is “in hope,” much more oughtest thou to be, through whom the creation is to come to the enjoyment of those good things. Thus men (3 mss. fathers) also when a son is to appear at his coming 1427 διὰ τὴν. St. Chrysostom does not mean to say that one preposition is used for another, as his illustration shows. For the liberty of the sons of God is both the thing of which the creation partakes, and the cause of its partaking; so that the one is put in a sense which implies the other too. to a dignity, clothe even the servants with a brighter garment, to the glory of the son; so will God also clothe the creature with incorruption for the glorious liberty of the children.

Ver. 22. “For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

Observe, how he shames the hearer, saying almost, Be not thou worse than the creation, neither find a pleasure in resting in things present. Not only ought we not to cling to them, but even to groan over the delay of our departure hence. For if the creation doth this, much more oughtest thou to do so, honored with reason as thou art. But as this was not yet enough to force their attention, he proceeds.

Ver. 23. “And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves.”

That is, having had a taste of the things to come. For even if any should be quite stone hard, he means what has been given already is enough to raise him up, and draw him off from things present, and to wing him after things to come in two ways, both by the greatness of the things that are given, and by the fact that, great and numerous as they are, they are but first-fruits. For if the first-fruits be so great that we are thereby freed even from our sins, and attain to righteousness and sanctification, and that those of that time both drave out devils, and raised the dead by their shadow (Acts v. 15), or garments (ib. xix. 12), consider how great the whole must be. And if the creation, devoid as it is of mind and reason, and though in ignorance of these things, yet groaneth, much more should we. Next, that he may give the heretics no handle, or seem to be disparaging our present world, we groan, he says, not as finding fault with the present system, but through a desire of those greater things. And this he shows in the words, “Waiting for the adoption.” What dost thou say, let me hear? Thou didst insist on it at every turn, and didst cry aloud, that we were already made sons, and now dost thou place this good thing among hopes, writing that we must needs wait for it? Now it is to set this right by the sequel that he says, “to wit, the redemption1428 of our body.” That is, the perfect glory. Our lot indeed is at present uncertainty to our last breath, since many of us that were sons have become dogs and prisoners. But if we decease with a good hope, then is the gift unmovable, and clearer, and greater, having no longer any change to fear from death and sin. Then therefore will the grace be secure, when our body shall be freed from death and its countless ailments (or passions). For this is full redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις), not a redemption1429 only, but such, that we shall never again return to our former captivity. For that thou mayest not be perplexed at hearing so much of glory 1428 ἀπολύτρωσιν. In the meaning of this word sometimes the manner, and sometimes the completeness of redemption predominates; see Rom. iii. 24, p. 377. 1429 λύτρωσις, showing that the completeness is implied in the preposition, which should be observed in the doctrinal use of the term. without getting any distinct knowledge of it, he partially exposes to thy view the things to come, setting before thee the change of thy body (Gr. changing thy body), and along with it the change of the whole creation. And this he has put in a clearer light in another passage, where he says, “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious Body.” (Phil. iii. 21.) And in another place again he writes and says, “But when this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1 Cor. xv. 54.) But to show, that with the corruption of the body the constitution of the things of this life will also come to an end, he wrote again elsewhere, “For the fashion of this world passeth away.” (1 Cor. vii. 31.)

Ver. 24. “For we are saved by hope,” he says.

Now since he had dwelt upon the promise of the things to come, and this seemed to pain the weaker hearer, if the blessings are all matter of hope; after proving before that they are surer than things present and visible, and discoursing at large on the gifts already given, and showing that we have received the first fruits of those good things, lest we should seek our all in this world, and be traitors to the nobility that faith gives us, he says, “For we are (Gr. were) saved by hope.” And this is about what he means. We are not to seek our all in this life, but to have hope also. For this is the only gift that we brought in to God, believing Him in what He promised shall come, and it was by this way alone we were saved. If then we lose this hope, we have lost all that was of our own contributing. For I put you this question, he would say, Wert thou not liable for countless sins? wert thou not in despair? wert thou not under sentence? were not all out of heart about thy salvation? What then saved thee? It was thy hoping1430 in God alone, and trusting to Him about His promises and gifts, and nothing besides hadst thou to bring in. If it was this then that saved thee, hold it fast now also. For that which afforded thee so great blessings, to a certainty will not deceive thee in regard to things to come. For in that it found thee dead, and ruined, and a prisoner, and an enemy, and yet made thee a friend, and a son, and a freeman, and righteous, and a joint-heir, and yielded such great things as no one ever expected even, how, after such munificence and attachment, will it betray1431 thee in what is to follow? Say not to me, hopes again! expectations again! faith again! For it is in this way thou wert saved from the beginning, and this dowry was the only one that thou didst bring in to the Bridegroom. Hold it then fast and keep it: for if thou demandest to have everything in this world, thou hast lost that well-doing of thine, through which thou didst become bright, and this is why he proceeds to say, “But hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?”

Rom. VIII. 28

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God.”

Here he seems to me to have mooted this whole topic with a view to those who were in danger; or, rather, not this only, but also what was said a little before this. For the words, “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us;” and those, that “the whole creation groaneth;” and the saying, that “we are saved by hope;” and the phrase, “we with patience wait for;” and that, “we know not what we should pray for as we ought;” are all of them said to these. For he instructs them not to choose just what they may think, themselves, to be useful, but what the Spirit may suggest; for many things that seem to one’s self profitable, do sometimes even cause much harm. Quiet, for instance, and freedom from dangers, and living out of fear, seemed to be advantageous for them. And what wonder if they did to them, since to the blessed Paul himself this seemed to be so? still he came afterwards to know that the opposite to all these are the things advantageous, and when he came to know it, he was content. So he that besought the Lord thrice to be freed from hazards,1447 when once he heard Him say, “My grace is sufficient for thee, for My Power is perfected in weakness” (2 Cor. xii. 8, 9), was afterwards delighted at being persecuted, and insulted, and having irreparable ills done him. For, “I glory,” he says, “in persecutions, in insults” (Eng. V. reproaches), “in necessities.” (2 Cor. xii. 10.) And this was his reason for saying, “For we know not what we should pray for as we ought.” And he exhorted all men to give up these matters to the Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is very mindful of us, and this is the will of God. Having then cheered them by all methods, he proceeds to what we have heard to-day, putting forward a reason strong enough to reclaim them. For he says, “we know that all things work together for good to them that love God.” Now when he speaks of “all things,” he mentions even the things that seem painful. For should even tribulation, or poverty, or imprisonment, or famines, or deaths, or anything else whatsoever come upon us, God is able to change all these things into the opposite. For this is quite an instance of His unspeakable power, His making things seemingly painful to be lightsome to us, and turning them into that which is helpful to us. And so he does not say, that “them that love God,” no grievance approacheth, but, that it “works together for good,” that is to say, that He useth the grievous things themselves to make the persons so plotted against approved. And this is a much greater thing than hindering the 1447 See p. 447, and on 2 Cor. xii. 7, Hom. 26, p. 294 O.T. approach of such grievances, or stopping them when they have come. And this is what He did even with the furnace at Babylon. For He did not either prevent their falling into it, or extinguish the flame after those saints were cast into it, but let it burn on, and made them by this very flame greater objects of wonder, and with the Apostles too He wrought other like wonders continually. (St. Mark xvi. 18.) For if men who have learnt to be philosophic can use the things of nature to the opposite of their intention, and appear even when living in poverty in easier circumstances than the rich, and shine1448 through disgrace: much more will God work for those that love Him both these and also greater things by far. For one needs only one thing, a genuine love of Him, and all things follow that. As then things seemingly harmful do good to these, so do even things profitable harm those who love Him not. For instance, the exhibition of miracles and wisdom in His teaching only injured the Jews, as did the rightness of doctrine; and for the former they called Him a possessed person (John viii. 48), for the other one that would be equal to God (ib. v. 18): and because of the miracles (ib. xi. 47, 53), they even went about to kill Him. But the thief when crucified, when nailed to the Cross, and reviled, and suffering ills unnumbered, not only was not hurt, but even gained the greatest good therefrom. See how for those who love God all things work together for good. After mentioning then this great blessing, one which far exceeds man’s nature, since to many this seemed even past belief, he draws a proof of it from past blessings, in these words, “to them who are called according to His1449 purpose.” Now consider, he means, from the calling, for instance, what I have just said. Why then did He not from the first call all? or why not Paul himself as soon as the rest? Does it not seem that the deferring was harmful? But it was still by the event shown to be for the best. The purpose he here mentions, however, that he might not ascribe everything to the calling; since in this way both Greeks and Jews would be sure to cavil. For if the calling alone were sufficient, how came it that all were not saved? Hence he says, that it is not the calling alone, but the purpose of those called too, that works the salvation. For the calling was not forced upon them, nor compulsory. All then were called, but all did not obey the call.

Ver. 29. “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the Image of His Son.”

See what superb honor! for what the Only-begotten was by Nature, this they also have become by grace. And still he was not satisfied with this calling of them conformed thereto, 1448 καὶ ἐν τούτοις διαλάμπει τὸ καλὸν, Eth. i. 2. “even in these (misfortunes) the noble character shines forth.” 1449 The word His perhaps rightly inserted in our version, is not in the Greek, and Theodoret seems not have taken it so; he says, “for he calleth not any as it may be (ἁπλῶς), but those who have a purpose” (a predisposition), πρόθεσιν, and so does St. Chrysostom below, and OEcumenius. See on Eph. i. 11. Hom. ii. p. 112 O.T. and note. St. Augustin rejects this exposition and adopts that of our version, Ad Bonif. l. ii. §22, De Corr. et. Gr. §23. but even adds another point, “that He might be the first-born.” And even here he does not come to a pause, but again after this he proceeds to mention another point, “Among many brethren.” So wishing to use all means of setting the relationship1450 in a clear light. Now all these things you are to take as said of the Incarnation.1451 For according to the Godhead He is Only-begotten. See, what great things He hath given unto us! Doubt not then about the future. For he showeth even upon other grounds His concern for us by saying, that things were fore-ordered1452 in this way from the beginning. For men have to derive from things their conceptions about them, but to God these things have been long determined upon,1453 and from of old He bare good-will toward us (πρὸς ἡμἅς διέκειτο), he says.

Ver. 30. “Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified.”

Now He justified them by the regeneration of the laver. “And whom He justified, them He also glorified” by the gift, by the adoption.

Ver. 31. “What shall we then say to these things?”

As if he should say, Let me then hear no more about the dangers and the malicious devices from every quarter. For even if some disbelieve the things to come, still they have not a word to say against the good things that have already taken place; as, for instance, the friendship of God towards thee from the first, the justifying, the glory. And yet these things He gave thee by means seemingly distressing. And those things which you thought to be disgracing, the Cross, scourges, bonds, these are what have set the whole world aright. As then by what Himself suffered, though of aspect forbidding in man’s eye, even by these He effected the liberty and salvation of the whole race; so also is He wont to do in regard to those things which thou endurest, turning thy sufferings unto glory and renown for thee. “If God be for us, who can be against us?”

Why, it may be said, who is there that is not against us? Why the world is against us, both kings and peoples, both relations and countrymen. Yet these that be against us, so far are they from thwarting us at all, that even without their will they become to us the causes of crowns, and procurers of countless blessings, in that God’s wisdom turneth their plots unto our salvation and glory. See how really no one is against us! For it was this which gave new lustre to Job, the fact that the devil was in arms against him. For the devil moved at once friends against him, his wife against him, and wounds, and servants, and a thousand other machinations. And it turned out that none of them was against him on the whole. And yet this was no great thing to him, though it was great in itself, but what is a far greater 1450 συγγένειαν, but Mar. and 6 mss. εὐγ. nobility. 1451 Gr. Economy, see p. 338, note 3. 1452 Or “marked out,” προτετυπῶσθαι. 1453 See Sir Thomas Brown, Rel. Med. pt. i. p. 22. thing is, that it turned out that they were all for him. For since God was for him, even things seemingly against him all became for him. And this happened with the Apostles also, inasmuch as both the Jews, and they of the Gentiles, and false brethren, and rulers, and peoples, and famines, and poverty, and ten thousand things were against them; and yet nothing was against them. For the things which made them the most bright and conspicuous, and great in the sight both of God and of men, were these. Just reflect then what a word Paul hath uttered about the faithful, and those who are truly (ἀκριβὥς) crucified, such as not even the Emperor with his diadem can achieve. For against him there are abundance of barbarians that arm themselves, and of enemies that invade, and of bodyguards that plot, and of subjects many that oftentimes are ever and anon rebelling, and thousands of other things. But against the faithful who taketh good heed unto God’s laws, neither man, nor devil, nor aught besides, can stand! For if you take away his money, you have become the procurer of a reward to him. If you speak ill of him, by the evil report he gains fresh lustre in God’s sight. If you cast him into starvation, the more will his glory and his reward be. If (what seems the most severe stroke of all) you give him over to death, you are twining a crown of martyrdom about him.1454 What then is equivalent to this way of life, being that against which nothing can be done, but even they that seem to devise mischief are no less of service to him than benefactors? This is why he says, “If God be for us, who can be against us?” Next, not being satisfied with what he had already said, the greatest sign of His love for us, and that which he always is dwelling over, that he sets down here also; I mean, the slaying of His Son. For He did not only justify us, he means, and glorify us, and make us conformed to that Image, but not even His Son did He spare for thee. And therefore he proceeds to say,

Ver. 32. “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?”

And here the words he uses are high-wrought (μεθ᾽ ὑτερβολἥς) and exceedingly warm, to show his love. How then is He to neglect us, in whose behalf “He spared not His own 1454 Chrys. apprehends well the practical purpose for which the apostle introduced verses 28–30. Notwithstanding all the imperfections of the Christian’s spiritual life (26, 27) and the trials which have been so fully described (1–24) we have the assurance that all these things are working in accordance with God’s gracious plan for his ultimate good. In passing over from the idea of believers as those who love God to its counterpart that they are those called according to His purpose (not to be taken of the believer’s purpose, as Chrys.) the apostle develops from this idea of purpose a series of conceptions designed to emphasize the believer’s security. “You who love God can be sure of the outcome of all suffering in good for you are included in God’s purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Eph. iii. 11.) You have all the strength and solidity of God’s eternal plan on your side. When the divine purpose of redemption was before the mind of God in eternity, you were the prospective participants in it, as truly as you now are the real participants. What you are God from eternity intended you to be. The stability of his immutable counsel is pledged to you.”—G.B.S. Son, but delivered Him up for us all?” For reflect what goodness it is not to spare even His own Son, but to give Him up, and to give Him up for all, and those worthless, and unfeeling, and enemies, and blasphemers. “How then shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? What he means then is much as follows; If He gave His own Son, and not merely gave Him, but gave Him to death, why doubt any more about the rest, since thou hast the Master? why be dubious about the chattels, when thou hast the Lord? For He that gave the greater thing to His enemies, how shall He do else than give the lesser things to His friends?

Ver. 33. “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?”

Here he is against those who say, that faith is no profit, and will not believe the complete change. (i.e. in baptism see p. 349.) And see how swiftly he stops their mouths, by the worthiness of Him that elected. He does not say, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s” servants? or of God’s faithful ones? but “of God’s elect?” And election is a sign of virtue. For if when a horse-breaker has selected colts fit for the race, no one can find fault with them, but he would get laughed at who should find fault; much more when God selecteth souls are they that “lay any charge against” them deserving of laughter.

“It is God that justifieth.”

Ver. 34. “Who is He that condemneth?

He does not say, it is God that forgave our sins, but what is much greater, “It is God that justifieth.” For when the Judge’s sentence declares us just, and a Judge such as that too, what signifieth the accuser? Hence neither is it right to fear temptations, for God is for us, and hath shown it by what He hath done; nor again Jewish triflings, for He has both elected and justified us, and the wondrous thing is that it was also by the death of His Son that He did so. Who then is to condemn us, since God crowns us, and Christ was put to death for us, and not only was put to death, but also after this intercedeth for us?1455

For, “It is Christ,” he says, “that died, yea rather, that is risen from the dead, Who is at the right hand of God, Who also maketh intercession for us.”

For though seen now in His own dignity, He hath not left caring for us, but even “maketh intercession for us,” and still keepeth up the same love. For He was not contented with being put to death alone. And this is a sign for the most part of very great love, to be doing not only what falls to His lot, but also to address Another on this behalf. For this is all he meant to signify by the interceding, using a way of speaking better suited to man, and more condescending, that he might point out love. Since unless we take the words, “He spared not,” also with the same understanding, many inconsistencies will come of it. And that you may 1455 The argument of vv. 33, 34 which is so condensed in form, may be paraphrased thus: “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? No one shall. Why? Because their justifier is God himself. No one may accuse whom He acquits. Who, then, can appear against them and condemn them? No one can, for it is no less a person than Christ who died and rose on their behalf.”—G.B.S. see that such is the point he is aiming at, after first saying, that He “is at the Right Hand,” he next proceeds to say, that He “maketh intercession for us,” when he had shown an equality of honor and rank, so that hence it may appear that the Intercession is not a sign of inferiority,1456 but of love only. For being Life itself (αὐτοζωή) (Ps. xxxvi. 9.), and a Well of good things of every kind, and with the same power as the Father, both to raise up the dead and to quicken them, and do all besides that He doth, how could He need to be a suppliant in order to help us? (John v. 19, 21, 36.) He that of His own power set free those who were given over and condemned, even from that condemnation; and made them righteous, and sons, and led them to the very highest honors, and brought to pass things which had never been hoped for: how should He, after having achieved all this, and having shown our nature on the King’s throne, require to be a suppliant to do the easier things? (Acts vii. 55; Heb. x. 12; Rev. vii. 17.) You see how it is shown by every argument, that there is no other reason for his having mentioned intercession, save to show the warmth and vigorousness of His love for us; for the Father also is represented to us as beseeching men to be reconciled to Him. “For we are ambassadors of Christ, as though God did beseech you by us.” (2 Cor. v. 20.) Still, though God beseecheth, and men are “ambassadors in Christ’s stead” to men, we do not understand on that account anything done unworthy of that dignity; but one thing only do we gather from all that is told us, namely, the intenseness of the love. This then let us do here also. If then the Spirit even “maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered,” and Christ died and intercedeth for us, and the Father “spared not His own Son” for thee, and elected thee, and justified thee, why be afraid any more? Or why tremble when enjoying such great love, and having such great interest taken in thee? In this way then, after showing His great providence over us from the first, he afterwards brings out what comes next in a bold style, and does not say, ye ought also to love Him, but, as if grown enthusiastic at this unspeakable Providence over us, he says,

Ver. 35. “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”

And he does not say of God, so indifferent is it to him whether he mentions the Name of Christ or of God. “Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?” Observe the blessed Paul’s judgment. For he does not mention the things that we are daily getting taken by, love of money and desire of glory and the thraldom of anger, but things that are far more enthralling than these, and of power to put a force1457 upon nature itself, and to wrench open the sternness of the resolution many times even against our will, are what he puts down here, tribulations and distresses. For even if the 1456 Theodoret notices the same thing, ad loc. St. Basil, De Sp. S. c. xx. answers a similar argument against the equal Divinity of the Holy Spirit, by showing that it would apply to the Son if at all. 1457 Shakespeare, Lear, act ii. sc. iv. “We are not ourselves when nature being oppressed commands the mind to suffer with the body,” etc. things mentioned are easy to tell up, still each single word has in it thousands of lines of temptation. For when he says, tribulation, he mentions prisons and bonds, and calumnies, and banishments, and all the other hardships, so in one word running through an ocean of dangers without stint, and exhibiting to us, in fact by a single word, all the evils that men meet with. Yet still he dares them all! Wherefore he brings them forward in the shape of questions, as if it was incontrovertible that nothing could move a person so beloved, and who had enjoyed so much providence over him. Then that this might not seem as if he had forgotten himself, he brings in the Prophet also, who declared this before, a long while ago and saith,

Ver. 36. “For Thy sake we are killed all the day long, we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Ps. xliv. 22.)

That is, we are exposed to all to be evil entreated of them. But yet against so many and so great dangers and these recent horrors, the object of our conflicts is given as a sufficient consolation, or rather not sufficient only, but even much more. For it is not for men, nor for any other of the things of this life that we suffer, but for the King (he says) of the universe. But this is not the only crown, for he encircles them with another besides, and that varied and manifold. Since then, as they were men they could not have deaths without number to undergo, he shows that in this way the prize is none the less. For even if by nature it were fated to die once, by choice God hath granted us to suffer this every day, if we be so minded. Whence it is plain that we shall depart with as many crowns as we have lived days, or rather with many more. For it is possible in a day to die not once alone or twice, but many times. For he who is always ready unto this, keeps continually receiving a full reward. This then is what the Psalmist (Προφήτης) hints at, when he says, “all the day.” And for this reason the Apostle also brought him before them to rouse them up the more. For if, he means, those in the old dispensation, who had the land as their reward, and the other things which come to a close along with this life, did so look down upon the present life and the temptations and dangers of it, what pardon should we find if we deal so languidly after the promise of Heaven, and the Kingdom above, and its unutterable blessings, so as not to come even up to the same measure as they? And this he does not say indeed, but leaves it to his hearers’ consciences, and is satisfied with the quotation alone. He shows too that their bodies become a sacrifice, and that we must not be disturbed or troubled at God having so ordered it. And he exhorts them in other ways besides. For to prevent any from saying that he is merely philosophizing here before having any experience of realities, he adds, “we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter,” meaning the daily deaths of the Apostles. You see his courage and his goodness. For as they, he means, when slaughtered make no resistance, so neither do we. But since the feebleness of the mind of man, even after so great things, was afraid of the multitude of temptations, see how he again rouses the hearer, and gives him a lofty and exulting spirit, by saying,

Rom. IX. 1

“I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.”

Did I not seem yesterday to you to have spoken some great and exorbitant things of Paul’s love toward Christ? And great indeed they were, too great for any words to express. Yet what you have heard to-day are as far above those things, as those things were above ours. And yet I did not think they could be exceeded, still when I came to what has been read to-day1459 it did appear far more glorious than the whole of the former. And that he was aware of this himself he shows by his exordium. For as on the point of entering upon greater things than those, and therefore liable to be disbelieved by the generality, he first uses a strong asseveration about the matter he is going to speak of; which many are in the habit of doing when they are going to say somewhat which is not believed by the generality, and about which they feel the utmost certainty in their own minds. Hence he says, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, and my conscience beareth witness,”

Ver. 2, 3. “That I have a great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ.”1460

What sayest thou, O Paul? from Christ, thy beloved One, from Whom neither kingdom nor hell, nor things visible nor intelligible, nor another world as great, would separate thee, is it from Him that thou wouldst now be accursed? What has happened? Hast thou changed, hast thou given over that love? No, he replies, fear not. Rather I have even made it more intense. How then is it that thou wouldest fain be accursed, and seekest a separation, and a removal to such a distance, that after it there is no possibility of finding a more distant one? Because I love Him exceedingly, he may reply. How, pray, and in what manner? For the things seem a riddle. Or rather, if you will, let us learn what the curse is, and then we will question him upon these points, and shall understand this unspeakable and extraordinary love. What then is the curse? Hear his own words, “If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.” (anathema, 1 Cor. xvi. 22.) That is, let him be set apart from all, removed from all. For as in the case of a thing dedicated (ἀνάθημα), which is set apart 1459 So Field from one ms. Vulg. “what has been read to-day, as it reached my ears.” 1460 Chaps. ix. x. and xi. may be viewed as a kind of appendix to the doctrinal part of the epistle, in which the apostle considers the problems to which the unbelief and rejection of the Jews gave rise. It is Paul’s purpose in these chapters to show that his doctrine does not contradict God’s promises to the Jews. Chap. ix. contains strong assertions that the providential dealing of God with the Jews is not to be called in question. It is evident from the gradual approach of the apostle to this theme, how painful it was to him to be compelled to contemplate it.—G.B.S. for God, no one would venture so much as to touch it with his hand or even to come near it; so too with a man who is put apart from the Church, in cutting him off from all, and removing him as far off as possible, he calls him by this name (ἀνάθεμα) in a contrary sense,1461 thus with much fear denouncing to all men to keep apart from him, and to spring away from him. For the thing set apart, no one, from respect of it, ventures to come near to. But from him who is cut off, all men separate themselves from a very opposite feeling. And so the separation is the same, and both the one and the other are equally removed from the generality. Still, the mode of separation is not the same, but in this case it is the opposite to what it is in that. For from the one they keep back as being dedicated to God; from the other as being estranged from God, and broken off from the Church. This then is what Paul means when he says, “I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ.” And he does not say merely that I could be willing, but using a stronger term, he says even, “I could wish” (or pray ηὐχόμην). But if what he says trouble you in your (ἀσθενέστερον) feebleness, consider the real state of the case, not only that he wished to be separated, but also the cause for which he wished it, and then you will see the greatness of his love.1462 For he even circumcised (Timothy, Acts xvi. 3), and we pay no attention to what was done, but to the intention of it, and the cause of it, and hence we wonder at him the more. And he not only circumcised a person, but he even shaved himself and sacrificed (Acts xviii. 18; Acts xxi. 24), and yet surely we do not therefore assert him to be a Jew, but upon this very score to be perfectly free from Judaizing, and clear of it, and a genuine worshipper of Christ. As then when you see him circumcising and sacrificing, you do not therefore condemn him as Judaizing, but upon this very score have the best reason for crowning him as quite an alien to Judaism; thus when thou seest him to have become desirous of being accursed, do not therefore be troubled, but upon this very ground give him the loudest praise, when thou knowest the cause why he wishes this. For if we do not look narrowly into the causes, we shall call Elijah a manslayer, and Abraham not a manslayer only, but a murderer of his son.1463 And Phinees and Peter we shall implead for murder likewise. Nor is it in the case of the saints alone, but also of the God of the universe, that he who does not keep to this rule, will be suspecting sundry unbecoming things. Now to prevent this happening in all cases of the kind, let us bring together both the cause, and the intention, and the time, and 1461 Thus sacer is used in both senses, and devoted in our own language somewhat similarly. 1462 The force of ἠυχόμην here is: “I would wish, if it were a thing which could possibly be realized for the advantage of my brethren.” The word ἀνάθεμα means anything devoted to God and then (as in the N.T.) something devoted to his wrath, i.e. accursed. The expression is to be understood as the language of intense passion and can scarcely mean anything less than a readiness to perish if by so doing he could save his people Israel.—G.B.S. 1463 Aug. de Civ. Dei, i. 21. Butler, Anal. p. 262, ii. 3, v. fin. all that makes in behalf of what is so done, and in this way let us investigate the actions. And this we must do now also in the case of this blessed soul. Now what is the cause? It is Jesus Himself Who is so beloved. And yet he does not say for Him; for what he says is, I would wish that I were accursed from Him for my brethren. And this comes of his humbleness of mind. For he has no wish to make himself conspicuous, as if he were saying something great, and doing Christ a favor in this. Wherefore also he said “my kinsmen,” that he may conceal his high aim (πλεονέκτημα). Since to see that he wished it all for Christ’s sake, just hear what comes next. After speaking of kinsmen then, he proceeds,

Ver. 4, 5. “To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father’s, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

And what is this? one asks. For if with a view to the belief of others he was willing to become accursed, he ought to have also wished for this in the Gentiles’ behalf. But if he wishes it in the Jews’ behalf only, it is a proof that he did not wish it for Christ’s sake, but for his own relationship to them. But in fact if he had prayed for the Gentiles only, this would not have been equally clear. But since it is for the Jews only, it is a clear proof that it is only for Christ’s glory that he is thus earnest. And I am aware that what I am saying will seem a paradox to you. Still if ye do not make a disturbance,1464 I will presently endeavor to make it clear. For what he has said he has not said nakedly; but since all were talking and accusing God, that after being counted worthy of the name of sons, and receiving the Law, and knowing Him beyond all men, and enjoying such great glory, and serving him beyond the whole world, and receiving the promises, and being from fathers who were His friends, and what was the greatest thing of all, having been forefathers of Christ Himself (for this is the meaning of the words, “of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came”), they are now cast out and disgraced; and in their place are introduced men who had never known Him, of the Gentiles. Now since they said all this, and blasphemed God, Paul hearing it, and being cut to the heart, and vexed for God’s glory’s sake, wished that he were accursed, had it been possible, so that they might be saved, and this blasphemy be put a stop to, and God might not seem to have deceived the offspring of those to whom He promised the gifts. And that you may see that it was in sorrow for this, that the promise of God might not seem to fall to the ground, which said to Abraham, “I will give this land to thee and to thy seed,” that he uttered this wish, he proceeds,

Ver. 6. “Not as though the word of God had taken none effect.”

To show that he had courage (Mar. and 4 mss. wished) to bear all these things for the word of God, that is, the promise made to Abraham. For as Moses seemed to be pleading 1464 This was sometimes done; but the mss. vary unusually in this word, and three different readings mean, “if ye are not disturbed.” See Twining on Arist. Poet. note 22, and Gaisf. on Rhet. p. 46. for the Jews, yet was doing everything for God’s glory (for he says, “Lest they say, Because He was not able to save them, He led them forth to destroy them in the wilderness” (Deut. ix. 28); stay Thy wrath), so also does Paul, That they may not say (he means) that the promise of God has fallen to the ground, and He has disappointed us of that He vouched to us, and this word has not issued in deed, I could wish to be accursed. This then was why he did not speak of the Gentiles (for to them no promises had been made by Him, nor had they worshipped Him, wherefore neither did any blaspheme Him on their account), but it was for the Jews who had both received the promise, and had also been brought into closer connection with Him than others, that he expressed this wish. Do you see, that if he had expressed it for the Gentiles, he would not have been shown to be doing this so purely for Christ’s glory? But since he was willing to become accursed in the Jews’ behalf, then it was most evidenced that it was for Christ’s sake only that he desired this.1465 And for this cause he says,

“To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the service of God, and the promises.”

For the Law, he means, which speaks of Christ, comes from thence, and all the covenants made with them, and Himself came from them, and the Fathers who received the promises were all from them. Yet still the opposite has resulted, and they have fallen from all their good things. Hence, he means, I am vexed, and if it were possible to be separated from the company about Christ, and to be made an alien, not from the love of Him (that be far from him; for even all this he was doing through love), but from all that enjoyment and glory, I would accept that lot, provided my Master were not to be blasphemed, that He might not have to hear some saying, that it has been all for stage-effect; He promises to one, and gives to another. He was sprung from one race, He saved another. It was to the forefathers of the Jews that He made the promises, and yet He has deserted their descendants, and put men, who never at any time knew Him, into their good things. They labored in the practice of the Law, and reading the Prophets, while men who have come but yesterday from heathen altars and images have been set up above them. What foresight is there in all this? Now that these things may not be said of my Master, he means, even if they are said unjustly, I would willingly lose even the kingdom and that glory unutterable, and any sufferings would I undergo, as considering it the greatest consolation possible no longer to hear Him Whom I so long for, so blasphemed. But if you be still against allowing this explanation, just reflect that many fathers have at many times taken up with thus much for their children, and have chosen to be separated from them, and rather to see them in honor, considering their honor dearer to them than their company. But since we are so short of love like this (Bacon, N. O. Aph. lib. 2, §7), we cannot even form an idea of what is here meant. For there be some that 1465 As galled at the blasphemies against Him for breaking His promise. are so wholly unworthy even to hear the name of Paul, and that stand at such an interval and distance from that vehemency of his, as to fancy that he says this of temporal death. Who I should say were as ignorant of Paul, as the blind of the sun’s rays, or even much more so. For he that died daily, and set before him dangers thick as a snow-storm, and then said, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine?” and still unsatisfied with what he had said, and after going above the heaven and the heaven of heavens, and running through the Angels and Archangels, and all the higher orders of beings, and taking in at once things present, things to come, things visible, things intelligible, things grievous, and things good, that were on either part, and leaving nothing out at all, yet not even thus satiated, but even bodying forth another non-existing creation, how should he, by way of saying some great thing after all those things, make mention of a temporal death? It is not so, surely it is not! But such a notion is that of worms nestling in their dunghill. For had he said this, in what sense would he be wishing himself accursed from Christ? For death (Phil. i. 23) of that sort would have joined him more closely with the band of Christ, and made him enjoy that glory the more. Yet some there are who venture to say things different from these, even more ridiculous. It was not then, they say, death that he wished to have, but to be a treasure, a thing set apart, of Christ’s. And who even of the most worthless and indolent that would not wish for this? And in what way was this likely to be in his kinsmen’s behalf? Let us then leave these fables and trifles (for it is no more worth while making a reply to these things than to children babbling at play), and let us go back again to the words themselves, luxuriating in this very ocean of love, and fearlessly swimming there in every direction, and reflecting upon the unspeakable flame of love—or rather say what one may, one shall say nothing worthy the subject. For there is no ocean so wide, no flame so intense, as this. And no language can set it forth as it deserves, but he alone knew it who in good earnest gained it. And now let me bring the words themselves before you again.

“For I could wish that I myself were accursed.” What does the “I myself” mean? It means I that have been a teacher (1 Cor. ix. 27) of all, that have gathered together countless good deeds, that am waiting for countless crowns, that desired Him so much, as to value His love above all things, who all my days am burning for Him, and hold all things (Phil. iii. 8) of second importance to the love of Him. For even being loved by Christ was not the only thing he cared for, but loving Him exceedingly also. And this last he cared most for (τούτου μάλιστα ἦν). So it was that he looked to this only, and took all things light-heartedly. For he kept one aim in view in all circumstances, the fulfilling of this excellent love. And this he wishes for. But since things were not to take this course, nor he to become accursed,1466 1466 This passage makes, perhaps, a comment on the words, Luke ix. 24, Whosoever will lose his life (τὴν ψυχὴν), the same shall save it. he next attempts to go into a defence against the charges, and so to bring what was bruited abroad by all before them as to overthrow it. And before he openly enters into his defence against these, he first lays down some seeds of it beforehand. For when he says, “to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises,” he does but say that God willed them indeed to be saved, and this he showed by His former dealings, and by Christ’s having sprung from them, and by what He promised to the Fathers. But they out of their own untreatable temper thrust the benefit away from them. And this is also the reason of his setting down such things as set forth God’s gift, not such as were encomiums upon them. For the adoption came of His grace, and so too the glory, and the promises, and the Law. After taking all these things then into consideration, and reflecting how earnest God along with His Son, had been for their salvation, he lifts up his voice aloud, and says, “Who is1467 blessed forever. Amen.”

So himself offering up thanksgiving for all men unto the Only-Begotten of God. What, he says, if others do blaspheme? Still we who know His mysteries, and His unspeakable Wisdom, and great Providence over us, know well that it is not to be blasphemed, but to be glorified, that He is worthy. Still not satisfied with being himself conscious of it, he endeavors next to use arguments, and to use a sharper way of speech against them. And he does not direct his aim at them, without first divesting them of a suspicion they had. Lest then he should seem to be addressing them as enemies, further on he says “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” (Rom. x. 1.) And here, along with other remarks, he so ordered things, as not to seem to be saying what he was going to say out of enmity against them. Hence he does not decline calling them even kinsmen and brothers. For even if it was for Christ’s sake that he said what he did, still he is for drawing (ἐπισπἅται) their mind to him also,1468 and paves his way to what he has to say, and quits himself of all suspicion owing to what had to be said against them, and then he at last goes into the subject most of them were looking for. For many, as I have already stated, wanted to know what was the reason why they who had received the promise fell short of it, while those who had even never heard of it were saved before them. Therefore, to clear up this difficulty, he brings forward the answer before the objection. For to prevent any from saying, What? Art thou more thoughtful for God’s glory than God is for His own? And does He need thy aid that His word may not fall to the ground? In reply to these things he says, I spoke this not as if God’s Word had fallen to the ground, but to show my love for Christ. 1467 So all copies of St. Chrys. The following words, however, imply that this was not his reading of the text, (which had before been read at length, as the first words of this Homily show, see p. 459), he quotes it as in our text, in Hom. xx. on 1 Cor. viii. 5, p. 266 O.T. and elsewhere. See note in Mill’s G. T. All mss. agree with the rec. text. 1468 1 ms. he is aware of their way of thinking, ἐπίσταται, this gives a more common sense to διάνοιαν. For as things have had this issue, we are in no want of words in God’s behalf, or of showing that stand His promise did. God said to Abraham, “To thee and to thy seed will I give the land.” And, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” (Gen. xii. 7, 3.) Let us see then, he says, of what sort this seed is. For it is not all that are from him that are his seed. Whence he says, “For they are not all Israel that are of (or from) Israel.”

Ver. 7. “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.”

Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word hath not fallen to the ground.1469 Of what kind, pray, is the seed then? It is no saying of mine, he means, but the Old Testament itself explains itself by saying as follows, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” (Gen. xxi. 12.) What is, “In Isaac?” Explain.

Ver. 8. “That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, these are counted for the seed.”

And observe the judgment and depth of Paul’s mind. For in interpreting, he does not say, “they which are the children of the flesh, these are not” the children of Abraham, but, “the children of God:” so blending the former things with the present, and showing that even Isaac was not merely Abraham’s son. And what he means is something of this sort: as many as have been born as Isaac was, they are sons of God, and of the seed of Abraham. And this is why he said, “in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” That one may learn that they who are born after the fashion of Isaac, these are in the truest sense Abraham’s children. In what way was Isaac born then? Not according to the law of nature, not according to the power of the flesh, but according to the power of the promise. What is meant then by the power of “the promise?”

Ver. 9. “At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.”

This promise then and word of God it was that fashioned Isaac, and begat him. For what if a womb was its instrument and the belly of a woman? Since it was not the power of 1469 At v. 6 begins Paul’s theodicy in view of the lapse of the Israelites. The argument of vv. 6–13 is: God’s promise cannot fail because it applies to the true Israel. This point he illustrates from Old Testatment examples. The argument throughout this chapter is conducted from the point of view of God’s sovereign election. In the two subsequent chapters, other considerations drawn from the freedom and disobedience of the people are introduced. It is as if the apostle had said: God has done according to His sovereign good pleasure. We might leave the matter there. To one who should say: why then does he blame me? (v. 19), or: why has he made me thus? (23), we might reply: who art thou to reply against God? The apostle does not rest the consideration of the case with the presentation of this view. In the closing verses of the chap. he shifts the point of view and asks: why did Israel fail? why was she cut off and the Gentiles chosen? (31). He answers, because they did not seek righteousness by faith; they were not trustful and obedient, and hence they found the Messiah a stone of stumbling and failed to realize the ideal of their prophetic history.—G.B.S. the belly, but the might of the promise that begat the child. Thus are we also gendered by the words of God. Since in the pool of water it is the words of God which generate and fashion us. For it is by being baptized into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that we are gendered. And this birth is not of nature, but of the promise of God. (John iii. 3; Eph. v. 26; James i. 18; 1 Pet. iii. 21.) For as after first foretelling the birth of Isaac, He then accomplished it; so ours also He had announced before, many ages ago by all the Prophets, and afterwards brought it to pass. You know how great He has set it forth as being, and how, as He promised a great thing, He furnished it with abundant ease! (Hos. ii. 1, etc.) But if the Jews were to say, that the words, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” mean this, that those born of Isaac should be reckoned to him for a seed, then the Edomites too, and all those people, ought to be denominated his sons, since their forefather Esau was a son of his. But now so far are they from being called sons, that they are the greatest possible aliens. You see then that it is not the children of the flesh that are the children of God, but that even in nature itself the generation by means of baptism from above was sketched out beforehand. And if you tell me of the womb, I in return have to tell you of the water. But as in this case all is of the Spirit, so in the other all was of promise. For the womb was more chilled than any water owing to barrenness and to old age. Let us then gain accurate knowledge of our own nobility, and display a life worthy of it. For in it is nothing fleshly or earthy: hence neither let there be in us. For it was neither sleep, nor the will of the flesh (John i. 13), nor embraces, nor the madness of desire, but “God’s love toward man,” which wrought the whole. (Tit. iii. 5.) And as in that case it was when the age was past hope, so in this also it was when the old age of sins had come over us, that Isaac1470 suddenly sprang up in youth, and we all became the children of God, and the seed of Abraham. (Is. xl. 31.)

Ver. 10. “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac.”

The subject in question was an important one. Hence he turns to several arguments, and endeavors by all means to solve the difficulty. For if it was at once strange and new for them to be cast out after so great promises, it is much more strange that we even should come into their good things, who did not expect anything of the kind. And the case was the same as if a king’s son, who had promises made him that he should succeed to the power he had, were to be cast into the level of disreputable men, and in his place a condemned man, and one laden with evils unnumbered, after being taken out of prison, were to come into the power, which properly was the other’s. For he means, what have you to say? that the son is unworthy? Well, but so is this man unworthy, and much more so. Hence he ought either to have been punished along with the former, or to have been honored along with him. Now it was something of this sort which befel the Jews and the Gentiles, or something 1470 i.e. the true Seed of promise. far more strange than this. Now that all were unworthy, he has shown above, where he says, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. iii. 23.) But the new thing is, that when all were unworthy, the Gentiles were saved alone. And beside this there is another difficulty that some one may start, he says. If God had no intention of fulfilling the promises to them, why make them at all? For men who know not the future, and are many times deceived, do promise even the undeserving that they shall have their largesses. But He Who knoweth beforehand things to come as well as things present, and hath a clear knowledge that they will make themselves undeserving of the promises, and therefore will not receive any of the things specified,—why should He promise at all? Now what is Paul’s way of meeting all this? It is by showing what the Israel is to whom He made the promise. For when this has been shown, there is at the same time demonstrated the fact that the promises were all fulfilled. And to point this out he said, “For they are not all Israel that are of Israel.” And this is why he does not use the name of Jacob,1471 but that of Israel, which was a sign of the virtue of that just man, and of a gift from above, and of having seen God. (Gen. xxxii. 28.) Yet, “all,” he says, “have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. iii. 23.) Now if all have sinned, how come some to be saved, and some to perish? It is because all were not minded to come to Him, since for His part all were saved, for all were called. However, he does not set this down yet awhile, but meets it from an advantageous position, and from other examples, by bringing before them another question, and as in the former case meets a difficulty very great, by another difficulty. For when he was discussing how by Christ being justified all the rest enjoyed that righteousness, he brought in Adam’s case, saying, “For if by one man’s offence death reigned, much more they which receive abundance of grace shall reign in life.” (Rom. v. 17). And the case of Adam, indeed, he does not clear up, but from it he clears up His (or his own), and shows that it was more reasonable that He Who died in their behalf should have power over them at His will. For that when one had sinned all should be punished, does not seem to be so very reasonable to most men. But that when One had done aright all should be justified, is at once more reasonable and more suited to God. Yet still he has not solved the difficulty he raised. For the more obscure that point remained, the more the Jew was put to silence. And the difficulty of his position passed over to the other, and this become clearer from it (Mar. and 4 mss. “than that”). So in this passage also, it is by raising other difficulties that he meets the questions raised, inasmuch as it was against Jews that he was contending. Hence he takes no pains to solve the examples which he has brought before us. For he was not answerable for1472 them as in the fight against the Jews. But from them he makes his own subject throughout clearer. Why do you 1471 Didymus in Psalm xcvii. 3, and Hesych. ps. lii. 7, ap. Corderium, t. 2. 1472 Gr. to them, i.e. to them considered as objections. Compare Matt. xxi. 27. “Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. feel surprised, he means, that some of the Jews were saved, and some not saved at this time? Why of old, in the patriarch’s times, one may see this happening. For why was Isaac only called the seed, and yet he was the father of Ishmael also, and of several others. “But he was of a mother that was a slave.” And what has this to do with his father? Still I will not be captious. Let this son be set aside on his mother’s account. What are we to say of those sprung from Keturah? were they not free, and from a mother that was free? How came they not to be honored with the same preference as Isaac? And why do I speak of these? for Rebecca was even Isaac’s only wife, and bearing two children she bore them both to Isaac; still those so born, though of the same father, and the same mother, and the fruit of the same labor, being both of one father and one mother, and twins besides, yet did not enjoy the same lot. And yet here you have no mother’s slavery to account for it, as in Ishmael’s case, nor can you say that one was begotten of this womb and the other of a different one, as in the case of Keturah and Sarah, since in this case they had the same hour in common to them for their birth. This was why Paul then, in order to give a clearer example, says that this happened not in Isaac’s case only, “but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac.”

Ver. 11–13. “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

What was the cause then why one was loved and the other hated? why was it that one served, the other was served? It was because one was wicked, and the other good.1473 And yet the children being not yet born, one was honored and the other condemned. For when they were not as yet born, God said, “the elder shall serve the younger.” With what intent then did God say this? Because He doth not wait, as man doth, to see from the issue of their acts the good and him who is not so, but even before these He knoweth which is the wicked and which not such. And this took place in the Israelites’ case also, in a still more wonderful way. Why, he says, do I speak of Esau and of Jacob, of whom one was wicked and the other good? For in the Israelites’ case, the sin belonged to all, since they all worshipped the calf. Yet notwithstanding some had mercy shown them, and others had not.1474

Ver. 15. “For I will have mercy, He says, on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” (Ex. xxxiii. 19.)

Rom. X. 1

“Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is, that they might be saved.”

He is now going again to rebuke them more vehemently than before.1481 Wherefore he again does away with every suspicion of hatred, and makes a great effort beforehand to correct misapprehension. Do not then, he says, mind words or accusations, but observe that it is not in any hostile spirit that I say this. For it is not likely that the same person should desire their salvation, and not desire it only, but even pray for it, and yet should also hate them, and feel aversion to them. For here he calls his exceeding desire, and the prayer which he makes (εὐδοκίαν), “heart’s desire.” For it is not the being freed from punishment only, but that they may also be saved, that he makes so great a point of, and prays for. Nor is it from this only, but also from the sequel that he shows the goodwill that he hath towards them. For from what is open to him, as far as he can, he forces his way, and is contentious to find out some shadow at least of an excuse for them. And he hath not the power, being overcome by the nature of the facts.

Ver. 2. “For I bear them record,” says he, “that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.”

“How then shall they call on Him in Whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in Him of Whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent? as it is written.”

Here again he takes from them all excuse. For since he had said, “I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge,” and that “being ignorant of God’s righteousness, they submitted not themselves” to it: he next shows, that for this ignorance itself they were punishable before God. This he does not say indeed so, but he makes it good by carrying on his discourse in the way of question, and so convicting them more clearly, by framing the whole passage out of objections and answers. But look further back. The Prophet, saith he, said, “Whosoever shall call upon the Name of the Lord shall be saved.” Now somebody might say perhaps, “But how could they call upon Him Whom they had not believed? Then there is a question from him after the objection; And why did they not believe? Then an objection again. A person certainly may say, And how could they believe, since they had not heard? Yet hear they did, he implies. Then another objection again. “And how could they hear without a preacher?” Then an answer again. Yet preach they did, and there were many sent forth for this very purpose. And whence does it appear that these are those persons sent? Then he brings the prophet in next, who says, “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!” (Is. iii. 7.) You see how by the kind of preaching he points out the preachers. For there was nothing else that these men went about telling everywhere, but those unspeakable good things, and the peace made by God with men. And so by disbelieving, it is not we, he implies, whom you disbelieve, but Isaiah the prophet, who spake many years ago, that we were to be sent, and to preach, and to say what we do say. If the being saved, then, came of calling upon Him, and calling upon Him from believing, and believing from hearing, and hearing from preaching, and preaching from being sent, and if they were sent, and did preach, and the prophet went round with them to point them out, and proclaim them, and say that these were they whom they showed of so many ages ago, whose feet even they praised because of the matter of their preaching; then it is quite clear that the not believing was their own fault only. And that because God’s part had been fulfilled completely.1495

Rom. XI. 7

“What then?1506Israel hath not obtained that, which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it and the rest were blinded.”

He had said that God did not cast off His people; and to show in what sense He had not cast them off, he takes refuge in the Prophets again.1507 And having shown by them that the more part of the Jews were lost, that he might not seem to be again bringing forward an accusation of his own, and to make his discourse offensive, and to be attacking them as enemies, he takes refuge in David and Isaiah, and says,

Ver. 8. “According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber.” (Is. xxix. 10.)

Or rather we should go back to the beginning of his argument. Having then mentioned the state of things in Elijah’s time, and shown what grace is, he proceeds, “What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for.” Now this is as much what an accuser would say, as what one who was putting a question. For the Jew, he means, is inconsistent with himself when he seeketh for righteousness, which he will not accept. Then to leave them with no excuse, he shows, from those who have accepted it, their unfeeling spirit, as he says, “But the election hath obtained it,” and they are the condemnation of the others. And this is what Christ says, “But if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Wherefore they shall be your judges.” (Luke xi. 19.) For to prevent any one from accusing the nature of the thing, and not their own temper, he points out those who had obtained it. Hence he uses the word1508 with great propriety, to show at once the grace from above and the zeal of these. For it is not to deny free-will that he speaks of their having 1506 Field punctuates so as to give the sense “Why then hath not Israel attained to that which he seeketh after? Nay, but the election hath obtained it;” which seems to be (at all events) St. Chrysostom’s view of the passage. 1507 The course of thought here may be thus exhibited: God in his gracious promise made simple faith the condition of salvation, but Israel sought it in the line of works and has not attained it. But the election obtained it because the avowed principle of the election was grace, to which corresponds faith. In other words: those who complied with the express principle of the election and who sought salvation by faith, receiving it as a gift of divine grace, were accepted. Those who thought to establish their own righteousness have failed, and this failure corresponds to that judicial hardening with which God through Moses and Isaiah threatens the disobedient Israelites in the Old Testament.—G.B.S. 1508 Or “language.” He has before remarked on the term election as implying an approved character; see on v. 5, p. 483. “obtained” (as by chance, Gr. ἐπέτυχε) it, but to show the greatness of the good things, and that the greater part was of grace, though not the whole.1509 For we too are in the habit of saying, “so and so chanced to get” (same word), “so and so met with,” when the gain has been a great one. Because it is not by man’s labors, but by God’s gift, that the greater part was brought about.

“And the rest was blinded.”

See how he has been bold enough to tell with his own voice the casting off of the rest. For he had indeed spoken of it already, but it was by bringing the prophets in as accusers. But from this point he declares it in his own person. Still even here he is not content with his own declaration, but brings Isaiah the prophet in again. For after saying, “were blinded,” he proceeds; “according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber.” Now whence came this blinding? He had indeed mentioned the causes of it before, and turned it all upon their own heads, to show that it was from their unseasonable obstinacy that they had to bear this. And now he speaks of it too. For when he says, “Eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear,” he is but finding fault with their contentious spirit. For when they had “eyes to see” the miracles, and were possessed of “ears to hear” that marvellous Teaching, they never used these as were fitting. And the “He gave,” do not imagine to mean here an agency, but a permission only. But “slumber” (καταάνυξις lit. piercing) is a name he here gives to the habit of soul inclinable to the worse, when incurably and unchangeably so. For in another passage David says, “that my glory may sing unto Thee, and I may not be put to slumber” (Ps. xxx. 12, LXX.): that is, I may not alter, may not be changed. For as a man who is hushed to slumber in a state of pious fear would not easily be made to change his side; so too he that is slumbering in wickedness would not change with facility. For to be hushed1510 to slumber here is nothing else but to be fixed and riveted to a thing. In pointing then to the incurable and unchangeable character of their spirit, he calls it “a spirit of slumber.” Then to show that for this unbelief they will be most severely punished, he brings the Prophet forward again, threatening the very things which in the event came to pass.

Ver. 9. “Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling-block.” (Ps. lxix. 22, 23.)

Rom. XII. 1

“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.”

After discoursing at large upon the love of God toward man, and pointing out His unspeakable concern for us, and unutterable goodness, which cannot even be searched into, he next puts it forward with a view of persuading those who have received the benefit to exhibit a conversation worthy of the gift. And though he is so great and good a person, yet he does not decline beseeching them, and that not for any enjoyment he was likely to get himself, but for that they would have to gain. And why wonder that he does not decline beseeching, where he is even putting God’s mercies before them? For since, he means, it is from this you have those numberless blessings, from the mercies of God, reverence them, be moved to compassion by them. For they themselves take the attitude of suppliants, that you would show no conduct unworthy of them. I entreat you then, he means, by the very things through which ye were saved. As if any one who wished to make a person, who had had great kindnesses done him, show regard, was to bring him the benefactor himself as a suppliant. And what dost thou beseech? let me hear. “That ye would present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” For when he had said sacrifice, to prevent any from thinking he bade them kill themselves, he forthwith added (Greek order) “living.” Then to distinguish it from the Jewish, he calls it “holy, acceptable to God, your reasonable1521 service.” For theirs was a material one, and not very acceptable either.1522 Since He saith, “Who hath required this at your hands?” (Isa. i. 12.) And in sundry other passages He clearly throws them aside. For it was not this, but this with the other, that He looked to have presented. Wherefore he saith, “The sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me.” And again, “I will praise the name of my God with a song, and this shall please him better than a bullock that putteth forth horns and hoofs.” (Ps. l. 23; lxix. 30, 31.) And so in another place He rejects it, and says, “Shall I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink goat’s blood?” (ib. l. 13) and proceeds with, “Offer unto God a sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows 1521 Reasonable is here used for what has been termed super-sensuous, as in the Syriac, and later Latin, see p. 498. 1522 Evidently Chrys. understands by λογικήν here rational as opposed to material service such as the Jews offered in animal sacrifices. Others have understood of it of spiritual service as opposed to the superstitious service of the heathen (Calvin). Others find in it a contrast with the irrational animals (ζῶα ἄλογα) offered in sacrifice (Theodoret, Grotius). The first view is preferable. Christianus omnia recte reputat, et ex beneficio Dei miserentis colligit offcium suum, says Bengel.—G.B.S. unto the Most High.” (ib. 14.) So Paul also here bids us “present our bodies a living sacrifice.” And how is the body, it may be said, to become a sacrifice? Let the eye look upon no evil thing, and it hath become a sacrifice; let thy tongue speak nothing filthy, and it hath become an offering; let thine hand do no lawless deed, and it hath become a whole burnt offering. Or rather this is not enough, but we must have good works also: let the hand do alms, the mouth bless them that cross one, and the hearing find leisure evermore for lections of Scripture.1523 For sacrifice allows of no unclean thing: sacrifice is a first-fruit of the other actions. Let us then from our hands, and feet, and mouth, and all other members, yield a first-fruit unto God. Such a sacrifice is well pleasing, as that of the Jews was even unclean, for, “their sacrifices,” it says, “are unto them as the bread of mourning.” (Hos. ix. 4.) Not so ours. That presented the thing sacrificed dead: this maketh the thing sacrificed to be living. For when we have mortified our members, then we shall be able to live. For the law of this sacrifice is new, and so the sort of fire is a marvellous one. For it needeth no wood or matter under it; but our fire liveth1524 of itself, and doth not burn up the victim, but rather quickeneth it. This was the sacrifice that God sought of old. Wherefore the Prophet saith, “The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit.” (Ps. li. 17.) And the three Children offer this when they say, “At this time there is neither prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt offering, or place to sacrifice before Thee, and to find mercy. Nevertheless, in a contrite heart and an humble spirit let us be accepted.” (Song of 3 Ch. 15, 16.) And observe how great the exactness wherewith he useth each word. For he does not say, offer (ποιήσατε Ex. xxix. 39. LXX.) your bodies as a sacrifice, but “present” (παραστήσατε see below) them, as if he had said, never more have any interest in them. Ye have given them up to another. For even they that furnish (same word) the war-horses have no further interest in them. And thou too hast presented thy members for the war against the devil and for that dread battle-array. Do not let them down to selfish appliances. And he shows another thing also from this, that one must make them approved, if one means to present them. For it is not to any mortal being that we present them, but to God, the King of the universe; not to war only, but to have seated thereon the King Himself. For He doth not refuse even to be seated upon our members, but even greatly desireth it. And what no king who is but our fellow-servant would choose to do, that the Lord of Angels chooseth. Since then it is both to be presented (i.e. as for a King’s use) and is a sacrifice, rid it of every spot, since if it have a spot, it will no longer be a sacrifice. For neither can the eye that looks lecherously be sacrificed, nor the hand be presented that is grasping and rapacious, nor the feet that go lame and go to play-houses, nor the belly that 1523 θείαις ἀκροάσεσιν. See Suicer in ἀκροάομαι. lit. “divine hearings.” The place where those stood who were not yet admitted to Communion, but heard the Scriptures read, was called the ἀκρόασις or hearing; here the act of hearing is meant. 1524 2 or 3 mss. “boileth” which Heyse prefers. is the slave of self-indulgence, and kindleth lusts after pleasures, nor the heart that hath rage in it, and harlots’ love, nor the tongue that uttereth filthy things. Hence we must spy out the spots on our body upon every side. For if they that offered the sacrifices of old were bid to look on every side, and were not permitted to offer an animal “that hath anything superfluous or lacking, or is scurvy, or scabbed” (Lev. xxii. 22, 23), much more must we, who offer not senseless animals, but ourselves, exhibit more strictness, and be pure in all respects, that we also may be able to say as did Paul, “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.” (2 Tim. iv. 6.) For he was purer than any sacrifice, and so he speaks of himself as “ready to be offered.” But this will be brought about if we kill the old man, if we mortify our members that are upon the earth, if we crucify the world unto ourselves. In this way we shall not need the knife any more, nor altar, nor fire, or rather we shall want all these, but not made with the hands, but all of them will come to us from above, fire from above, and knife also, and our altar will the breadth of Heaven be. For if when Elijah offered the visible sacrifice, a flame, that came down from above consumed the whole water, wood, and stones, much more will this be done upon thee. And if thou hast aught in thee relaxed and secular, and yet offerest the sacrifice with a good intention, the fire of the Spirit will come down, and both wear away that worldliness, and perfect (so Field: mss. “carry up”) the whole sacrifice. But what is “reasonable (λογικὴ) service?” It means spiritual ministry, conversation according to Christ. As then he that ministereth in the house of God, and officiateth, of whatever sort he may be, then collects himself (συστέλλεται Ezech. xliv. 19), and becomes more dignified;1525 so we ought to be minded all our whole life as serving and ministering. And this will be so, if every day you bring Him sacrifices (3 mss. “thyself as a sacrifice”), and become the priest of thine own body, and of the virtue of thy soul; as, for example, when you offer soberness, when alms-giving, when goodness and forbearance. For in doing this thou offerest “a reasonable service” (or worship, λατρείαν), that is, one without aught that is bodily, gross, visible. Having then raised the hearer by the names bestowed, and having shown that each man is a priest of his own flesh by his conversation, he mentions also the way whereby we may compass all this. What then is the way?

Ver. 2. “And be not fashioned1526 after this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind.”

For the fashion of this world is grovelling and worthless, and but for a time, neither hath ought of loftiness, or lastingness, or straightforwardness, but is wholly perverted. If then thou wouldest walk upright (or aright ὀρθὰ), figure not thyself after the fashion of this 1525 σεμνότερος, which implies reverence as well as dignity. The word before probably refers also to dress. See Ex. xxviii. 43, but in this case the outward act so truly represents the inward, that it is difficult to separate them. 1526 A.V. conformed to. The translation is altered to express the distinction noticed in the comment. life present. For in it there is nought abiding or stable. And this is why he calls it a fashion (σχἥμα); and so in another passage, “the fashion of this world passeth away.” (1 Cor. vii. 31.) For it hath no durability or fixedness, but all in it is but for a season; and so he calls it this age (or world, Gr. αἰU+0026 241·ν), hereby to indicate its liableness to misfortune, and by the word fashion its unsubstantialness. For speak of riches, or of glory, or beauty of person, or of luxury, or of whatever other of its seemingly great things you will, it is a fashion only, not reality, a show and a mask, not any abiding substance (ὑπόστασις). But “be not thou fashioned after this, but be transformed,” he says, “by the renewing of your mind.” He says not change the fashion, but “be transformed” (μεταμορφοὕ), to show that the world’s ways are a fashion, but virtue’s not a fashion, but a kind of real form,1527 with a natural beauty of its own, lacking not the trickeries and fashions of outward things, which no sooner appear than they go to nought. For all these things, even before they come to light, are dissolving. If then thou throwest the fashion aside, thou wilt speedily come to the form.1528 For nothing is more strengthless than vice, nothing so easily wears old. Then since it is likely that being men they would sin every day, he consoles his hearer by saying, “renew thyself” from day to day. This is what we do with houses, we keep constantly repairing them as they wear old, and so do thou unto thyself. Hast thou sinned to-day? hast thou made thy soul old? despair not, despond not, but renew it by repentance, and tears (Hilary on Ps. cxix.), and confession, and by doing of good things. And never fail of doing this. And how are we to do this?

“That ye may prove (things more expedient (διαφέροντα), and know1529) what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.”

Either he means by this, be renewed, that ye may learn what is more expedient for you, and what the will of God. Or rather, that ye can get so renewed if ye learn the things expedient, and what God may will. For if thou see this, and know how to distinguish the nature of things, thou art in possession of the whole way of virtue. And who, it may be said, is ignorant of what is expedient, and what is the will of God? They that are flurried with the things of this world, they that deem riches an enviable thing, they that make light of poverty, they that follow after power, they that are gaping after outward glory, they that think themselves great men when they raise fine houses, and buy costly sepulchres, and keep herds of slaves, and carry a great swarm of eunuchs about with them; these know not what is ex- 1527 μορφὴ. See Phil. ii. 6, 7, 8, and St. Chrysostom on the passage, Hom. vi. pp. 363, sqq. O.T. 1528 The two words here rendered: “be fashioned” and “be transformed” differ as the terms (σχῆμα and μορφή) which underlie them differ. “The term μορφή, form, strictly denotes, not an external pose suitable for imitation, like σχῆμα, attitude, but an organic form, the natural product of a principle of life which manifests itself thus.” Godet. “Be not conformed, but be transformed” (A.V.) marks well the distinction.—G.B.S. 1529 See the note of Matthiæ on the place. Nearly all mss. have and know; it seems a slip of memory; see Rom. ii. 18. pedient for them, or what the will of God is. For both of these are but one thing. For God willeth what things are expedient for us, and what God willeth, that is also expedient for us. What then are the things which God willeth? to live in poverty, in lowliness of mind, in contempt of glory; in continency, not in self-indulgence; in tribulation, not in ease; in sorrow, not in dissipation and laughter; in all the other points whereon He hath given us laws. But the generality do even think these things of ill omen;1530 so far are they from thinking them expedient, and the will of God. This then is why they never can come near even to the labors for virtue’s sake. For they that do not know so much even as what virtue may be, but reverence vice in its place, and take unto their bed the harlot instead of the modest wife, how are they to be able to stand aloof from the present world? Wherefore we ought above all to have a correct estimate of things, and even if we do not follow after virtue, to praise virtue, and even if we do not avoid vice, to stigmatize vice, that so far we may have our judgments uncorrupted. For so as we advance on our road, we shall be able to lay hold on the realities. This then is why he also bids you be renewed, “that ye may prove what is the will of God.” But here he seems to me to be attacking the Jews too, who cling to the Law. For the old dispensation was a will of God, yet not the ultimate purpose, but allowed owing to their feebleness. But that which is a perfect one, and well-pleasing, is the new conversation. So too when he called it “a reasonable service,” it was to set it in contrast with that other (v. note p. 496) that he gave it such a name.

Ver. 3. “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.”

After saying above, “I beseech you by the mercies,” here he says again, “by the grace.” Observe the teacher’s lowliness of mind, observe a spirit quite subdued! He means to say that he is in no respect worthy to be trusted in such an exhortation and counsel. But at one time he takes the mercies of God along with him, at another His grace. It is not my word, he would say, that I am speaking, but one from God. And he does not say, For I say unto you by the wisdom of God, or, for I say unto you by the Law given of God, but, “by the grace,” so reminding them continually of the benefits done them, so as to make them more submissive, and to show that even on this account, they were under an obligation to obey what is here said. “To every man that is among you.” Not to this person and to that merely, but to the governor and to the governed, to the slave and to the free, to the unlearned and to the wise, to the woman and to the man, to the young and to the old. For the Law is common to all as being the Lord’s. And by this he likewise makes his language inoffensive, setting the lessons he gives to all, even to such as do not come under them, that those who do come 1530 οἰωνίζονται v. Jung. ad J. Poll. v. 163. Dem. adv. Aristog. 1. (794, 5), it means to make a sign of detestation on meeting anything counted unlucky. under them may with more willingness accept such a reproof and correction. And what dost thou say? Let me hear. “Not to think more highly than he ought to think.” Here he is bringing before us the mother of good deeds, which is lowliness of mind, in imitation of his own Master. For as He, when He went up into the mountain, and was going to give a tissue of moral precepts, took this for his first beginning, and made this the foundation, in the words, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. v. 3); so Paul too, as he has now passed from the doctrinal parts to those of a more practical kind, has taught us virtue in general terms, by requiring of us the admirable sacrifice; and being on the point of giving a more particular portrait of it, he begins from lowliness of mind as from the head, and tells us, “not to think more highly of one’s self than one ought to think,” (for this is His will), (many mss. om. for etc.), “but to think soberly.” But what he means is about this. We have received wisdom not that we should use it to make us haughty, but to make us sober-minded. And he does not say in order to be lowly in mind, but in order to sobriety, meaning by sobriety (σωφροσύνη) here not that virtue which contrasts with lewdness, nor the being free from intemperance, but being sober and healthful in mind. And the Greek name of it means keeping the mind safe.1531 To show then that he who is not thus modest (μετριάζοντα), cannot be sober either, that is, cannot be staid and healthful minded (because such an one is bewildered, and out, of his wits, and is more crazed than any madman), he calls lowliness of mind, soberness of mind.

“According as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” For since having gifts given them had made many unreasonably elated, both with these and with the Corinthians, see how he lays open the cause of the disease, and gradually removes it. For after saying that we should think soberly, he proceeds, “according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith,” meaning here the gift by faith: and by using the word “dealt,” he solaces him who had the less, and humbles him who had the greater share. For if God dealt it, and it is no achievement of thine, why think highly of thyself? But if any one says that faith here does not mean the gift, this would only the more show that he was humbling the vain boasters. For if that which is the cause of the gift (so Field with most mss.: Vulg. “If the faith by which miracles are wrought is the cause of the gift”), that faith by which miracles are wrought, be itself from God, on what ground dost thou think highly of thyself? If He had not come, or been incarnate, then the things of faith would not have fared well either. And it is from hence that all the good things take their rise. But if it is He that giveth it, He knoweth how He dealeth it. For He made all, and taketh like care of all. And as His giving came of His love towards man, so doth the quantity which He giveth. For was He Who had shown His goodness in regard to the main point, which is the giving of the gift, likely to neglect thee in regard to the measure? For had He wished to do thee dishonor, then He had 1531 σώζουσαν τὴν φρόνησιν, Aristot. Eth. vi. not given them at all. But if to save thee and to honor thee was what He had in view (and for this He came and distributed such great blessings), why art thou confounded and disturbed, and abusest thy wisdom to foolishness, making thyself more disgraceful than one who is by nature so? For being foolish by nature is no ground of complaint. But being foolish through wisdom, is at once bereaving one’s self of excuse, and running into greater punishment.

Such then are those, who pride themselves upon their wisdom, and fall into the excess of recklessness.1532 For recklessness of all things makes a person a fool. Wherefore the Prophet calls the barbarian by this name. But “the fool,” he says, “shall speak folly.” (Is. xxxii. 6.) But that you may see the folly of him from his own words, hear what he says. “Above the stars of heaven will I place my throne, and I will be like the Most High.” (ib. xiv. 14.) “I will take hold of the world as a nest, and as eggs that are left will I take them away.” (ib. x. 14.) Now what can be more foolish than these words? And every instance of haughty language immediately draws on itself this reproach. And if I were to set before you every expression of them that are reckless, you would not be able to distinguish whether the words are those of a reckless man or a fool. So entirely the same is this failing and that. And another of a strange nation says again, “I am God and not man” (Ezech. xxviii. 2); and another again, Can God save you, or deliver you out of my hand?” (Dan. iii. 15.) And the Egyptian too, “I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go.” (Ex. v. 2.) And the foolish body in the Psalmist is of this character, who hath “said in his heart, There is no God.” (Ps. xiv. 1.) And Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. iv. 9.) Can you now distinguish whether the words are those of the reckless or those of the fool? For recklessness going out of due bounds, and being a departure from reason (whence its name recklessness, ἀπόνοια), maketh men both fools and vainglorious. For likewise, “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord” (Prov. ix. 10), so then the beginning of folly is surely not knowing the Lord. If then knowing be wisdom, and not knowing Him folly, and this ignorance come of haughtiness (ὑπερηφανία), (for the beginning of haughtiness is the not knowing of the Lord), then is haughtiness the extreme of folly. Such was Nabal, if not to Godward, at least toward man, having become senseless from his recklessness. But he afterwards died of fear. For when any falleth from the measure of wisdom, he becomes at once a coward and bold (θρασυδειλοὶ Ar. Eth. iii.), his soul having been made feeble. For as the body when it loseth its proper tone having become out of condition, is a prey to any disease, thus too the soul when it hath lost its greatness of nature and lowly-mindedness, having gotten any feeble habit (ἕξιν), becomes fearful, as well as bold and unreasonable, and loses its powers of self-consciousness. And he that has lost these, how is he to know things above himself? For as he that is seized with a frenzy, 1532 This word has been sometimes translated haughtiness, but means something more; usually the recklessness of despair, but sometimes that of pride. when he has so lost them, knoweth not even what is right before him; and the eye, when it is dimmed, darkeneth all the other members; so doth it happen with this recklessness. Wherefore these are more miserable than the mad, or than those silly by nature. For like them they stir laughter, and like them they are ill-tempered. And they are out of their wits as the others are, but they are not pitied as they are. And they are beside themselves, as are these, but they are not excused, as are these, but are hated only. And while they have the failings of either, they are bereaved of the excuse of either, being ridiculous not owing to their words only, but to their whole appearance also. For why, pray, dost thou stiffen up thy neck? or why walk on tiptoe? why knit up thy brows? why stick thy breast out? Thou canst not make one hair white or black, (Matt. v. 36) and thou goest with as lofty gait as if thou couldest command everything. No doubt thou wouldest like to have wings, and not go upon the earth at all! No doubt thou wouldest wish to be a prodigy! For hast thou not made thyself prodigious now, when thou art a man and triest to fly? or rather flying from within, and bloated in every limb? What shall I call thee to quit thee of thy recklessness? Shall I call thee ashes, and dust, and smoke, and pother? I have described thy worthlessness to be sure, but still I have not laid hold of the exact image I wanted. For I want to put their bloatedness before me, and all its emptiness. What image am I to find then which will suit with all this? To me it seems to be like tow in a blaze. For it seems to swell when lighted, and to lift itself up; but when it is submitted to a slight touch of the hand, it all tumbles down, and turns out to be more worthless than the veriest ashes. Of this sort are the souls of these men; that empty inflatedness of theirs even the commonest attack may humble and bring down. For he that behaves recklessly must of necessity be a thoroughly feeble person, since the height he has is not a sound one, but even as bubbles are easily burst, so are these men easily undone. But if thou dost not believe, give me a bold reckless fellow, and you will find him more cowardly than a hare even at the most trivial circumstance. For as the flame that rises from dry sticks is no sooner lighted than it becomes dust, but stiff logs do not by their nature easily kindle up, and then keep up their flame a long time burning; so souls that be stern and firm are not easily kindled or extinguished; but these men undergo both of these in a single moment. Since then we know this, let us practise humble-mindedness. For there is nothing so powerful as it, since it is stronger even than a rock and harder than adamant, and places us in a safety greater than that of towers and cities and walls, being too high for any of the artillery of the devil. As then recklessness makes men an easy prey even to ordinary occurrences, being, as I was saying, easier broken than a bubble, and rent more speedily than a spider’s web, and more quickly dissolved than a smoke; that we then may be walking upon the strong rock, let us leave that and take to this. For thus in this life present we shall find rest, and shall in the world to come have every blessing, by the grace and love toward man, etc.

Rom. XII. 4, 5

“For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office; so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.”

Again he uses the same ensample as he does to the Corinthians, and that to allay the same passion. For great is the power of the medicine, and the force of this illustration for the correcting of this disease of haughtiness. Why (he means) dost thou think highly of thyself? Or why again does another utterly despise himself? Are we not all one body, both great and small? When then we are in the total number but one, and members one of another, why dost thou by thy haughtiness separate thyself? Why dost thou put thy brother to shame? For as he is a member of thee, so art thou also of him. And it is on this score that your claims to honor are so equal. For he has stated two things that might take down their haughty spirit: one that we are members one of another, not the small of the great only, but also the great of the small; and another, that we are all one body. Or rather there are three points, since he shows that the gift was one of grace. “Therefore be not high-minded.” For it was given thee of God; thou didst not take it, nor find it even. Hence too, when he touches upon the gifts, he does not say that one received more, and another less, but what? different. For his words are, “having then gifts,” not less and greater, but, “differing.” And what if thou art not appointed to the same office, still the body is the same. And beginning with gifts, he ends with a good deed (4 mss. pl.); and so after mentioning prophecy, and ministry, and the like, he concludes with mercy, diligence, and succor. Since then it was likely that some would be virtuous, yet not have prophecy, he shows how that this too is a gift, and a much greater one than the other (as he shows in the Epistle to the Corinthians), and so much the greater, as that one has a reward, the other is devoid of a recompense. For the whole is matter of gift and grace. Wherefore he saith,

Ver. 6. “Having then gifts differing according to the grace of God that is given unto us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.”

Since then he had sufficiently comforted them, he wishes also to make them vie with each other,1533 and labor more in earnest, by showing that it is themselves that give the grounds for their receiving more or less. For he says indeed that it is given by God (as when he says, “according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith;” and again, “according to the grace given unto us”) (Rom. xii. 3), that he may subdue the haughty. But he says also that the beginnings lie with themselves, to rouse the listless. And this he does in the Epistle to the Corinthians also, to produce both these emotions. For when he saith, “covet 1533 Or feel they need an effort ἐναγωνίους. See on Rom. xi. 21 p. 349. earnestly the gifts,” (1 Cor. xii. 31), he shows that they were themselves the cause of the differences in what was given. But when he says, “Now all these things worketh one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will” (ib. 11), he is proving that those who have received it ought not to be elated, so using every way open to him to allay their disorder. And this he does here also. And again, to rouse those who have fallen drowsy, he says, “Whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith.” For though it is a grace, yet it is not poured forth at random, but framing its measure according to the recipients, it letteth as much flow as it may find the vessel of faith that is brought to be capable of.1534

Ver. 7. “Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering.”

Here he names a comprehensive thing. For the Apostleship even is called a ministry, and every spiritual work is a ministry. This is indeed a name of a peculiar office (viz. the diaconate); however, it is used in a general sense. “Or he that teacheth, on teaching.” See with what indifference he places them, the little first and the great afterwards, again giving us the same lesson, not to be puffed up or elated.

Ver. 8. “Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation.”

And this is a species of teaching too. For “if ye have any word of exhortation,” it says, “speak unto the people.” (Acts xiii. 15.) Then to show that it is no great good to follow after virtue unless this is done with the proper rule, he proceeds, “He that giveth” (μεταδιδοὺς, imparteth), “let him do it with simplicity.” For it is not enough to give, but we must do it with munificence also, for this constantly answereth to the name of simplicity. Since even the virgins had oil, still, since they had not enough, they were cast out from everything. “He that defendeth” (A.V. ruleth, προἵστάμενος,) “with diligence;” for it is not enough to do undertake the defence.1535 “He that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.” For it is not enough to show mercy, but it behooves us to do it with a largeness and an ungrudging spirit, or rather not with an ungrudging, but even with a cheerful and rejoicing one, for not grudging 1534 Prophecy is to be κατὰ τὴν αναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως (6). In the view of some (as Meyer) the man’s own faith is meant. He should not exceed in his speaking the limits of his faith. Others (as Philippi) take “faith” in the objective sense as a body of doctrine and find the idea here which was later associated with the expression analogia fidei: the word πίστις will not bear this meaning and the individual’s own faith seems too narrow a criterion of prophecy. It seems better to understand the expression as meaning that the prophet is to regulate his utterance by the character and contents of the faith of the church; that he should in his prophetic utterances keep to the line of the Church’s trust and hope and not feel at liberty to add new or heterogeneous elements. The terms διακονία (7) and διδάσκων seem to refer to the two offices of the church deacons and presbyters, although others hold the view (of Chrys.) that the words are merely general.—G.B.S. 1535 Near the end of Hom. 19, we have κἂν ἀδικουμένῳ περιτύχῃ προστήσεται, which proves that he takes the word in the sense here given. “Unless,” added by Ben. and 2 mss. “he do it with diligence and zeal.” does not amount to rejoicing. And this same point, when he is writing to the Corinthians also, he insisted very strongly upon. For to rouse them to such largeness he said, “He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly, and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. (2 Cor. ix. 6.) But to correct their temper he added, “Not grudgingly or of necessity.” (ib. 7.) For both the shower of mercy ought to have, both ungrudgingness and pleasure. And why dost thou bemoan thyself of giving alms? (Aristot. Eth. N. ii. 3 and iv. 1.) Why dost thou grieve at showing mercy, and lose the advantage of the good deed? For if thou grievest thou dost not do mercy, but art cruel and inhuman. For if thou grievest, how shalt thou be able to raise up him that is in sorrow? For it is much if he suspects no ill, even, when thou art giving with joyfulness. For since nothing seems to men such a disgrace as to be receiving from others, unless by an exceedingly cheerful look thou removest the suspicion, and showest that thou art receiving rather than giving, thou wilt even cast down the receiver rather than raise him up. This is why he says, “He that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.” For who that is receiving a kingdom, is of sad countenance? Who that is receiving pardon for his sins continueth of dejected look? Mind not then the expenditure of the money; but the increase that comes of that expenditure. For if he that soweth rejoiceth though sowing with uncertainty of return, much more should he do so that farms the Heaven. For in this way, even though thou give but little, thou wilt be giving much; even as how much soever thou givest with a sad countenance, thou wilt have made thy much a little. Thus the widow outweighed many talents by the two mites, for her spirit was large. And how is it possible, it may be said, for one that dwells with poverty in the extreme, and empties forth his all, to do this with a ready mind? Ask the widow, and thou wilt hear the way, and wilt know that it is not poverty1536 that makes narrow circumstances, but the temper of a man that effects both this and its opposite. For it is possible even in poverty to be munificent (μεγαλόψυχον), and in riches to be niggardly. Hence in giving he looks for simplicity, and in showing mercy for cheerfulness, and in patronizing for diligence. For it is not with money only that he wishes us to render every assistance to those in want, but both with words, and deeds, and in person, and in every other way. And after mentioning the chief kind of aiding (προστασίαν), that which lies in teaching, namely, and that of exhorting (for this is a more necessary kind, in that it nurtures the soul), he proceeds to that by way of money, and all other means; then to show how these may be practised aright, he bringeth in the mother of them, love.

Ver. 9. For, “Let love be without dissimulation,” he says,

If thou hast this, thou wilt not perceive the loss of thy money, the labor of thy person, the toil of thy words, thy trouble, and thy ministering, but thou wilt bear all courageously, whether it be with person, or money, or word, or any other thing whatsover, that thou art 1536 πενία here seems distinguished from πτωχεία, as in the Plutus. to assist thy neighbor. As then he doth not ask for giving only, but that with simplicity, nor aiding, but that with diligence, nor alms, but that with cheerfulness; so even love too he requires not alone, but that without dissimulation. Since this is what love is. And if a man have this, everything else follows. For he that showeth mercy does so with cheerfulness (for he is giving to himself): and he that aideth, aideth with diligence; for it is for himself he is aiding: and he that imparteth doth this with largeness; for he is bestowing it on himself. Then since there is a love even for ill things, such as is that of the intemperate, that of those who are of one mind for money, and for plunder’s sake, and for revels and drinking clubs, he clears it of all these, by saying, “Abhor (ἀποστυγοὕντες) that which is evil.” And he does not speak of refraining from it, but of hating it, and not merely hating it, but hating it exceedingly. For this word1537 ἀπὸ is often of intensive force with him, as where he speaks of “earnest expectation,1538 looking out for,”1539 (complete) “redemption.”1540 For since many who do not evil things still have a desire after them, therefore he says, “Abhor.” For what he wants is to purify the thought, and that we should have a mighty enmity, hatred and war against vice. For do not fancy, he means, because I said, “Love one another,” that I mean you to go so far as to coöperate even in bad actions with one another; for the law that I am laying down is just the reverse. Since it would have you an alien not from the action only, but even from the inclination towards vice; and not merely an alien from this same inclination, but to have an excessive aversion and hatred of it too. And he is not content with only this, but he also brings in the practice of virtue. “Cleave to that which is good.”

He does not speak of doing only, but of being disposed too. For this the command to “cleave to” it indicates. So God, when He knit the man to the woman, said, “For he shall cleave to his wife.” (Gen. ii. 24.) Then he mentions reasons why we ought to love one another.

Ver. 10. “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.”

Ye are brethren, he means, and have come of the same pangs. Hence even on this head you ought to love one another. And this Moses said to those who were quarrelling in Egypt, “Ye are brethren, why do ye wrong one to another?” (Exod. ii. 13.) When then he is speaking of those without, he says, “If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, live peaceably with all men.” (Rom. xii. 18.) But when he is speaking of his own, he says, “Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love.” For in the other case he requires abstinence from quarrelling, and hatred, and aversion: but here loving too, and not merely loving, but the loving of relatives. For not only must one’s “love be without dissimulation,” but intense also, and warm, and glowing. Because, to what purpose would you love without fraud, and 1537 Viz. in composition. 1538 ἀποκαραδοκία, Rom. viii. 19. 1539 ἀπεκδεχόμενοι, Rom. viii. 23. 1540 ἀπολύτρωσις, Rom. viii. 23, see ad loc. Hom. xiv. p. 445. not love with warmth? Whence he says, “kindly affectioned one towards another, that is, be friends, and warm ones too. Do not wait to be loved by another, but leap at it thyself, and be the first to begin it. For so wilt thou reap the wages of his love also. Having mentioned the reason then why we ought to love one another, he tells us also the way in which the affection may grow unchangeable. Whence he proceeds, “In honor preferring one another.” For this is the way that affection is produced, and also when produced abideth. And there is nothing which makes friends so much, as the earnest endeavor to overcome one’s neighbor in honoring him.1541 For what he had mentioned before comes of love, and love of honor, as honor does too of love. Then that we may not honor only, he looks for something besides, when he says,

Ver. 11. “Not backward in zeal.”1542

For this also gendereth love when with honor we also show a readiness to protect: as there is nothing that makes men beloved so much as honor and forethought. For to love is not enough, but there must be this also: or rather this also comes of loving, as also loving has its warmth from this, and they are confirmative one of another. For there are many that love in mind, yet reach not forth the hand. And this is why he uses every means to build up love. And how are we to become “not backward in zeal?”

“Fervent in spirit.” See how in every instance he aims after higher degrees; for he does not say “give” only, but “with largeness;” nor “rule,” but do it “with diligence;” nor “show mercy,” but do it “with cheerfulness;” nor “honor,” but “prefer one another;” nor “love,” but do it “without dissimulation;” nor refrain from “evil” things, but “hate” them; nor hold to “what is good,” but “cleave” to it; nor “love,” but to do it “with brotherly affection;” nor be zealous, but be so without backwardness; nor have the “Spirit,” but have it “fervent,” that is, that ye may be warm and awakened. For if thou hast those things aforesaid, thou wilt draw the Spirit to thee. And if This abide with thee, It will likewise make thee good for those purposes, and all things will be easy from the Spirit and the love, while thou art made to glow from both sides. Dost thou not see the bulls (Hannibal. ap. Liv. xxii. 16) that carry a flame upon their back, how nobody is able to withstand them? So thou also wilt be more than the devil can sustain, if thou takest both these flames. “Serving the Lord.”1543 For it is 1541 Chrys. evidently takes προηγουμενοι (10) in the sense of excelling; others understand the word temporally and render anticipating. The word (hapaxl.) is better taken as in our vss. preferring, i.e. “going before, as guides, namely, with the conduct which incites others to follow,” (Meyer).—G.B.S. 1542 A.V. not slothful in business; R.V. In diligence not slothful. 1543 Here the mss. and vss. vary between τῷ κυρίU+0026 251· and τῷ καιρῷ (v. 11). The latter text gives the idea of serving the time or adapting one’s self to the opportunity and is adopted by many (as Meyer, Godet) on the ground that the precept: serving the Lord is too general to be in point here among these specific exhortations. possible to serve God in all these ways; in that whatever thou doest to thy brother passes on to thy Master, and as having been Himself benefited, He will reckon thy reward accordingly. See to what height he has raised the spirit of the man that worketh these things! Then to show how the flame of the Spirit might be kindled, he says,

Ver. 12. “Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing instant in prayer.”

For all these things are fuel for that fire. For when he had required the expenditure of money and the labor of the person, and ruling, and zeal, and teaching, and other laborious occupations, he again supplies the wrestler with love, with the Spirit, through hope. For there is nothing which makes the soul so courageous and venturesome for anything as a good hope. Then even before the good things hoped for, he gives another reward again. For since hope is of things to come, he says, “patient in tribulation.” And before the things to come, in this life present thou wilt gain a great good (see on Rom. v. 4, p. 397) from tribulation, that of becoming hardy and tried. And after this he affords them another help, when he says, “continuing instant in prayer.” When therefore love maketh things easy, and the Spirit assisteth, and hope lighteneth, and tribulation maketh thee tried and apt for bearing everything nobly, and thou hast along with these another very great weapon, to wit, “prayer” and the aidances that come of prayer, what further grievousness can there be in what he is enjoining? Surely none. You see how in every way he gives the wrestler firm footing and shows that the injunctions are perfectly easy. Consider again how he vindicates almsgiving, or rather not almsgiving absolutely, but that to the saints. For above when he says, “he that showeth mercy with cheerfulness,” he makes us open-handed to everybody. Here, however, it is in behalf of the faithful that he is speaking. And so he proceeds to say,

Ver. 13. “Sharing with the necessity (χρείαις, al. μνείαις, memories) of the saints.”

He does not say, Bestow upon, but “share with the necessity1544 of the saints,” to show that they receive more than they give, that it is a matter of merchandise, because it is a community. Do you bring in money? They bring you in boldness toward God. “Given to (Gr. pursuing) hospitality.” He does not say doing it, but “given” to it, so to instruct us not to wait for those that shall ask it, and see when they will come to us, but to run to them, and be given to finding1545 them.

Thus did Lot, thus Abraham. For he spent the whole day upon it, waiting for this goodly prey, and when he saw it, leaped upon it, and ran to meet them, and worshipped upon the ground, and said, “My Lord, if now I have found favor in Thy sight, pass not away from The mss. evidence for τῷ κυρίU+0026 251·, however is too strong to be overthrown by a consideration so subjective א) , B, A, E, L, P, It. Syr. vs. D. F. G.).—G.B.S. 1544 St. Chrysostom (on 2 Tim. i. 16, p. 189 O.T.) adopts and argues on the reading, μνείαις, for which there is some authority. See Brit. Crit. No. LI. pp. 80, 81. 1545 καταδιώκειν. lit. hunt them down. Thy servant.” (Gen. xviii. 3.) Not as we do, if we happen to see a stranger or a poor man, knitting our brows, and not deigning even to speak to them. And if after thousands of entreaties we are softened, and bid the servant give them a trifle, we think we have quite done our duty. But he did not so, but assumed the fashion of a suppliant and a servant, though he did not know who he was going to take under his roof. But we, who have clear information that it is Christ Whom we take in, do not grow gentle even for this. But he both beseeches, and entreats, and falls on his knees to them, yet we insult those that come to us. And he indeed did all by himself and his wife, whereas we do it not even by our attendants. But if you have a mind to see the table that he set before them, there too you will see great bounteousness, but the bounteousness came not from excess of wealth, but of the riches of a ready will. Yet how many rich persons were there not then? Still none did anything of the kind. How many widows were there in Israel? Yet none showed hospitality to Elijah. How many wealthy persons again were there not in Elisha’s day? But the Shunamite alone gathered in the fruits of hospitality; as did Abraham also,1546 whom beside his largeness and ready mind it is just especially to admire, on this ground, that when he had no knowledge who they were that had come, yet he so acted. Do not thou then be curious either: since for Christ thou dost receive him. And if thou art always so scrupulous, many a time wilt thou pass by a man of esteem, and lose thy reward from him. And yet he that receiveth one that is not of esteem, hath no fault found with him, but is even rewarded. For “he that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward.” (Matt. x. 41.) But he who out of this ill-timed scrupulousness passeth one that should be admired, shall even suffer punishment. Do not then busy thyself with men’s lives and doings. For this is the very extreme of niggardliness, for one loaf to be exact about a man’s entire life. For if this person be a murderer, if a robber, or what not, does he therefore seem to thee not to deserve a loaf and a few pence? And yet thy Master causeth even the sun to rise upon him! And dost thou judge him unworthy of food even for a day? I will put another case to you besides. Now even if you were positively certain that he were laden with countless iniquities, not even then wouldest thou have an excuse for depriving him of this day’s sustenance. For thou art the servant of Him Who said, “Ye know not what spirit ye are of.” (Luke ix. 55.) Thou art servant to Him Who healed those that stoned Him, or rather Who was crucified for them. And do not tell me that he killed another, for even if he were going to kill thee thyself, even then thou shouldest not neglect him when starving. For thou art a disciple of Him Who desired the salvation even of them that crucified Him Who said upon the Cross itself, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke xxiii. 34.) Thou art the servant of Him Who healed him that smote Him, Who upon the Cross itself crowned the man who 1546 So Field: the passage is corrupt in the mss. Vulg. “As did Abraham also then with largeness and ready mind. And on this ground he deserves one’s admiration most, that when,” etc. had scorned Him. And what can equal this? For both the robbers at first scorned Him. Still to one of these He opened Paradise.1547 And He bewails those who were upon the point of killing Him, and is troubled and confounded at seeing the traitor, not because He was going to be crucified, but because he was lost. He was troubled then as having foreknowledge of the hanging, and the punishment after the hanging. And though He knelt his wickedness, He bore with him1548 to the last hour, and thrust not away the traitor, but even kissed him. Thy Master kisseth, and with His lips receiveth him who was on the very point of shedding His precious Blood. And dost thou count the poor not worthy even of a loaf, and reverencest not the Law which Christ laid down? Now by this He shows that we ought not to turn aside, not only from the poor, but not even from those that would lead us away to death. Do not tell me then, that so and so hath done me grievous mischief, but just consider what Christ did near the Cross itself, wishing to amend by His kiss the traitor by whom He was on the point of being betrayed. And see with how much power to shame him. For He says, “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a kiss?” (ib. 48.) Who is there He would not have softened? who is there that this address would not have made yielding? What beast? what adamant? yet not that wretched man. Do not then say, that such an one murdered such an one, and that is why I turn aside from him. For even if he were upon the point of thrusting a sword down into thee, and to plunge his hand into thy neck itself, kiss this very right hand! since even Christ kissed that mouth which wrought His death! And therefore do not thou either hate, but bewail and pity him that plotteth against thee. For such an one deserveth pity at our hands, and tears. For we are the servants of Him Who kissed even the traitor (I will not leave off dwelling over that continually), and spoke words unto him more gentle than the kiss. For He did not even say, O thou foul and villanous traitor, is this the sort of recompense thou returnest us for so great a benefit? But in what words? “Judas;” using his own name, which is more like a person bemoaning, and recalling him, than one wroth at him. And he does not say, thy Teacher, thy Master, and Benefactor, but, “the Son of Man.” For though He were neither Teacher nor Master, yet is it with One Who is so gently, so unfeignedly affected towards thee, as even to kiss thee at the time of betrayal, and that when a kiss too was the signal for the betrayal; is it with Him that thou playest the traitor’s part? Blessed art Thou, O Lord! What lowliness of mind, what forbearance hast Thou given us ensamples of! And to him He so behaved. But to those who came with staves and swords to Him, was it not so too? What can be more gentle than the words spoken to them? For when He had power to demolish them all in an instant, He did nothing of the kind, but as expostulating (ἐντρεπτικὥς), addressed them in the words, “Why, are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?” (Matt. xxvi. 55.) And having cast them down backwards 1547 Some mss. add, “first of all men.” 1548 Or “dealt kindly with him.” (John xviii. 6), as they continued insensible, He of His own accord gave Himself up next, and forbore while He saw them putting manacles upon His holy hands, while He had the power at once to confound all things, and overthrow them. But dost thou even after this deal fiercely with the poor? And even were he guilty of ten thousand sins, want and famine were enough to soften down a soul ever so blunted. But thou standest brutalized, and imit- ating the rage of lions. Yet they never taste of dead bodies. But thou, while thou seest him a very corpse (τεταριχευμένον lit. salter, or, a mummy) for distresses, yet leapest upon him now that he is down, and tearest his body by thine insults, and gatherest storm after storm, and makest him as he is fleeing to the haven for refuge to split upon a rock, and bringest a shipwreck about more distressing than those in the sea. And how wilt thou say to God, Have mercy upon me, and ask of Him remission of sins, when thou art insolent to one who hath done no sin, and callest him to account for this hunger and great necessity, and throwest all the brute beasts into the shade by thy cruelty. For they indeed by the compulsion of their belly lay hold of the food needful for them. But thou, when nothing either thrusts thee on or compels thee, devourest thy brother, bitest, and tearest him, if not with thy teeth, yet with words that bite more cuttingly. How then wilt thou receive the sacred Host (προσφορὰν), when thou hast empurpled thy tongue in human gore? how give the kiss of peace, with mouth gorged with war? Nay, how enjoy every common nourishment, when thou art gathering so much venom? Thou dost not relieve the poverty, why make it even more grinding? thou dost not lift up him that is fallen, why throw him down also? thou dost not remove despondency, why even increase it? thou givest no money, why use insulting words besides? Hast thou not heard what punishment they suffer that feed not the poor? to what vengeance they are condemned? For He says, “Depart to the fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Matt. xxv. 41.) If then they that feed not are so condemned, what punishment are they to suffer, who besides not feeding, even insult? What punishment shall they undergo? what hell? That we kindle not so great evils against ourselves, whiles we have it in our power, let us correct this evil complaint also, and put a bridle on the tongue. And let us be so far from insulting, as even to invite them, both by words and actions, that by laying up much mercy for ourselves, we may obtain the blessings promised us. Which God grant that we may all attain unto by the grace and love towards man, etc.

Rom. XII. 14

“ Bless them which persecute you; bless, and curse not.”

After teaching them how they ought to be minded towards one another, and after joining the members closely into one, he next proceeds to lead them forth to the battle without, which he makes easier as from this point. For as he who hath not managed things well with those of his own side, will find more difficulty in arranging affairs with strangers, so he, that has practised himself duly among these, will with the more ease have the advantage of those without also. Hence then Paul also as he goes on in his journey, after the one places the other, and says, “Bless them that persecute you.” He did not say, be not spiteful or revengeful, but required something far better. For that a man that was wise might do, but this is quite an angel’s part. And after saying “bless,” he proceeds, “and curse not,” lest we should do both the one and the ether, and not the former only. For they that persecute us are purveyors of a reward to us. But if thou art sober-minded, there will be another reward after that one, which thou wilt gain thyself. For he will yield thee that for persecution, but thou wilt yield thyself the one from the blessing of another, in that thou bringest forth a very great sign of love to Christ. For as he that curseth his persecutor, showeth that he is not much pleased at suffering this for Christ, thus he that blesseth showeth the greatness of his love. Do not then abuse him, that thou thyself mayest gain the greater reward, and mayest teach him that the thing is matter of inclination, not of necessity, of holiday and feast, not of calamity or dejection. For this cause Christ Himself said, “Rejoice when men speak all manner of evil against you falsely.” (Matt. v. 11.) Hence too it was that the Apostles returned with joy not from having been evil spoken of only, but also at having been scourged. (Acts v. 40, 41.) For besides what I have mentioned, there will be another gain, and that no small one, that you will make, both the abashing of your adversaries hereby, and instructing of them by your actions that you are travelling to another life; for if he see thee joyous, and elevated, (πτερούμενον) from suffering ill, he will see clearly from the actions that thou hast other hopes greater than those of this life. So that if thou dost not so, but weepest and lamentest, how is he to be able to learn from that that thou art tarrying for any other life? And besides this, thou wilt compass yet another thing. For provided he see thee not vexed at the affronts done thee, but even blessing him, he will leave harassing thee. See then how much that is good comes from this, both a greater reward for thyself and a less temptation, and he will forbear persecuting thee, and God too will be glorified: and to him that is in error thy endurance will be instruction in godliness. For this reason it was not those that insult us only, but even those that persecute us and deal despitefully with us, that he bade us requite with the contrary. And now he orders them to bless, but as he goes on, he exhorts them to do them good in deeds also.

Ver. 15. “Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.”

Since it is possible to bless and not to curse, and yet not to do this out of love, he wishes us to be penetrated with the warmth of friendship throughout. And this is why he goes on in these words, that we are not only to bless, but even feel compassion for their pains and sufferings, whenever we happen to see them fallen into trouble. Yes, it will be said, but to join in the sorrows of mourners one can see why he ordered them, but why ever did he command them the other thing, when it is no such great matter? Aye, but that requires more of a high Christian temper, to rejoice with them that do rejoice, than to weep with them that weep. For this nature itself fulfils perfectly: and there is none so hard-hearted as not to weep over him that is in calamity: but the other requires a very noble soul, so as not only to keep from envying, but even to feel pleasure with the person who is in esteem. And this is why he placed it first. For there is nothing that ties love so firmly as sharing both joy and pain one with another. Do not then, because thou art far from difficulties thyself, remain aloof from sympathizing too. For when thy neighbor is ill-treated, thou oughtest to make the calamity thine own. Take share then in his tears, that thou mayest lighten his low spirits. Take share in his joy, that thou mayest make the joy strike deep root, and fix the love firmly, and be of service to thyself rather than to him in so doing, by thy weeping rendering thyself merciful, and by thy feeling his pleasure, purging thyself of envy and grudging. And let me draw your attention to Paul’s considerateness. For he does not say, Put an end to the calamity, lest thou shouldest say in many cases (or perchance πολλάκις) that it is impossible: but he has enjoined the easier task, and that which thou hast in thy power. For even if thou art not able to remove the evil, yet contribute tears, and thou wilt take the worst half away. And if thou be not able to increase a man’s prosperity, contribute joy, and thou wilt have made a great addition to it. Therefore it is not abstaining from envy only, but what is a much greater thing that he exhorts us to, namely, joining in the pleasure. For this is a much greater thing than not envying.

Ver. 16. “Be of the same mind one towards another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate.”

Here again he insists much upon lowliness of mind, the subject he had started this exhortation with. For there was a probability of their being full of high-mindedness, both on account of their city (see p. 343), and from sundry other causes; he therefore keeps drawing off (ὑποσύρει, 2 mss. ὐπορύττει) the morbid matter, and lowers the inflammation. For there is nothing that makes such schisms in the Churches as vanity does. And what does he mean by, “Be of the same mind one towards another?” Has a poor man come into thy house? Be like him in thy bearing, do not put on any unusual pompous air on account of thy riches. There is no rich and poor in Christ. Be not then ashamed of him because of his external dress, but receive him because of his inward faith. And if thou seest him in sorrow, do not disdain to comfort him, nor if thou see him in prosperity, feel abashed at sharing his pleasure, and being gladdened with him, but be of the same mind in his case, that thou wouldest be of in thine own. For it says, “Be of the same mind one towards another.” For instance, if thou thinkest thyself a great man, therefore think him so likewise. Dost thou suspect that he is mean and little? Well then, pass this same sentence upon thyself, and cast aside all unevenness. And how is this to be? By thy casting aside that reckless temper. Wherefore he proceeds: “Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate.” That is, bring thyself down to their humble condition, associate with them, walk with them, do not be humbled in mind only, but help them also, and reach forth thy hand to them, not by means of others, but in thine own person, as a father taking care of a child, as the head taking care of the body. As he says in another place, “being bound with them that are in bonds.” (Heb. xiii. 3.) But here he means by those of low estate not merely the lowly-minded, but those of a low rank, and which one is apt to think scorn of.1549

“Be not wise in your own conceits.” This is, do not think that you can do for yourselves. Because the Scripture saith in another place besides, “Woe to them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight.” (Is. v. 22.) And by this again, he secretly draws off recklessness, and reduces conceit and turgidity. For there is nothing that so elates men and makes them feel different from other people, as the notion that they can do by themselves. Whence also God hath placed us in need one of another, and though thou be wise thou wilt be in need of another: but if thou think that thou art not in need of him, thou wilt be the most foolish and feeble of men. For a man of this sort bares himself of all succor, and in whatever error he may run into, will not have the advantage either of correction or of pardon, and will provoke God by his recklessness, and will run into many errors. For it is the case, aye, and often too, that a wise man does not perceive what is needful, and a man of less shrewdness hits upon somewhat that is applicable. And this happened with Moses and his father-in-law, and with Saul and his servant, and with Isaac and Rebecca. Do not then suppose that you are lowered by needing another man. For this exalts you the more, this makes you the stronger, and the brighter too, and the more secure.

Rom. XIII. 1

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.”

Of this subject he makes much account in other epistles also, setting subjects under their rulers as household servants are under their masters. And this he does to show that it was not for the subversion of the commonwealth that Christ introduced His laws, but for the better ordering of it, and to teach men not to be taking up unnecessary and unprofitable wars. For the plots that are formed against us for the truth’s sake are sufficient and we have no need to be adding temptations superfluous and unprofitable. And observe too how welltimed his entering upon this subject is. For when he had demanded that great spirit of heroism, and made men fit to deal either with friends or foes, and rendered them serviceable alike to the prosperous and those in adversity and need, and in fact to all, and had planted a conversation worthy of angels, and had discharged anger, and taken down recklessness, and had in every way made their mind even, he then introduces his exhortation upon these matters also. For if it be right to requite those that injure us with the opposite, much more is it our duty to obey those that are benefactors to us. But this he states toward the end of his exhortation, and hitherto does not enter on these reasonings which I mention, but those only that enjoin one to do this as a matter of debt. And to show that these regulations are for all, even for priests, and monks, and not for men of secular occupations only, he hath made this plan at the outset, by saying as follows: “let every soul be subject unto the higher powers,” if thou be an Apostle even, or an Evangelist, or a Prophet, or anything whatsoever, inasmuch as this subjection is not subversive of religion. And he does not say merely “obey,” but “be subject.” And the first claim such an enactment has upon us, and the reasoning that suiteth the faithful, is, that all this is of God’s appointment.

“For there is no power,” he says, “but of God.” What say you? it may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself. For that there should be rulers, and some rule and others be ruled, and that all things should not just be carried on in one confusion, the people swaying like waves in this direction and that; this, I say, is the work of God’s wisdom. Hence he does not say, “for there is no ruler but of God;” but it is the thing he speaks of, and says, “there is no power but of God.1556 And the powers that be, are ordained of God.” 1556 The distinction which Chrys. carries through his interpretation of this passage on human government, between authority in abstracto and in concreto belongs rather to a philosophical treatment of the subject than to an exposition of the apostle’s language. The use of general terms like ἐξουσία and οὖσία cannot have been designed to leave room for concrete exceptions since the apostle blends general and specific terms throughout the passage [ἄρχοντες (3) θεοῦ διάκονος (4)]. The question of obeying unjust rulers and supporting the “powers” Thus when a certain wise man saith, “It is by the Lord that a man is matched with a woman” (Prov. xix. 14, LXX.), he means this, God made marriage, and not that it is He that joineth together every man that cometh to be with a woman. For we see many that come to be with one another for evil, even by the law of marriage, and this we should not ascribe to God. But as He said Himself, “He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh.” (Matt. xix. 4, 5; Gen. ii. 24.) And this is what that wise man meant to explain. For since equality of honor does many times lead to fightings, He hath made many governments and forms of subjection; as that, for instance, of man and wife, that of son and father, that of old men and young, that of bond and free,1557 that of ruler and ruled, that of master and disciple. And why are you surprised in the case of mankind, when even in the body He hath done the same thing? For even here He hath not made all parts of equal honor, but He hath made one less and another greater, and some of the limbs hath He made to rule and some to be ruled. And among the unreasoning creatures one may notice this same principle, as amongst bees, amongst cranes, amongst herds of wild cattle. And even the sea itself is not without this goodly subordination; for there too many of the clans are ranged under one among the fishes, and are led thus as an army, and make long expeditions from home. For anarchy, be where it may, is an evil, and a cause of confusion. After having said then whence governments come, he proceeds, “Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.” See what he has led the subject on to, and how fearful he makes it, and how he shows this to be a matter of debt. For lest the believers should say, You are making us very cheap and despicable, when you put us, who are to enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven, under subjection to rulers, he shows that it is not to rulers, but to God again that he makes them subject in doing this. For it is to Him, that he who subjects himself to authorities is obedient. Yet he does not say this—for instance that it is God to Whom a man who listens to authorities is obedient—but he uses the opposite case to awe them, and gives it a more precise form by saying, that he who listeneth not thereto is fighting with God, Who framed these laws. And this he is in all cases at pains to show, that it is not by way of favor that we obey them, but by way of debt. For in this way he was more likely to draw the governors who were unbelievers to religion, and the believers to obedience. For there was quite a common report in those days (Tert. Ap. 1, 31, 32), which in unjust measures, the apostle does not raise. He is stating a general principle and he says nothing of exceptions. His language does not exclude the possibility of exceptions when the reign of rulers becomes clearly subversive of moral order and opposed to the principles of the divine government.—G.B.S. 1557 See 1 Cor. vii. 21; Col. iii. 22; 1 Tim. vi. 2. Slavery is clearly recognized as a lawful state of life, appointed by Providence, and in Col. iv. 1, is shown to have a typical meaning; this does not necessarily imply the common opinion of the Greeks (Ar. Pol. i. 1), that there is a natural distinction of men into the free and the slavish. maligned the Apostles, as guilty of a sedition and revolutionary scheme, and as aiming in all they did and said at the subversion of the received institutions. When then you show our common Master giving this in charge to all His, you will at once stop the mouths of those that malign us as revolutionists, and with great boldness will speak for the doctrines of truth. Be not then ashamed, he says, at such subjection. For God hath laid down this law, and is a strong Avenger of them if they be despised. For it is no common punishment that He will exact of thee, if thou disobey, but the very greatest; and nothing will exempt thee, that thou canst say to the contrary, but both of men thou shalt undergo the most severe vengeance, and there shall be no one to defend thee, and thou wilt also provoke God the more. And all this he intimates when he says,

“And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Then to show the gain of the thing after the fear, he uses reasons too to persuade them as follows:

Ver. 3. “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.”

For when he has given a deep wound, and stricken them down, he again uses gentler treatment, like a wise physician, who applies soothing medicines, and he comforts them, and says, why be afraid? why shudder? For does he punish a person that is doing well? Or is he terrible to a person who lives in the practice of virtue? Wherefore also he proceeds, “Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shall have praise of the same.” You see how he has made him friends (ᾥκείωσεν) with the ruler, by showing that he even praises him from his throne. You see how he has made wrath unmeaning.

Ver. 4. “For he is the minister of God to thee for good.”

So far is he from terrifying thee, he says, that he even praises thee: so far from being a hindrance to thee, that he even works with thee. When then thou hast his praise and his succor, how is it that thou art not in subjection to him? For he maketh virtue easier for thee in other ways also, by chastising the wicked, by benefiting and honoring1558 the good, and by working together with the will of God. Whence too he has even given him the name of “Minister.”1559 And consider: I give you counsel to be sober-minded, and he, by the laws, speaks the same language. I exhort you not to be rapacious and grasping. And he sits in judgment in such cases, and so is a worker together with us, and an assistant to us, and has been commissioned by God for this end.1560 Hence there are both reasons for reverencing 1558 Most mss. omit “and honoring.” 1559 Or Deacon; the Coronation Service illustrates the sacred view of the kingly office; as by the use of the Dalmatic (sect. x.), which belongs also to Deacons; see Palmer, Or. Lit. append. sect. iv. 1560 Compare Butler, Analogy 1, 2, and Arist. Eth. v. 1. “The law commands to do the acts of a brave man, such as not quitting one’s post, not flying, not throwing away one’s arms. And those of a sober man, as not to commit adultery, or to insult any one. And those of a meek person, as not to strike, not to defame; and so with other virtues and vices,…” Where he means that the law cannot enforce the character but can demand the acts, him, both because he was commissioned by God, and because it was for such an object. “But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid.” It is not then the ruler that maketh the fear, but our own wickedness.

“For he beareth not the sword in vain.” You see how he hath furnished him with arms, and set him on guard like a soldier, for a terror to those that commit sin. “For he is the minister of God to execute wrath, a revenger upon him that doeth evil.” Now lest you should start off at hearing again of punishment, and vengeance, and a sword, he says again that it is God’s law he is carrying out. For what if he does not know it himself? yet it is God that hath so shaped things (οὕτως ἐτύπωσεν). If then, whether in punishing, or in honoring, he be a Minister, in avenging virtue’s cause, in driving vice away, as God willeth, why be captious against him, when he is the cause of so many good doings, and paves the way for thine too? since there are many who first practised virtue through the fear of God. For there are a duller sort, whom things to come have not such a hold upon as things present. He then who by fear and rewards gives the soul of the majority a preparatory turn towards its becoming more suited for the word of doctrine, is with good reason called “the Minister of God.”

Ver. 5. “Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake.”

What is the meaning of, “not only for wrath?” It means not only because thou dost resist God by not being subject, nor only because thou art procuring great evils for thyself, both from God and the rulers, but also because he is a benefactor to thee in things of the greatest importance, as he procures peace to thee, and the blessings of civil institutions. For there are countless blessings to states through these authorities; and if you were to remove them, all things would go to ruin, and neither city nor country, nor private nor public buildings, nor anything else would stand, but all the world will be turned upside down, while the more powerful devour the weaker. And so even if some wrath were not to follow man’s disobedience, even on this ground thou oughtest to be subject, that thou mayest not seem devoid of conscience and feeling towards the benefactor.

Ver. 6. “For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God’s ministers, attending continually on this very thing.”

Without going one by one into the benefits done to states by the rulers, as that of good order and peace, the other services, as regarding the soldiery, and those over the public business, he shows the whole of this by a single case. For that thou art benefited by him, he means, thou bearest witness thyself, by paying him a salary. Observe the wisdom and judgment of the blessed Paul. For that which seemed to be burdensome and annoying—the system of imposts—this he turns into a proof of their care for men. What is the reason, he and is so far drawing man towards what is suitable to his nature. Butler shows that this is a part of God’s moral government. means, that we pay tribute to a king? It is not as providing for us? And yet we should not have paid it unless we had known in the first instance that we were gainers from this superintendence. Yet it was for this that from of old all men came to an agreement that governors should be maintained by us, because to the neglect of their own affairs, they take charge of the public,1561 and on this they spend their whole leisure, whereby our goods also are kept safe. After saying then what the external goods are, he again averts to the former line of argument (for in this way he was more likely to attract the believer to him), and he shows again that this is God’s decree, and on it he makes his advice rest finally, in these words, “they are God’s ministers.” Then to show the pains they take, and their hard life, he proceeds,

“Waiting continually upon this very thing.”

For this is their life, this their business, that thou mayest enjoy peace. Wherefore in another Epistle, he bids them not only be subject, but also “pray” in their behalf. And as showing there too that the advantage was common to all, he adds, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all things.”1562 (1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.) For it is in no small degree that they contribute to the settled state of the present life, by keeping guard, beating off enemies, hindering those who are for sedition in the cities, putting an end to differences among any. For do not tell me of some one who makes an ill use of the thing, but look to the good order that is in the institution itself, and you will see the great wisdom of Him who enacted this law from the first.

Ver. 7, 8. “Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. Owe (or ye owe) no man anything, but to love one another.”

He still keeps upon the same line, bidding them pay them not money only, but honor and fear. And how is it when he said above, “Wilt thou not be afraid of the power? do that which is good;” that he here says “render fear?” He does it meaning exceeding honor, and not the fear which comes from a bad conscience, which he alluded to before. And it is not “give,” that he says, but “render” (or “give back,” ἀπόδοτε), and then adds to it, the “dues.” For it is not a favor that you confer by so doing, since the thing is matter of due. And if you do it not, you will be punished as obstinate. Do not suppose that you are lowering yourself, and detracting from the dignity of your own philosophy, if you rise up at the presence of a ruler, or if you uncover your head. For if he laid these laws down at that time, when the 1561 Arist. Eth. viii. 8, “The political union of men seems to have been first formed for advantage, and for this it is upheld.” See Pol. i. 2, where he says of it, that “it is formed that men may live, but is (in the nature of things) that they may live well.” 1562 St. Augustin de Civ. Dei, xix. 17, writes, “But the heavenly city, or rather that part of it which sojourneth in this mortal state, and liveth by faith, must likewise make use of this kind of peace, till that mortality, for which such peace is needful, pass away.” And xix. 26, he quotes 1 Tim. ii. 2, and Jer. xxix. 7, to the same purpose. rulers were Gentiles, much more ought this to be done with them now they are believers. But if you mean to say, that you are entrusted with greater privileges, be informed that this is not thy time. For thou art a stranger and a sojourner. A time will be when thou shalt appear brighter than all. Now thy “life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory” (Col. iii. 3, 4.) Seek not then in this life of accidents thy change, but even if thou hast to be with fear in a ruler’s presence, do not think that this is unworthy thy noble birth. For so God willeth, that the ruler who has his place marked1563 by Him, should have his own power. And when he who is conscious of no evil in himself, stands with fear in the judge’s presence, much more will he who doth evil things be affrighted, and thou in this way wilt be the more respected. For it is not from honoring that the lowering of self comes but from dishonoring him. And the ruler will treat thee with greater respect, and he will glorify thy Master owing to this, even if he be an unbeliever. “Owe1564 no man anything, but to love one another.” Again he has recourse to the mother of good deeds, and the instructress of the things spoken of, who is also productive of every virtue, and says that this is a debt also, not however such as the tribute or the custom, but a continuous one. For he does not wish it ever to be paid off, or rather he would have it always rendered, yet never fully so, but to be always owing. For this is the character of the debt, that one keeps giving and owing always. Having said then how he ought to love, he also shows the gain of it, saying,

“For he that loveth another hath fulfilled the Law.”

And do not, pray, consider even this a favor; for this too is a debt. For thou owest love to thy brother, through thy spiritual relationship. And not for this only, but also because “we are members one of another.” And if love leave us, the whole body is rent in pieces. Love therefore thy brother. For if from his friendship thou gainest so much as to fulfil the whole Law, thou owest him love as being benefited by him.

Ver. 9. “For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,1565 and any other commandment, is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

He does not say merely it is fulfilled, but “it is briefly comprehended,”1566 that is, the whole work of the commandments is concisely and in a few words completed. For the be- 1563 τυπωθεὶς, see p. 513, οὕτως ἐτύπωσεν. The sense appears to be, “whose precise character in every form of government Himself determines.” 1564 Or “ye owe,” it may seem that this is his sense, from “thou owest,” but he would have it look the other way. 1565 St. Chrysostom omits “Thou shalt not covet.” Many mss. of the New Testament omit “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” but all known mss. of St. Chrysostom have it, as well as the printed copies. 1566 ἀνακεφαλαιοῦται, see p. 472, note 3. ginning and the end of virtue is love. This it has for its root, this for its groundwork, this for its summit. If then it be both beginning and fulfilment, what is there equal to it? But he does not seek love merely, but intense love. For he does not say merely “love thy neighbor,” but, “as thyself.” Hence also Christ said1567 that “the Law and the Prophets hang upon” it. And in making two kinds of love, see how He has raised this! For after saying that the first commandment is, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,” He added a second;1568 and He did not stay, but added, “like unto it; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” What can be equal to this love to man, or this gentleness? That when we were at infinite distance from Him, He brings the love to us into comparison with that toward Himself, and says that “is like unto this.” Hence then, to put the measures of either as nearly the same, of the one He says, “with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,” but of this towards one’s neighbor, He says, “as thyself.” But Paul said, that when this did not exist even the other was of no great profit to us. As then we, when we are fond of any one, say, if you love him, then you love me; so He also to show this saith, “is like unto it;” and to Peter, “If thou lovest Me, feed My sheep.” (John xxi. 16.)

Ver. 10. “Love worketh no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the Law.”

Observe how it has both virtues, abstinence from evils (for it “worketh no ill,” he says), and the working of good deeds. “For it is,” he says, “the fulfilling (or filling up) of the Law;” not bringing before us instruction only on moral duties in a concise form, but making the accomplishment of them easy also. For that we should become acquainted with things profitable to us was not all that he was careful for (which is the Law’s care), but also with a view to the doing of them it brought us great assistance; accomplishing not some part of the commandments, but the whole sum of virtue in us. Let us then love one another, since in this way we shall also love God,1569 Who loveth us. For in the case of men, if you love a man’s beloved, he that loveth him is contentious at it. But here He deemeth thee worthy to share His love, and hateth thee when thou sharest not. For man’s love is laden with envy and grudging;1570 but God’s is free from all passion, whence also He seeketh for those to share His love. For He says, love thou with Me, and then thyself also will I love the more. You see the words of a vehement lover! If thou love My beloved, then will I also reckon Myself to be greatly beloved of thee. For He vehemently desireth our salvation, and this He showed from of old. Now hear what He saith when He was forming the man, “Let Us make man in Our Image:” and again, “Let Us1571 make an help meet for him. It is not good for 1567 Matt. xxii. 39. St. Hilary on the place notices that the second could not be called like unto it, were it not that our Neighbor means Christ, i.e. as present in His members. 1568 So most mss. while the old edd. read “added, and the second—” 1569 Ms. “be beloved of God,” which makes a fair sense with the context. 1570 Plato, Phædr. p. 217, B. ὁ φθόνος ἔξω Θείου χοροῦ ἵσταται, Envy standeth without the Divine circle. 1571 Gen. ii. 18. This plural is in the LXX., not in the Hebrew. See in Gen. c. ii. Hom. xiv. him to be alone.” (Gen. i. 26.) And when he had transgressed, He rebuked him, observe how gently;1572 and He does not say, Wretch! thou very wretch! after receiving so great benefits, hast thou after all trusted to the devil? and left thy Benefactor, to take up with the evil spirit? But what saith He? “Who told thee that thou art naked, unless thou hast eaten of the Tree, from which alone I commanded thee not to eat?” (ib. iii. 11.) As if a father were to say to a child, who was ordered not to touch a sword, and then disobeyed and got wounded, “How camest thou wounded? Thou camest so by not listening to me.” You see they are the words of a friend rather than a master, of a friend despised, and not even then forsaking. Let us then imitate Him, and when we rebuke, let us preserve this moderation. For even the woman He also rebuketh again with the same gentleness. Or rather what He said was not so much rebuke as admonition and correction, and security against the future. This is why He saith nothing1573 to the serpent. For he was the designer of the mischiefs, and had it not in his power to put off the accusation on any one else, wherefore He punished him severely: and even here He did not come to a pause, but made the earth also to share in the curse. But if He cast them out of paradise, and condemned them to labor, even for this we ought to adore and reverence Him the most. For since self-indulgence issues in listlessness, He trenches upon the pleasure by building a fort of pain against listlessness, that we may return to the love of Him. And what of Cain’s case? Doth he not meet with the same gentleness? For being by him also insulted, He doth not reproach (same word as insult) in return, but entreats, (or comforts) him, and says, “Why is thy countenance fallen?” (Gen. iv. 6.) And yet what he had done allowed of no excuse whatever. And this the younger brother shows. But still even then He doth not rebuke him: but what saith He? “Hast thou sinned: keep peace;” “do so no more.” “To thee shall his turning be, and thou shalt rule over him”1574 (ib. 7, LXX.), meaning his brother. “For if thou art afraid, lest for this sacrifice,” He means, “I should deprive thee of the preëminence of the first-born, be of good cheer, for the entire command over him do I put into thy hands. Only be thou better, and love him that hath done thee no wrong; for I have an interest in you both. And what maketh Me most glad is, that ye be not at variance one with another.” For as a devoted mother, so doth God do and plan everything to keep one from being torn from another; but that you may get a clearer view, by an example, of my meaning, call to your mind, pray, Rebecca in her trouble, and running about everywhere, when the elder son was at enmity with the younger. For if she loved Jacob, still she did not feel averse to Esau. And therefore she said, Lest by any means “I be deprived of both of you, my children, in one day.” (ib. xxvii. 45.) Therefore also God upon that occasion said, “Thou hast sinned: be at peace: unto thee shall his turning be” (ib. iv. 7), so repressing the 1572 On the Fall, see Hom. xvii. in Gen. 1573 Nothing before or beside his sentence. Nothing of admonition. See Ben. 1574 See Hom. xix. in Gen. St. Cyr. Al. Glaph. lib. i. §2, p. 20 B. takes this as said to Abel. murder beforehand, and aiming at the peace of them both. But when he had murdered him, He did not even then bring His care for him to a close, but again answers the fratricide in gentle terms, saying, “Where is thy brother Abel?” that even now, if he would, he might make a full confession. But he struggled in defence of his former misdeeds, with a greater and sadder shamelessness. But even then God doth not leave him, but again speaks the language of an iujured and despised lover, and says, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me.” (Gen. iv. 10.) And again He rebukes the earth with the murderer, turning His wrath off to it, and saying, “Cursed be the earth, which opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood” (ib. ii.); and doing like those who lament (ἀνακαλοὕντας), as David also did when Saul was fallen. For he made an address to the mountains which received him as he died, in the words, “Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there fall on you neither rain nor dew, because there were the shields of the mighty cast away.” (2 Sam. i. 21.) And thus God also, as though singing some solitary dirge (μονῳδίαν), saith, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me; and now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.” And this He said to humble his fiery passion, and to persuade him to love him at least now he was gone. Hast thou extinguished his life? He would say; why dost thou not now extinguish the hatred also? But what doth He do? He loveth both the one and the other, since He made them both. What then?1575 doth (4 mss. will) He let the murderer go unpunished? Nay, he would but have grown worse. Will He punish him then? Nay, He hath more tenderness than a father. See then how He at once punisheth and also displays, even in this, His love. Or rather, He doth not so much as punish, but only corrects. For He doth not kill him, but only fetters him with trembling, that he may divest himself of the crime, that so at least he may come back to a natural tenderness for the other, and that so at last he may make a truce with him now he hath gone; for He were fain he should not go away to the other world in enmity with him that was deceased. This is the way wherein they that love, when in doing acts of kindness they meet with no love in return, are led on to be vehement and to threaten, not with their will indeed, but led by their love to do this: that at least in this way they may win over those that scorn them. Yet affection of this sort is one of compulsion, and still this even solaces them, through the vehemency of their love. And so punishment itself comes from affection, since unless pained at being hated, they would not choose to punish either. Now observe, how this is what Paul says to the Corinthians. For “who is he” (says he) “that maketh me glad, but the same which is made sorry by me?” (2 Cor. ii. 2.) And so when he is going to the full extent of punishment, then he shows his love. Thus the Egyptian woman too, from her vehement love, as vehemently punished Joseph: and she indeed did so for mischief, the love being unchaste; but God for good, since the love was worthy of Him who loved. This is why He does not refuse even to 1575 Alluding to the στένων καὶ τρέμων of the LXX., v. 12. condescend to grosser words, and to speak the names of human passions, and to call Himself jealous. For “I am a jealous God” (Ex. xx. 5), He saith, that you may learn the intenseness of the love. Let us then love Him as He would have us: for He sets great store thereby. And if we turn away, He keepeth inviting us, and if we will not be converted, He chasteneth us through His affection, not through a wish to exact punishment of us. And see what He saith in Ezekiel to the city that was beloved, yet had despised Him. “I will bring thy lovers against thee, and will deliver thee into their hands, and they shall stone thee, and shall slay thee, and My jealousy shall be taken away from thee, and I will rest, and I will not trouble Myself any more.” (From Ezek. xvi. 37–42.) What more than this could a vehement lover have said, when despised by his beloved, and after all again ardently loving her? For God doeth everything that He may be loved by us, and owing to this He spared not even His Son. But we are unbending, and savage. Yet let us become gentle at last, and love God as we ought to love Him, that we may with pleasure enjoy virtue. For if any that hath a beloved wife does not perceive any of the vexations that come day by day, He that loveth with this divine and pure love, only consider what great pleasure he will have to enjoy! For this is, indeed it is, the kingdom of Heaven; this is fruition of good things, and pleasure, and cheerfulness, and joy, and blessedness. Or rather, say as many things as I may, I shall still be unable to give you any such representation of it as should be, but the trial of it alone can give a knowledge of this goodly thing. Wherefore also the Prophet saith, “Delight thyself in the Lord” (Ps. xxxvii. 4), and, “Taste and see that the Lord is gracious.” (Ib. xxxiv. 8.) Let us then be persuaded, and indulge ourselves in His love. For in this way we shall both see His Kingdom even from out of this life, and shall be living the life of Angels, and while we abide on earth, we shall be in as goodly a condition as they that dwell in heaven; and after our departing hence, shall stand the brightest of beings by the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall enjoy that glory unutterable, which may we all attain unto, by the grace and love toward man of our Lord Jesus Christ. For to Him is the glory forever, Amen.

Rom. XIII. 11

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep.”

Since he had given them what commands were fitting, he again thrusts them on to the performance of good works, in consideration of what was pressing upon them. For the time of judgment, he means, is at the doors. So too he wrote to the Corinthians also, “The remaining time is short.1576” (1 Cor. vii. 29.) And to the Hebrews again, “For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” (Heb. x. 37.) But in those cases it was to cheer those in trouble, and to solace the toils of their closely successive temptations, that he said those things: but in the passage before us he does it to rouse those that are asleep, this language being useful to us for both the purposes: and what is that which he says, “Now it is high time to awake out of sleep?” It is, that near is the Resurrection, near the awful Judgment, and the day that burneth as a furnace, near. Henceforward then we must be free from our listlessness; “for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.”1577 You see how he puts the Resurrection now close by them. For as the time advances, he means, the season of our present life is wasting away, and that of the life to come waxes nearer. If then thou be prepared, and hast done all whatsoever He hath commanded, the day is salvation to thee (3 mss. and Cat. σωτηρία σοι); but if the contrary, not so. For the present however, it is not upon alarming grounds that he exhorts them, but upon kindly ones, thus also to untie them from their fellow-feeling for the things of this present world. Then since it was not unlikely, that in the beginning of their early endeavors they would be most earnest, in that their desire was then at its full vigor, but that as the time went on, the whole of their earnestness would wither down to nothing; he says that they ought however to be doing the reverse, not to get relaxed as time went on, but to be the more full of vigor. For the nearer the King may be at hand, the more ought they to get themselves in readiness; the nearer the prize is, the more wide awake ought they to be for the contest, since even the racers do this, when they are upon the end of the course, and towards the receiving of the prize, then they rouse themselves up the more. This is why he said, “Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.”

Rom. XIV. 1, 2

“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs.”

I Am aware that to most what is here said is a difficulty. And therefore I must first give the subject of the whole of this passage, and what he wishes to correct in writing this. What does he wish to correct then? There were many of the Jews which believed, who adhered of conscience to the Law, and after their believing, still kept to the observance of meats, as not having courage yet to quit the service of the Law entirely. Then that they might not be observed if they kept from swine’s flesh only, they abstained in consequence from all flesh, and ate herbs only, that what they were doing might have more the appearance of a fast than of observance of the Law.1586 Others again were farther advanced, (τελειότεροι) and 1586 Chrys. adopts the view which was common in antiquity as to who the “weak” here mentioned were. He regards them as judaizing Christians who were over-zealous for the Mosaic law and even went beyond its explicit requirements to abstain from swine’s flesh and abstained from meat altogether. Another class of interpreters have supposed that the scruples of the “weak” concerning meat had the same ground as in 1 Cor. viii. and 1 Cor. x., viz., the fear of eating flesh and drinking wine that had been used in the heathen sacrificial worship (So Rückert, Philippi, Neander). The chief objection to the former view is that they could not have derived their doctrine of entire abstinence from meat and wine from the Mosaic law, which prohibits only the flesh of certain unclean animals and does not prohibit wine at all except in particular cases. The difficulty with the second view is that the whole passage has no allusion to heathen sacrifices, which could hardly have been the case if they had been the ground of the scruple. On the contrary in v. 14 Paul in correcting these ascetic notions declares his conviction that nothing is “unclean of itself,” showing that their view was that flesh and wine possessed in themselves some power of pollution. The difficulties connected with these explanations have led many recent scholars to different explanations. Baur regarded the “weak” as Ebionitic Christians, but the Ebionites abstained from flesh as inherently sinful and it would seem that if this had been the opinion of the “weak” that Paul could hardly have treated it so mildly. Since the Ebionites date from about 70 a.d., these ascetics at Rome could have been Ebionitic only in the sense of having the germs of subsequent Ebionism. An opinion similar to this has been advocated by Ritschl, Meyer and Mangold. In their view the root of this asceticism was Essenic. There was certainly a Judeo-Christian minority in the Roman church. The ideas of the Essenes were widely disseminated among the Jews at the time. It is natural to suppose that among the Roman Jews there were Essenes or those of Essenic tendencies who upon their conversion would associate their rigorous asceticism with the Christian doctrine of the subjugation of the flesh. This view best meets the requirements of the passage. The Essenes abstained wholly from wine and practised a supra-legal regimen in regard to food. They would have no occasion to array themselves against the apostle’s doctrine and he therefore treats their scruples not in a polemic but in a cautious and conciliatory spirit.—G.B.S. kept up no one thing of the kind, who became to those, who did keep them, distressing and offensive, by reproaching them, accusing them, driving them to despondency. Therefore the blessed Paul, out of fear lest, from a wish to be right about a trifle, they should overthrow the whole, and from a wish to bring them to indifferency about what they ate, should put them in a fair way for deserting the faith, and out of a zeal to put everything right at once, before the fit opportunity was come, should do mischief on vital points, so by this continual rebuking setting them adrift from their agreement in (ὁμολογίας εἰς) Christ, and so they should remain not righted in either respect: observe what great judgment he uses and how he concerns himself with both interests with his customary wisdom. For neither does he venture to say to those who rebuke, Ye are doing amiss, that he may not seem to be confirming the other in their observances; nor again, Ye are doing right, lest he should make them the more vehement accusers: but he makes his rebuke to square with each. And in appearance he is rebuking the stronger, but he pours forth all he has to say1587 against the other in his address to these. For the kind of correction most likely to be less grating is, when a person addresses some one else, while he is striking a blow at a different person, since this does not permit the person rebuked to fly into a passion, and introduces the medicine of correction unperceived. See now with what judgment he does this, and how well-timed he is with it. For after saying, “make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof,” then he proceeds to the discussion of these points, that he might not seem to be speaking in defence of those who were the rebukers, and were for eating of anything. For the weaker part ever requires more forethought. Wherefore he aims his blow against the strong, immediately saying as follows, “Him that is weak in the faith.” You see one blow immediately given to him. For by calling him weak (ἀσθενοὕντα), he points out that he is not healthy (ἄρρωστον). Then he adds next, “receive,” and point out again that he requires much attention. And this is a sign of extreme debility. “Not to doubtful disputations.”1588 See, he has laid on a third stripe. 1587 κενοῖ, i.e. so as not to have to say anything against them directly. St. Chrysostom turns the passage in that way more than Theodoret. See on v. 4, which Theod. applies directly against the Judaizers. His general remarks on the rhetoric of the passage are independent of this question. 1588 Verse 2 counsels receiving to Christian fellowship those affected by these ascetic scruples but μὴ εἰς διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν. These words have been variously rendered: (1) “not to doubtful disputations” (A.V., R.V.); (2) “for decisions of doubts” (marg. R.V.); (3) not to judgings of thoughts (Meyer); “not to discussions of opinions” (Godet). It is clear that the apostle exhorts the church against allowing the scruples in question to be matter of debate and division but whether he means to place a limitation upon the church’s duty to receive the weak brethren or whether he exhorts them to refrain from making the opinions of the weak a matter of discussion and judgment, is a question still unsettled. The following consideration deserve attention in the decision of the question (1) Paul treats the “weak” throughout with great forbearance and tenderness. (2) The church is the party exhorted. (3) It is probably that the διακρίσεις διαλογισμῶν refer to actions or judgments which the church would be in danger of exercising toward the weak. (4) It is likely that the question of eating meats or For here he makes it appear that his error is of such a nature, that even those who do not transgress in the same manner, and who nevertheless admit him to their affection, and are earnestly bent upon curing him, are at doubt.1589 You see how in appearance he is conversing with these, but is rebuking others secretly and without giving offence. Then by placing them beside each other, one he gives encomiums, the other accusations. For he goes on to say, “One believeth that he may eat all things,” commending him on the score of his faith. “Another who is weak, eateth herbs,” disparaging this one again, on the score of his weakness. Then since the blow he had given was deadly (καιρίαν, used hyperbolically), he comforts him again in these words,

Ver. 3. “Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not.”

He does not say, let him alone, nor does he say, do not blame him, nor yet, do not set him right; but do not reproach him, do not “despise” him, to show they were doing a thing perfectly ridiculous. But of this he speaks in other words. “Let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth.” For as the more advanced made light of these, as of little faith, and falsely healed, and spurious, and still Judaizers, so they too judged these as law-breakers, or as given to gluttony. And of these it is likely that many were of the Gentiles too. Wherefore he proceeds, for God hath received him. But in the other’s case he does not say this. And yet to be despised was the eater’s share, as a glutton, but to be judged, his that did not eat, as of little faith. But he has made them change places, to show that he not only does not deserve to be despised, but that he can even despise. But do I condemn him? he means. By no means. For this is why he proceeds, “for God hath received him.” Why then speakest thou to him of the law, as to a transgressor? “For God hath received him:” that is, has shown His unspeakable grace about him, and hath freed him from all charges against him; then again he turns to the strong.

Ver. 4. “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?”

Whence it appears that they too judged, and did not despise only. “To his own Master he standeth or falleth.” See here is another stroke. And the indignation seems to be against the strong man, and he attacks him. When he says, “Yea, he shall be holden up,” he shows herbs only (v. 2) is a specimen of the διαλογισμοί referred to. (5) Διακρίσις means an act of distinguishing things that differ, i.e. a logical or moral judgment. (6) The question remains whether διαλογισμός means a doubt, or a thought, an opinion. The latter is the primary meaning and seems preferable here. Then the meaning would be: receive these persons to fellowship and abstain from criticisms and judgments upon their conscientious opinions. The translation of our Eng. vs. “not to doubtful disputations” is as ambiguous as the original phrase is in Greek, and is, therefore, a faithful rendering in respect of ambiguity. These translators seem to take διακρίσεις as meaning “doubts”—a meaning which that word cannot be shown to bear.—G.B.S. 1589 He seems to mean, “are at doubt whether they may acknowledge such.” So OEcumenius seems to take it, who paraphrases this comment, and adds καὶ χωρίζεσθαι, “and separate themselves.” that he is still wavering, and requireth so much attention as to call in God as a physician for this, “for God,” he says, “is able to make him stand.” And this we say of things we are quite in despair about. Then, that he may not despair he both gives him the name of a servant when he says, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” And here again he secretly attacks him. For it is not because he does things worthy to exempt him from being judged, that I bid you not judge him, but because he is Another’s servant, that is, not thine, but God’s. Then to solace him again he does not say, “falleth,” but what? “standeth or falleth.” But whether it be the latter or the former, either of these is the Master’s concernment, since the loss also goes to Him, if he does fall, as the riches too, if he stand. And this again if we do not attend to Paul’s aim in not wishing them to be rebuked before a fitting opportunity, is very unworthy of the mutual care becoming for Christians. But (as I am always saying) we must examine the mind with which it is spoken, and the subject on which it is said and the object he would compass when he says it. But he makes them respectful by no slight motive, when he says this: for what he means is, if God, Who undergoeth the loss, hitherto doth nothing, how can you be else than ill-timed and out of all measure exact, when you seize on (ἄγκων, throttle) him and annoy him?

Ver. 5. “One man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike.”

Here he seems to me to be giving a gentle hint about fasting. For it is not unlikely that some who fasted were always judging those who did not, or among the observances it is likely that there were some that on fixed days abstained, and on fixed days did not.1590 Whence also he says, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” And in this way he released those who kept the observances from fear, by saying that the thing was indifferent, and he removed also the quarrelsomeness of those who attacked them, by showing that it was no very desirable (or urgent, περισπούδαστον) task to be always making a trouble about these things. Yet it was not a very desirable task, not in its own nature, but on account of the time chosen, and because they were novices in the faith. For when he is writing to the Colossians, it is with great earnestness that he forbids it, saying, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.” (Col. ii. 8, see p. 4.) And again, “Let no man judge you in meat or in drink” (ib. 16), and, “let no man beguile you of your reward.” (ib. 18.) And when writing to the Galatians with great precision, he exacts of them Christian spirit and perfectness in this matter. But here he does not use this vehemency, because the faith was lately planted in them. Let us therefore not apply the phrase, “Let every man be persuaded in his own mind,” to all subjects. For when he is speaking of doctrines, hear what he says, “If any one preacheth unto you any gospel other than that ye have received, let him be accursed” (Gal. i. 9), “even” if it be “an angel.” And again, “I fear lest by any means as the serpent be- 1590 ἐχομένους, here opposed to ἀπεχομένους. guiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted.” (2 Cor. xi. 3.) And in writing to the Philippians, he says, “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.” (Phil. iii. 2.) But with the Romans, since it was not yet the proper time for setting things of this sort right, “Let every man,” he says, “be fully persuaded in his own mind.” For he had been speaking of fasting. It was to clear away the vanity of the others and to release these from fear then, that he said as follows:

Ver. 6. “He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” And, “He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.”

He still keeps to the same subject. And what he means is about this. The thing is not concerned with fundamentals. For the thing requisite is, if this person and the other are acting for God’s sake, the thing requisite is (these words are repeated 3 mss.), if both terminate in thanksgiving. For indeed both this man and that give thanks to God. If then both do give thanks to God, the difference is no great one. But let me draw your notice to the way in which here also he aims unawares a blow at the Judaizers. For if the thing required be this, the “giving of thanks,” it is plain enough that he which eateth it is that “giveth thanks,” and not “he which eateth not.” For how should he, while he still holds to the Law? As then he told the Galatians, “As many of you as are justified by the Law are fallen from grace” (Gal. v. 4); so here he hints it only, but does not unfold it so much. For as yet it was not time to do so. But for the present he bears with it (see p. 337): but by what follows he gives it a further opening. For where he says,

Ver. 7, 8. “For none of us liveth unto himself, and no man dieth unto himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord,” by this too he makes the same clearer. For how can he that liveth unto the Law, be living unto Christ? But this is not the only thing that he effects by this, he also holds back the person who was in so much haste for their being set right, and persuades him to be patient, by showing that it is impossible for God to despise them, but that in due time He will set them right. What is the force then of “none of us liveth to himself?” It means, We are not free, we have a Master who also would have us live, and willeth not that we die, and to whom both of these are of more interest than to us. For by what is here said he shows that he hath a greater concern for us than we have ourselves, and considereth more than we do, as well our life to be wealth, as our death to be a loss. For we do not die to ourselves alone, but to our Master also, if we do die. But by death here he means that from the faith. However, this were enough to convince us that He taketh care for us, in that it is to Him we live, and to Him we die. Still he is not satisfied with saying this, but proceeds further. For after saying, “Whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s,” and passing from that death to the physical one, that he may not give an appearance of harshness to his language, he gives another very great indication of His care for us. Now of what kind is this?

Ver. 9. “For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living.”

And so let us at least convince thee, that He is thoughtful for our salvation. For had He not had this great care for us, where were the need of the Dispensation (or Incarnation, οἰκονομίας)? He then that hath shown so much anxiety about our becoming His, as to take the form of a servant, and to die, will He despise us after we have become so? This cannot be so, assuredly it cannot! Nor would He choose to waste so much pains. “For to this end (he says) he also died,” as if any one were to say, Such an one will not have the heart to despise his servant. For he minded his own purse. (Cf. Ex. xxi. 21.) For indeed we are not so much in love with money, as is He with our salvation. Wherefore it was not money, but His own Blood that He gave as bail for us. And for this cause He would not have the heart to give them up, for whom He had laid down so great a price. See too how he shows that His power also is unspeakable. For he says, “to this end He both died and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living.” And above he said, “for whether we live or die, we are His.” See what a wide extended Mastery! see what unconquerable might! see what exact providence over us! For tell me not, he means, of the living. Even for the departed He taketh care. But if He doth of the departed, it is quite plain that He doth of the living also. For He hath not omitted any point for this Mastery, making out for Himself more claims than men do, and especially beside1591 all other things in order to take care of us. For a man puts down money, and for this clings strongly to his own slave. But He Himself paid down His death; and the salvation of one who was purchased at so great a price, and the Mastery over whom He had gained with so much anxiety and trouble, He is not likely to count of no value. But this he says to make the Judaizer abashed, and to persuade him to call to mind the greatness of the benefit, and how that when dead he had come to be alive, and that there was nothing that he gained from the Law, and how that it would be the last degree of unfeelingness, to leave Him Who had shown so much care toward him, and run away back to the Law. After attacking him then sufficiently, he relaxes again, and says,

Ver. 10. “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?”

And so he seems to be setting them upon a level, but from that he has said, he shows that the difference between them is great. First then by the appellation of “brother” he does away with disputatiousness, and then also by calling that awful day to their mind. For after 1591 χωρὶς: The construction seems imperfect: the Translator suggests χωρισθεὶς, “separating Himself from all others.” If the passage be not corrupt, χωρὶς τῶν ἄλλων ἁπάντων is merely = in primis; and so Field. saying, “Why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” he proceeds, “For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.”

And he seems indeed to be again rebuking the more advanced in saying this, but he is putting the mind of the Judaizer to confusion by not only calling for his reverence to the benefit that had been done him, but also making him afraid of the punishment to come. “For we shall all,” he says, “stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.”

Ver. 11, 12. “For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

See how he again puts his mind into confusion, while he seems to be rebuking the other. For he intimates some such thing, as if he had said, How does it affect you? Are you to be punished for him? But this he does not say, but hints at it by putting it in a milder form, and saying, “For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ:” and, “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” And he introduces the prophet1592 in witness of the subjection of all to Him, yea a subjection extended even to those in the Old Testament, and of all absolutely. For he does not barely say every one shall worship, but “shall confess,” that is, shall given an account of what he has done. Be in anxiety then as seeing the Master of all sitting on his judgment-seat, and do not make schisms and divisions in the Church, by breaking away from grace, and running over to the Law. For the Law also is His. And why say I so of the Law? Even those in the Law and those before the Law are His. And it is not the Law that will demand an account of thee, but Christ, of thee and of all the human race. See how he has released us from the fear of the Law. Then that he may not seem to be saying this to frighten them for the occasion, but to have come to it in the course he had proposed himself, he again keeps to the same subject, and says,

Ver. 13. “Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.”

This does not apply to one less than the other: wherefore it may well fit with both, both the advanced man that was offended at the observance of meats, and the unadvanced that stumbled at the vehement rebuke given him. But consider, I pray you, the great punishment we shall suffer, if we give offence at all. For if in a case where the thing was against law, yet, as they rebuked unseasonably, he forbade their doing it, in order that a brother might not be made to offend and stumble; when we give an offence without having anything to set right even, what treatment shall we deserve? For if not saving others be a crime (and that it is so, he who buried the talent proves), what will be the effect of giving him offence also? But what if he gives himself the offence, you may say, by being weak? Why this is just why 1592 Some mss. and edd. “with all attesting the subjection to Him.” The passage is found Is. xlv. 23, probably the reading of the LXX., till it was corrected to suit the Hebrew. See Parsons ad loc. thou oughtest to be patient. For if he were strong, then he would not require so much attention. But now, since he is of the feebler sort, he does on this ground need considerable care. Let us then yield him this, and in all respects bear his burdens, as it is not of our own sins only that we shall have to give an account, but for those also wherein we cause others to offend. For if that account, were even by itself hard to pass, when these be added too, how are we to be saved? And let us not suppose, that if we can find accomplices in our sins, that will be an excuse; as this will prove an addition to our punishment. Since the serpent too was punished more than the woman, as was the woman likewise more than the man (1 Tim. ii. 14); and Jezebel also was punished more severely than Ahab, who had seized the vineyard; for it was she that devised the whole matter, and caused the king to offend. (1 Kings xxi. 23, 25, 29.) And therefore thou, when thou art the author of destruction to others, wilt suffer more severely1593 than those who have been subverted by thee. For sinning is not so ruinous as leading others also into the same. Wherefore he speaks of those who “not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (Rom. i. 32.) And so when we see any sinning, let us, so far from thrusting them on, even pull them back from the pit of iniquity, that we may not have to be punished for the ruin of others besides ourselves. And let us be continually in mind of the awful judgment-seat, of the stream of fire, of the chains never to be loosed, of the darkness with no light, the gnashing of teeth, and the venomous worm. “Ah, but God is merciful!” Are these then mere words? and was not that rich man punished for despising Lazarus? Are not the foolish1594 virgins cast out of the Bride-chamber? Do not they who did not feed Him go away into “the fire prepared for the devil?” (Matt. xxv. 41.) Will not he that hath soiled garments be “bound hand and foot” (ib. xxii. 13), and go to ruin? Will, not he that demanded the hundred pence to be paid, be given over to the tormentors? Is not that said of the adulterers1595 true, that “their worm shall not die, nor their fire be quenched?”1596 (Mark ix. 43.) Are these but mere threats then? Yea, it is answered. And from what source pray dost thou venture to make such an assertion, and that too when thou passest judgment of thine own opinion? Why, I shall be able to prove the contrary, both from what He said, and from what He did. (See John v. 22.) For if you will not believe by 1593 Sav. Mar. and one ms. end the sentence, “having punishment exacted of the for those who have been made by thee to offend.” 1594 The oil representing especially deeds of mercy. Hil. ad. 1. See St. Chrys. on Rom. xi. 6. p. 485. 1595 See Matt. v. 28, and 2 Pet. ii. 14. And with respect to giving cause of offence to others, Mark. ix. 44. 1596 Field’s punctuation will give the sense, “These then are mere words—the rich man is not punished, nor the foolish virgins cast out, etc., but these are only threats!” which is perhaps more vigorous. Compare Hom. xxxi. p. 496: also Browning’s Heretic’s Tragedy. “Who maketh God’s menace an idle word? Saith, it no more means what it proclaims Than a damsel’s threat to her wanton bird? —For she too prattles of ugly names. Saith, he knoweth but one thing—what he knows? That God is good and the rest is breath.” the punishments that are to come, at least believe by those that have happened already. For what have happened, and have come forth into reality, surely are not threats and words. Who then was it that flooded the whole world, and affected that baleful wreck, and the utter destruction of our whole race! Who was it that after this hurled those thunders and lightnings upon the land of Sodom? Who that drowned all Egypt in the sea? Who that consumed the six hundred thousand men in the wilderness? Who that burnt up the synagogue of Abiram? Who that bade the earth open her mouth for the company of Core and Dathan, and swallow them up? Who that carried off the threescore and ten thousand at one sweep in David’s time? Shall I mention also those that were punished individually! Cain, who was given up to a continual vengeance? (the son of) Charmi,1597 who was stoned with his whole family? Or him, that suffered the same thing for gathering sticks on the sabbath? The forty children who were consumed by those beasts, and obtained no pardon even on the score of their age? And if you would see these same things even after the times of grace, just consider what great suffering the Jews had, how the women ate their children, some roasting them, and some consuming them in other ways:1598 how after being given up to irremediable famine, and wars varied and severe, they threw all previous catastrophes into the shade by the exceeding greatness of their own calamities. For that it was Christ Who did these things unto them, hear Him declaring as much, both by parables, and clearly and explicitly. By parables, as when He says, “But those that would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them” (Luke xix. 27); and by that of the vineyard, and that of the marriage. But clearly and explicitly, as when He threatens that they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into the nations, and there shall be upon the earth “distress of nations with perplexity, at the roaring of the sea and waves;1599 men’s hearts failing them for fear.” (ib. xxi. 24, 25, 26.) “And there shall be tribulation, such as there never was, no, nor ever shall be.” (Matt. xxiv. 21.) And what a punishment Ananias too and Sapphira suffered, for the theft of a few pieces of money, ye all know. Seest thou not the daily calamities also? Or have these too not taken place? Seest thou not now men that are pining with famine? those that suffer elephantiasis, or are maimed in body? those that live in constant poverty, those that suffer countless irreparable evils? Now then will it be reasonable for some to be punished, and some not? For if God be not unjust (and unjust He is not), thou also wilt assuredly suffer punishment, if thou sinnest. But if because He is merciful He doth not punish, then ought not these either to have been punished. But now because of these words of yours, God even here punisheth many, that when ye believe not the words of the threatening, the deeds of vengeance ye may at least believe.

Rom. XIV. 14

“I know, and am persuaded by (Gr. in) the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself, but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.”

After first rebuking the person who judgeth his brother, and moving him to leave off this reproaching, he then explains himself further upon the doctrinal part, and instructs in a dispassionate tone the weaker sort, displaying in this case too a great deal of gentleness. For he does not say he shall be punished, nor anything of the sort, but merely disburdens him of his fears in the matter, and that with a view to his being more easily persuaded with what he tells him; and he says, “I know, and am persuaded.” And then to prevent any of those who did not trust him (or “believe,” τὥν οὐ πιστὥν) saying, And what is it to us if thou art persuaded? for thou art no trustworthy evidence to be set in competition with so great a law, and with oracles brought down from above, he proceeds, “in the Lord.” That is, as having learned from Him, as having my confidence from Him. The judgment then is not one of the mind of man. What is it that thou art persuaded of and knowest? Tell us. “That there is nothing unclean of itself.” By nature, he says, nothing is unclean but it becomes so by the spirit in which a man uses it. Therefore it becomes so to himself only, and not to all. “For to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” What then? Why not correct thy brother, that he may think it not unclean? Why not with full authority call him away from this habit of mind and conception of things, that he may never make it common? My reason is, he says, I am afraid to grieve him. Wherefore he proceeds,

Ver. 15. “But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.”

You see how far, for the present, he goes in affection for him, showing that he makes so great account of him, that with a view not to grieve him he does not venture even to enjoin things of great urgency, but by yieldingness would rather draw him to himself, and by charity. For even when he has freed him of his fears, he does not drag him and force him, but leaves him his own master. For keeping a person from meats is no such matter as overwhelming with grief.1609 You see how much he insists upon charity. And this is because he is aware that it can do everything. And on this ground he makes somewhat larger demand upon them. For so far he says from its being proper for them to distress you at all, they ought even, if need be, not to hesitate at condescending to you. Whence he proceeds to say, “Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” Or dost thou not value thy brother enough even to purchase his salvation at the price of abstinence from meats? And yet Christ refused not to become a slave, nor yet to die for him; but thou dost not despise even food, that thou 1609 i.e. “better deprive the strong of his meats, than deeply grieve the weak.” mayest save him. And yet with it all Christ was not to gain all, yet still He died for all; so fulfilling His own part. But art thou aware that by meat thou art overthrowing him in the more important matters, and yet makest a disputing? And him who is the object of such care unto Christ, dost thou consider so contemptible, and dishonor one whom He loveth? Yet He died not for the weak only, but even for an enemy. And wilt not thou refrain from meats even, for him that is weak? Yet Christ did what was greatest even, but thou not even the less. And He was Master, thou a brother. These words then were enough to tongue-tie him. For they show him to be of a little spirit, and after having the benefit of great things from God, not to give in return even little ones.

Ver. 16, 17. “Let not then your good be evil spoken of. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.”

By their “good,” he means here either their faith, or the hope of rewards hereafter, or the perfectness of their religious state.1610 For it is not only that you fail to profit your brother, he means, but the doctrine itself, and the grace of God, and His gift, you cause to be evil spoken of. Now when thou fightest, when thou quarrellest, when thou art vexatious, when thou makest schism in the Church, and reproachest thy brother, and art distant with him, those that are without will speak evil of you. And so good is so far from coming of this, that just the opposite is the case. For your good is charity, love of the brotherhood, being united, being bound together, living at peace, living in gentleness (ἐπιεικείας). He again, to put an end to his fears and the other’s disputatiousness, says, “For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink.” Is it by these, he means, that we are to be approved? As he says in another passage too,1611 “Neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse.” And he does not need any proof, but is content with stating it. And what he says is this, If thou eatest, does this lead thee to the Kingdom? And this was why, by way of satirizing them as mightily pleased with themselves herein, he said, not “meat” only, but “drink.” What then are the things that do bring us here? “Righteousness, and peace, and joy,” and a virtuous life, and peace with our brethren (whereto this quarrelsomeness is opposed), the joy from unanimity, which this rebuking puts an end to. But this he said not to one party only, but to both of them, it being a fit season for saying it to both. Then as he had mentioned peace and joy, but there is a peace and joy over bad actions also, he adds, “in the Holy Ghost.” Since he that ruins his brother, hath at once subverted peace, and wronged joy, more grievously than he that plunders money. And what is worse is, that Another saved him, and 1610 In addition to the three possible meanings of “your good” which Chrys. mentions, two other interpretations may be noted: (1) “The good you enjoy,” i.e. your Christian liberty (Godet); (2) “The kingdom of God” (v. 17) (Meyer). The connection favors the view that τὸ ἀγαθόν is a general reference to the same source of blessing which is more specifically designated as ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (17).—G.B.S. 1611 1 Cor. viii. 8, speaking of things offered to idols. thou wrongest and ruinest him. Since then eating, and the supposed perfect state, does not bring in these virtues, but the things subversive of them it does bring in, how can it be else than right to make light of little things, in order to give firmness to great ones? Then since this rebuking took place in some degree out of vanity, he proceeds to say,

Ver. 18. “For he that in these things serveth Christ, is acceptable to God, and approved of men.”

For they will not admire thee so much for thy perfect state, as all will for peace and amity. For this is a goodly thing, that all will have the benefit of, but of that not one even will.

Ver. 19. “Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify one another.”

This applies to the other, that he may grow peaceable. But the other to the latter too, that he may not destroy his brother. Still he has made both apply to either again, by saying, “one another,” and showing that without peace it is not easy to edify.

Ver. 20. “For meat destroy not the work of God.”

Giving this name to the salvation of a brother, and adding greatly to the fears, and showing that he is doing the opposite of that he desires.1612 For thou, he says, art so far from building up as thou intendest, that thou dost even destroy, and that a building too not of man but of God, and not for any great end either, but for a trivial thing. For it was “for meat,” he says. Then lest so many indulgences should confirm the weaker brother in his misconception, he again becomes doctrinal, as follows,

“All things indeed are pure, but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.”

Who does it, that is, with a bad conscience. And so if you should force him, and he should eat, there would be nothing gained. For it is not the eating that maketh unclean, but the intention with which a man eats. If then thou dost not set that aright, thou hast done all to no purpose, and hast made things worse: for thinking a thing unclean is not so bad as tasting it when one thinks it unclean. Here then you are committing two errors, one by increasing his prejudice through your quarrelsomeness, and another by getting him to taste of what is unclean. And so, as long as you do not persuade him, do not force him.

Ver. 21. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.”

Again, he requires the greater alternative, that they should not only not force him, but even condescend to him. For he often did this himself also, as when he circumcised (Acts xvi. 3), when he was shorn (ib. xviii. 18), when he sacrificed that Jewish sacrifice. (ib. xxi. 26, see p. 126). And he does not say to the man “do so,” but he states it in the form of a 1612 “The work of God” is much more naturally taken as designating the Christian himself—his personality, than as designating his salvation (Chrys.).—G.B.S. sentiment to prevent again making the other, the weaker man, too listless. And what are his words? “It is good not to eat flesh.” And why do I say flesh? if it be wine, or any other thing of the sort besides, which gives offence, refrain. For nothing is so important as thy brother’s salvation. And this Christ shows us, since He came from Heaven, and suffered all that He went through, for our sakes. And let me beg you to observe, how he also drives it home upon the other, by the words “stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” And do not tell me (he means) that he is so without reason but, that thou hast power to set it right. For the other has a sufficient claim to be helped in his weakness, and to thee this were no loss, not being a case of hypocrisy (Gal. ii. 13), but of edification and economy. For if thou force him, he is at once destroyed, and will condemn thee, and fortify himself the more in not eating. But if thou condescend to him, then he will love thee, and will not suspect thee as a teacher, and thou wilt afterwards gain the power of sowing imperceptibly in him the right views. But if he once hate thee, then thou hast closed the entrance for thy reasoning. Do not then compel him, but even thyself refrain for his sake, not refraining from it as unclean, but because he is offended, and he will love thee the more. So Paul also advises when he says, “It is good not to eat flesh,” not because it was unclean, but because the brother is offended and is weak.

Ver. 22. “Hast thou faith? have it to thyself.”

Here he seems to me to be giving a gentle warning to the more advanced on the score of vanity. And what he says is this, Dost thou wish to show me that thou art perfect, and fully furnished? Do not show it to me, but let thy conscience suffice. And by faith, he here means that concerned not with doctrines, but with the subject in hand. For of the former it says, “With the mouth confession is made unto salvation” (Rom. x. 10); and, “Whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny.”1613 (Luke ix. 26.) For the former by not being confessed, ruins us; and so does this by being confessed unseasonably. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth.”1614 Again he strikes at the weaker one, and gives him (i.e. the stronger) a sufficient crown, in that of his conscience. Even if no man see, that is, thou art able to be happy in thyself. For after saying, “Have it to thyself,” to prevent his thinking this a contemptible tribunal, he tells him this is better to thee than the world.1615 And if all accuse thee, and thou condemn not thyself, and thy 1613 Compare St. Ephrem. Serm. xx. vol. iii. adv. Scrutatores. pp. 172, 173, Oxf. Tr. 1614 Κρίνων should not be rendered “condemning” as if it were κατακρίνων (as Chrys. and many mod. interpreters). The meaning is: Happy is he who does not pass judgment upon himself, i.e. who is so confident of the rightness of his course that he has no anxiety or scruple regarding the course of action in such disputed points which he approves and has resolved upon.—G.B.S. 1615 Nullum Theatrum virtuti conscientia majus. Cicero, Tusc. ii. 26. Virtue has no field for display more ample than conscience. conscience lay no charge against thee, thou art happy. But this is a statement he did not make to apply to any person whatever. For there are many that condemn not themselves, and yet are great transgressors: and these are the most miserable of men. But he still keeps to the subject in hand.

Ver. 23. “And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat.”

Again, it is to exhort him to spare the weaker, that he says this. For what good is it if he eat in doubt, and condemn himself? For I approve of him, who both eateth, and doeth it not with doubting. See how he induces him not to eating only, but to eating with a good conscience too. Then he mentions likewise the reason why he is condemned continuing in these words,

“Because he eateth not of faith.” Not because it is unclean, but because it is not of faith. For he did not believe that it is clean, but though unclean he touched it. But by this he shows them also what great harm they do by compelling men, and not persuading them, to touch things which had hitherto appeared unclean to them, that for this at all events they might leave rebuking. “For whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” For when a person does not feel sure, nor believe that a thing is clean, how can he do else than sin? Now all these things have been spoken by Paul of the subject in hand, not of everything. And observe what care he takes not to offend any; and he had said before, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably.” But if one should not grieve him, much less ought one to give him offence. And again, “For meat destroy not the work of God.” For if it were a grievous act of iniquity to throw down a Church, much more so is it to do so to the spiritual Temple. Since a man is more dignified than a Church: for it was not for walls that Christ died, but for these temples.

Let us then watch our own conduct on all sides, and afford to no one ever so little handle. For this life present is a race-course and we ought to have thousands of eyes (Hilary in Ps. cxix.) on every side, and not even to fancy that ignorance will be an adequate excuse. For there is such a thing, there certainly is, as being punished for ignorance, when the ignorance is inexcusable. Since the Jews too were ignorant, yet not ignorant in an excusable way. And the Gentiles were ignorant, but they are without excuse. (Rom. i. 20.) For when thou art ignorant of those things which it is not possible to know, thou wilt not be subject to any charge for it: but when of things easy and possible, thou wilt be punished with the utmost rigor. Else if we be not excessively supine, but contribute our own share to its full amount, God will also reach forth His hand unto us in those things which we are ignorant of. And this is what Paul said to the Philippians likewise. “If in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” (Phil. iii. 15.) But when we are not willing to do even what we are masters of, we shall not have the benefit of His assistance in this either. And this was the case with the Jews too. “For this cause,” He says, “speak I unto them in parables, because seeing they see not.” (Matt. xiii. 13.) In what sense was it that seeing they saw not? They saw devils cast out, and they said, He hath a devil. They saw the dead raised, and they worshipped not, but attempted to kill Him. But not of this character was Cornelius. (ib. xii. 24.) For this reason then, when he was doing the whole of his duty with sincerity, God added unto him that which was lacking also. Say not then, how came God to neglect such and such a one who was no formalist (ἄπλαστος) and a good man, though a Gentile? For in the first place no man can possibly know for certain whether a person is no formalist,1616 but He only who “formed (πλάσαντι) the hearts severally.” (Ps. xxxiii. 15, LXX.) And then there is this to be said too, that perchance (πολλάκις) such an one was neither thoughtful nor earnest. And how, it may be said, could he, as being very uninformed? (ἄπλαστος.) Let me beg you to consider then this simple and single-hearted man, and take notice of him in the affairs of life, and you will see him a pattern of the utmost scrupulousness, such that if he would have shown it in spiritual matters he would not have been overlooked: for the facts of the truth are clearer than the sun. And wherever a man may go, he might easily lay hold of his own salvation, if he were minded, that is, to be heedful, and not to look on this as a by-work. For were the doings shut up into Palestine, or in a little corner of the world? Hast thou not heard the prophet say, “All shall know Me from the least even to the greatest?” (Jer. xxxi. 34; Heb. viii. 11.) Do not you see the things themselves uttering the truth? How then are these to be excused, seeing as they do the doctrine of the truth spread far and wide, and not troubling themselves, or caring to learn it? And dost thou require all this, it is asked, of a rude savage? Nay not of a rude savage only, but of any who is more savage than men of the present day. For why is it, pray, that in matters of this world he knows how to answer when he is wronged, and to resist when he has violence done him, and do and devise everything to prevent his ever having his will thwarted even in the slightest degree; but in spiritual concerns he has not used this same judgment? And when a man worships a stone, and thinks it a god, he both keeps feasts to it, and spends money on it, and shows much fear towards it, and in no case becomes listless from his simpleness. But when he has to seek to the very and true God, do you then mention singleness and simpleness to me? These things are not so, assuredly they are not! For the complaints are those of mere listlessness. For which do you think the most simple and rude, those in Abraham’s day or those now? (Josh. xxiv. 2.) Clearly the former. And when that it was easiest to find religion out now or then? Clearly now. For now the Name of God is proclaimed even by all men, and the Prophets have preached, the things come to pass, the Gentiles been convinced.1617 (Gen. xxxii. 29; Judges xiii. 18.) But at that day the majority were still in an uninstructed state, and sin was dominant. And there was no law to instruct, nor prophets, nor miracles, nor doctrine, nor multitude of men acquainted with it, nor aught else of the kind, but all things then lay as it were in a 1616 So rendered, to keep up the play upon the words: it means, not framing himself to a false show. 1617 Or, “the systems of the Gentiles been confuted,” τὰ ῾Ελλήνων ἐλήλεγκται. deep darkness, and a night moonless and stormy. And yet even then that wondrous and noble man, though the obstacles were so great, still knew God and practised virtue, and led many to the same zeal; and this though he had not even the wisdom of those without.1618 For how should he, when there were no letters even yet invented? Yet still he brought his own share in, and God joined to bring in what was lacking to him. For you cannot say even this, that Abraham received his religion from his fathers, because he (Terah, see Josh. xxiv. 2.) was an idolater. But still, though he was from such forefathers and was uncivilized, and lived among uncivilized people, and had no instructor in religion, yet he attained to a knowledge of God, and in comparison with all his descendants, who had the advantage both of the Law and the Prophets, he was so much more illustrious as no words can express. Why was it then? It was because in things of this world he did not give himself any great anxiety, but in things of the spirit he applied his whole attention. (In Gen. Hom. 33, etc.) And what of Melchizedek? was not he also born about those times, and was so bright as to be called even a priest of God? (In Gen. Hom. 35, 36.) For it is impossible in the extreme, that the sober-minded (νήφοντα) should ever be overlooked. And let not these things be a trouble to us, but knowing that it is the mind with which in each case the power lies, let us look to our own duties, that we may grow better. Let us not be demanding an account of God or enquire why He let such an one alone, but called such an one. For we are doing the same as if a servant that had given offence were to pry into his master’s housekeeping. Wretched and miserable man, when thou oughtest to be thoughtful about the account thou hast to give, and how thou wilt reconcile thy master, dost thou call him to account for things that thou art not to give an account of, passing over those things of which thou art to give a reckoning?1619 What am I to say to the Gentile? he asks. Why, the same that I have been saying. And look not merely to what thou shalt say to the Gentile, but also to the means of amending thyself.1620 When he is offended by examining into thy life, then consider what thou wilt say. For if he be offended, thou wilt not be called to a reckoning for him, but if it be thy way of life by which he is injured, thou wilt have to undergo the greatest danger. When he seeth thee philosophizing about the kingdom, and fluttering at the things of this life, and at once afraid about hell, and trembling at the calamities of this life, then lay it to mind. When he sees this, and accuses thee, and says, If thou art in love with the Kingdom, how is it thou dost not look down upon the things of this life? If thou art expecting the awful judgment, why dost thou not despise the terrors of this world? If thou hopest for immortality, why dost thou not think scorn of death? When he says this, be thou anxious what defence 1618 Philo, however, makes Abraham learned in all Chaldæan wisdom. De Nob. §5, also Joseph, Ant. i. c. 8, §2. It is now certain that the art of writing was older than his time, in Mesopotamia as well as Egypt. 1619 So Field with most mss. Vulg. “for which thou art to be punished.” 1620 So Field αὑτὸν for αὐτόν. thou wilt make. When he sees thee trembling at the thought of losing thy money, thee that expectest the heavens, and exceedingly glad about a single penny, and selling thy soul again for a little money, then lay it to mind. For these are the things, just these, that make the Gentiles stumble. And so, if thou art thoughtful about his salvation, make thy defence on these heads, not by words, but by actions. For it is not through that question that anybody ever blasphemed God, but through men’s bad lives it is, that there are thousands of blasphemies in all quarters. Set him right then. For the Gentile will next ask thee, How am I to know that God’s commands are feasible? For thou that art of Christian extraction, and hast been brought up in this fine religion, dost not do anything of the kind. And what will you tell him? You will be sure to say, I will show you others that do; monks that dwell in the deserts. And art thou not ashamed to confess to being a Christian, and yet to send to others, as unable to show that you display the temper of a Christian? For he also will say directly, What need have I to go to the mountains, and to hunt up the deserts? For if there is no possibility for a person who is living in the midst of cities to be a disciple, this is a sad imputation on this rule of conduct, that we are to leave the cities, and run to the deserts. But show me a man who has a wife, and children, and family, and yet pursueth wisdom. What are we then to say to all this? Must we not hang down our heads, and be ashamed? For Christ gave us no such commandment; but what? “Let your light shine before men” (Matt. v. 16), not mountains, and deserts, and wildernesses, and out-of-the-way places. And this I say, not as abusing those who have taken up with the mountains, but as bewailing those that dwell in cities, because they have banished virtue from thence. Wherefore I beseech you let us introduce the discipline they have there here also, that the cities may become cities indeed. This will improve the Gentile. This will free him from countless offences. And so if thou wouldest set him free from scandal, and thyself enjoy rewards without number, set thy own life in order, and make it shine forth upon all sides, “that men may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” For so we also shall enjoy that unutterable and great glory, which God grant that we may all attain to, by the grace and love toward man, etc.

Rom. XIV. 25–27

“Now to Him that is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and (mss. τεwhich Sav. omits) by the Scriptures of the Prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise, to Him be glory through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”1621

It is always a custom with Paul to conclude his exhortation with prayers and doxologies. For he knows that the thing is one of no slight importance. And it is out of affectionateness and caution that he is in the habit of doing this. For it is the character of a teacher devoted to his children, and to God, not to instruct them in words only, but by prayer too to bring upon his teaching the assistance which is from God. And this he does here also. But the connection is as follows: “To Him that is of power to stablish you, be glory for ever. Amen.” For he again clings to those weak brethren, and to them he directs his discourse. For when he was rebuking, he made all share his rebuke; but now, when he is praying, it is for these that he wears the attitude of a suppliant. And after saying, “to stablish,” he proceeds to give the mode of it, “according to my Gospel;” and this was what one would do to show that as yet they were not firmly fixed, but stood, though with wavering. Then to give a trustworthiness to what he says, he proceeds, “and the preaching of Jesus Christ;” that is, which He Himself preached. But if He preached it, the doctrines are not ours, but the laws are of Him. And afterwards, in discussing the nature of the preaching, He shows that this gift is one of much benefit, and of much honor; and this he first proves from the person of the declarer thereof, and then likewise from the things declared. For it was glad tidings. Besides, from His not having made aught of them known to any before us. And this he intimates in the words, “according to the revelation of the mystery.” And this is a sign of the greatest friendliness, to make us share in the mysteries, and no one before us. “Which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest.” For it had been determined long ago, 1621 These three verses are placed here by Theodoret, St. Cyr. Alex., St. John Dam, and some 200 cursive mss. Of the few uncial mss. which have come down to us, the Codex Sinaiticus the Codex Vaticanus and the very ancient C. D. with the chief versions of the New Testament, including the two first made, the Old Latin and the Peschito-syriac. Origen put them where we do, at the end of the Epistle. The fifth century Alexandrian ms. in the British Museum and two or three other mss. have the passage twice over. (For an elaborate defence both of the genuineness of this doxology and of the view that it belongs at the end of chap. xvi. see Meyer’s critical note prefixed to his comments on chap. xvi.—G.B.S.) but was only manifested now. How was it made manifest? “By the Scriptures of the Prophets.” Here again he is releasing the weak person from fear. For what dost thou fear? is it lest1622 thou depart from the Law? This the Law wishes, this it foretold from of old. But if thou pryest into the cause of its being made manifest now, thou art doing a thing not safe to do, in being curious about the mysteries of God, and calling Him to account. For we ought not with things of this nature to act as busybodies, but to be well pleased and content with them. Wherefore that he might himself put a check upon a spirit of this sort, he adds, “according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for the obedience of faith.” For faith requires obedience, and not curiosity. And when God commands, one ought to be obedient, not curious. Then he uses another argument to encourage them, saying “made known to all nations.” That is, it is not thou alone but the whole world that is of this Creed, as having had not man, but God for a Teacher. Wherefore also he adds, “through Jesus Christ.” But it was not only made known, but also confirmed. Now both are His work. And on this ground too the way it is to be read is,1623 “Now to Him that is of power to stablish you through Jesus Christ;” and, as I was saying, he ascribes them both to Him; or rather, not both of these only, but the glory belonging (or ascribed, Gr. τὴν εἰς) to the Father also. And this too is why he said, “to Whom be glory forever, Amen.” And he uses a doxology again through awe at the incomprehensibleness of these mysteries. For even now they have appeared, there is no such thing as comprehending them by reasonings, but it is by faith we must come to a knowledge of them, for in no other way can we. He well says, “To the only wise God.” For if you will only reflect how He brought the nations in, and blended them with those who in olden time had wrought well, how He saved those who were desperate, how He brought men not worthy of the earth up to heaven, and brought those who had fallen from the present life into that undying and unalterable life, and made those who were trampled down by devils to vie with Angels, and opened Paradise, and put a stop to all the old evils, and this too in a short time and by an easy and compendious way, then wilt thou learn His wisdom;—when thou seest that which neither Angels nor Archangels knew, they of the Gentiles learnt on a sudden through Jesus. (2 mss. add “then wilt thou know His power.”) Right then is it to admire His wisdom, and to give Him glory! But thou keepest dwelling over little things, still sitting under the shadow. And this is not much like one that giveth glory. For he who has no confidence in Him, and no trust in the faith, does not bear testimony to the grandeur of His doings. But he himself offers glory up in their behalf, in order to bring them also to the same zeal. But when you hear him say, “to the only wise God,” think not that this is said in disparagement of the Son. For if all these things whereby 1622 Μὴ ἀποστῇς, one ms. οὐ μὴ, which seems to determine the construction. 1623 v. 27, in the Greek reads thus: “To God only wise through Jesus Christ, to Him (or to Whom) be glory,” etc. His wisdom is made apparent were done (or made, see John i. 3) by Christ, and without Him no single one, it is quite plain that he is equal in wisdom also. What then is the reason of his saying “only?” To set Him in contrast with every created being. After giving the doxology1624 then, he again goes from prayer to exhortation, directing his discourse against the stronger, and saying as follows:

Chap. xv. ver. 1. “We then that are strong, ought”—it is “we ought,” not “we are so kind as to.” What is it we ought to do?—“to bear the infirmities of the weak.”

See how he has roused their attention by his praises, not only by calling them powerful, but also by putting them alongside of himself. And not by this only, but by the advantage of the thing he again allures them, and by its not being burdensome. For thou, he says, art powerful, and art no whit the worse for condescending. But to him the hazard is of the last consequence, if he is not borne with. And he does not say the infirm, but the “infirmities of the weak,” so drawing him and bending him to mercy. As in another place too he says, “Ye that are spiritual restore such an one.” (Gal. vi. 1.) Art thou become powerful? Render a return to God for making thee so. But render it thou wilt if thou settest the weakness of the sickly right. For we too were weak, but by grace we have become powerful. And this we are to do not in this case only, but also in the case of those who are weak in other respects. As, for instance, if any be passionate, or insolent, or has any such like failing bear with him. And how is this to be? Listen to what comes next. For after saying “we ought to bear,” he adds, “and not to please ourselves.”1625

Ver. 2. “Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification.”

But what he says is this. Art thou powerful? Let the weak have trial of thy power. Let him come to know thy strength; please him. And he does not barely say please, but for his good, and not barely for his good, lest the advanced person should say, See I am drawing him to his good! but he adds, “to edification.” And so if thou be rich or be in power, please not thyself, but the poor and the needy, because in this way thou wilt at once have true glory to enjoy, and be doing much service. For glory from things of the world soon flies away, but that from things of the Spirit is abiding, if thou do it to edification. Wherefore of all men 1624 The grammatical form of the doxology presents a noticeable anacoluthon. The dative τῷ δυναμένῳ is resumed in μόνῳ σοφῷ θεῷ and again in the relative ᾧ as if the proposition begun with the dative had been competed. Thus the previous datives are left without grammatical government. ᾧ, if read (many texts omit it) is to be understood as referring to θεῷ.—G.B.S. 1625 Chap. xv. contains conclusions and applications drawn from the principles laid down in regard to the treatment which should be accorded to the weak in chap. xiv. The crowning consideration is that Christ pleased not himself, but bore the burdens of the weak. This is presented as the type of all Christian duty. In v. 6 the construction usually preferred is (as in R.V.) “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. Eph. i. 3, 17).—G.B.S. he requires this. For it is not this and that person that is to do it, but “each of you.” Then since it was a great thing he had commanded them, and had bidden them even relax their own perfectness in order to set right the other’s weakness; he again introduces Christ, in the following words:

Ver. 3. “For even Christ pleased not Himself.”

And this he always does. For when he was upon the subject of alms, he brought Him forward and said, “Ye know the grace of the Lord, that though He was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.” (2 Cor. viii. 9.) And when he was exhorting to charity, it was from Him that he exhorted in the words “As Christ also loved us.” (Eph. v. 25.) And when he was giving advice about bearing shame and dangers, he took refuge in Him and said, “Who for the joy that was set before Him endured the Cross, despising the shame.” (Heb. xii. 2). So in this passage too he shows how He also did this, and how the prophet proclaimed it from of old. Wherefore also he proceeds:

“The reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell upon Me.” (Ps. lxix. 9.) But what is the import of, “He pleased not Himself?” He had power not to have been reproached, power not to have suffered what He did suffer, had He been minded to look to His own things. But yet He was not so minded. But through looking to our good He neglected His own. And why did he not say, “He emptied Himself?” (Phil. ii. 7.) It is because this was not the only thing he wished to point out, that He became man, but that He was also ill-treated, and obtained a bad reputation with many, being looked upon as weak. For it says, “If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross.” (Matt. xxvii. 40). And, “He saved others, Himself He cannot save.” (ib. 42). Hence he mentions a circumstance which was available for his present subject, and proves much more than he undertook to do; for he shows that it was not Christ alone that was reproached, but the Father also. “For the reproaches of them that reproached Thee fell,” he says, “upon Me.” But what he says is nearly this, What has happened is no new or strange thing. For they in the Old Testament who came to have a habit of reproaching Him, they also raved against His Son. But these things were written that we should not imitate them. And then he supplies (Gr. anoints) them for a patient endurance of temptations.

Ver. 4. “For whatsoever things were written aforetime,” he says, “were written for our learning, that we, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope.”

That is, that we might not fall away, (for there are sundry conflicts within and without), that being nerved and comforted by the Scriptures, we might exhibit patience, that by living in patience we might abide in hope. For these things are productive of each other, patience of hope, and hope of patience. And both of them are brought about by the Scriptures. Then he again brings his discourse into the form of prayer, and says,

Ver. 5. “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one towards another, according to Christ Jesus.”

Rom. XV. 8

“Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.”

Again, he is speaking of Christ’s concern for us, still holding to the same topic, and showing what great things He hath done for us, and how “He pleased not Himself.” (Rom. xv. 3.) And besides this, there is another point which he makes good, that those of the Gentiles are debtors to a larger amount unto God. And if to a larger amount, then they ought to bear with the weak among the Jews. For since he had spoken very sharply to such, lest this should make these elated, he humbles their unreasonableness, by showing that it was by “promise made to the fathers” that they had the good things given them, while they of the Gentiles had them out of pity and love toward man only. And this is the reason of his saying, “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.” But that what is said may be made plainer, it is well to listen once more to the words themselves, that you may see what Christ’s having been made “a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers,” means. What then is that which is stated? There had been a promise made to Abraham, saying, “Unto thee will I give the earth, and to thy seed, and in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed.” (Gen. xii. 7; xxii. 18.) But after this, they of the seed of Abraham all became subject to punishment. For the Law wrought wrath unto them by being transgressed, and thenceforward deprived them of that promise made unto the fathers. Therefore the Son came and wrought with the Father, in order that those promises might come true, and have their issue. For having fulfilled the whole Law in which He also fulfilled the circumcision, and having by it, and by the Cross, freed them from the curse of the transgression, He suffered not this promise to fall to the ground. When then he calls Him “a Minister of the circumcision,” he means this, that by having come and fulfilled the Law, and been circumcised, and born of the seed of Abraham, He undid the curse, stayed the anger of God, made also those that were to receive the promises fit for them, as being once for all freed from their alienation. To prevent then these accused persons from saying, How then came Christ to be circumcised and to keep the whole Law? he turns their argument to the opposite conclusion. For it was not that the Law might continue, but that He might put an end to it, and free thee from the curse thereof, and set thee entirely at liberty from the dominion of that Law. For it was because thou hadst transgressed the Law, that He fulfilled it, not that thou mightest fulfil it,1631 but that He might confirm to thee the promises made unto the fathers, which the Law had caused to be suspended, by showing 1631 See on Rom. viii. 4, supra p. 433. thee to have offended,1632 and to be unworthy of the inheritance. And so thou also art saved by grace, since thou wast cast off. Do not thou then bicker, nor perversely cling to the Law at this unsuitable time, since it would have cast thee also out of the promise, unless Christ had suffered so many things for thee. And He did suffer these, not because thou wast deserving of salvation, but that God might be true. And then that this might not puff up him of the Gentiles, he says.

Ver. 9. “And that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy.”

But what he means is this. Those of the Jews would have had promises, even though they were unworthy. But thou hadst not this even, but wast saved from love towards man alone, even if, to put it at the lowest, they too would not have been the better for the promises, unless Christ had come. But yet that he might amalgamate (or temper, κεράσῃ) them and not allow them to rise up against the weak, he makes mention of the promises. But of these he says that it was by mercy alone that they were saved. Hence they are the most bound to glorify God. And a glory it is to God that they be blended together, be united, praise with one mind, bear the weaker, neglect not the member that is broken off. Then he adds testimonies, in which he shows that the man of the Jews ought to blend himself with those of the Gentiles; and so he says, “As it is written, For this cause I will confess to Thee among the Gentiles, O Lord, and will sing unto Thy Name.”1633 (Ps. xviii. 46.)

Ver. 10–12. “And, rejoice, ye Gentiles, with His people. And, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles” (Deut. xxxii. 43); “and let all people laud Him.” (Ps. cxvii. 1.) “And, There shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, in Him shall the Gentiles trust.” (Is. xi. 1, 10.)

Now all these quotations he has given to show that we ought to be united, and to glorify God; and also, to humble the Jew, that he may not lift himself up over these, since all the prophets called these, as well as to persuade the man of the Gentiles to be lowly, by showing 1632 προσκεκρουκέναι, not “stumbled,” but “struck against” a person, same word as “alienation” just before. 1633 The quotations in the passage on which this homily is based are all taken from the LXX. with a few trifling verbal changes. They are designed to show that the prophetic conception of the Messiah’s work contemplated salvation for the Gentiles, so that Christ was not to be merely a “minister of the circumcision,” but that he is to bring through the Jews salvation to the Gentiles so that they shall “glorify God for his mercy” (9). The passages in the O.T. relate primarily either to the Psalmist himself (v. 9. cf. Ps. xviii. 50) or to the King of Israel (v. 12. cf. Is. xi. 10), or to the relations of the people of Israel to the nations (vv. 10, 11, cf. Deut. xxxii. 43; Ps. cxvii. 1), but are applied to the relations of Christ to the nations in accordance with the prophetico-typical exegesis which regarded the prophets, kings and the history and people of Israel as having their chief significance in the fact that they embodied hopes and ideals which pointed forward to the Messiah and were realized only in the work and principles of His kingdom.—G.B.S. him that he had a larger grace to answer for. Then he concludes his argument with a prayer again.

Ver. 13. “Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.”

That is, that ye may get clear of that heartlessness (ἀθυμίας) towards one another, and may never be cast down by temptations. And this will be by your abounding in hope. Now this is the cause of all good things, and it comes from the Holy Ghost. But it is not simply from the Spirit, but on condition of our contributing our part also. This is why he says, “in believing.” For this is the way for you to be filled with joy, if ye believe, if ye hope. Yet he does not say if ye hope, but, “if ye abound in hope,” so as not to find comfort in troubles only, but even to have joy through the abundance of faith and hope. And in this way, ye will also draw the Spirit to you. In this way, when He is come ye will continually keep to all good things. For just as food maintaineth our life, and by this ruleth the body,1634 so if we have good works, we shall have the Spirit; and if we have the Spirit, we shall also have good works. As also, on the other hand, if we have no works, the Spirit flieth away. But if we be deserted by the Spirit, we shall also halt in our works. For when this hath gone, the unclean one cometh: this is plain from Saul. For what if he doth not choke1635 us as he did him, still he strangles us in some other way by wicked works. We have need then of the harp of David, that we may charm our souls with the divine songs, both these, and those from good actions. Since if we do the one only, and while we listen to the charm, war with the charmer by our actions, as he did of old (1 Sam. xix. 10); the remedy will even turn to judgment to us, and the madness become the more furious. For before we heard, the wicked demon was afraid lest we should hear it and recover. But when after hearing it even, we continue the same as we were, this is the very thing to rid him of his fear. Let us sing then the Psalm of good deeds, that we may cast out the sin that is worse than the demon. For a demon certainly will not deprive us of heaven, but doth in some cases1636 even work with the sober-minded. But sin will assuredly cast us out. For this is a demon we willingly receive, a self-chosen madness. Wherefore also it hath none to pity it or to pardon it. Let us then sing charms over a soul in this plight, as well from the other Scriptures, as also from the blessed David. And let the mouth sing, and the mind be instructed. Even this is no small thing. For if we once teach the tongue to sing, the soul will be ashamed to be devising the opposite of what this singeth. 1634 So Field with two or three mss.: others, “and this ruleth:” Vulg. “and life ruleth.” 1635 2 Sam. xvi. 14, LXX. ἔπνιγεν, A.V. troubled: see Matt. viii. 32. 1636 Such was the case of Stagirius, vit. Chrys. Montf. p. 97. See St. Chrysostom’s Exhortation to him, t. 1. Ben. t. vi. Sav. Bingham, art, Energumens…St. Aug. de Civ. Dei. 19, 4. §2 and 21, 14. “A messenger of Satan” was given to St. Paul Himself, 2 Cor. xii. 7, and it was in hope of their salvation he delivered Hymeneus and Alexander to Satan. 1 Tim. i. 20, and another, 1 Cor. v. 5. Nor is this the only good thing that we shall gain, for we shall also come to know many things which are our interest. For he discourseth to thee both of things present, and things to come, and of things seen, and of the invisible Creation. And if thou wouldest learn about the Heaven, whether it abideth as it is or shall be changed, he gives thee a clear answer, and will say, “The heavens shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, O God, and they shall be changed.” (Ps. cii. 26.) And if thou wishest to hear of the form of them again, thou shalt hear, “That spreadeth forth the Heaven like a curtain” (δέρριν). And if thou be minded to know further about the back of them, he will tell thee again, “that covereth His upper chambers with waters.” (Ps. civ. 2, 3.) And even here he does not pause, but will likewise discourse with thee on the breadth and height, and show thee that these are of equal measure. For, “As far as the east,” he says, “is from the west, so far hath He set our iniquities from us. Like as the heaven’s height above the earth, so is the Lord’s mercy upon them that fear Him.” (ib. ciii. 12, 11.) But if thou wouldest busy thyself with the foundation of the earth, even this he will not hide from thee, but thou shalt hear him singing and saying, “He hath founded it upon the seas.” (ib. xxiv. 2.) And if of earthquakes thou art desirous to know, whence they come, he will free thee from this difficulty also, by saying, “That looketh upon the earth, and maketh it tremble.” (ib. civ. 32.) And if thou enquire the use of the night, this too mayest thou learn, and know from him. For “therein all the beasts of the forest do move.” (ib. 20.) And in what way the mountains are for use, he will tell thee, “The high mountains are for the stags.” And why there are rocks, “The rocks are a refuge for the porcupines.” (ib. 18.) Why are there trees yielding no fruit? learn from him, for “there the sparrows build their nests.” (ib. 17.) Why are there fountains in the wildernesses? hear, “that by them the fowls of the heaven dwell, and the wild beasts.” (ib. 12.) Why is there wine? not that thou mayest drink only (for water is of a nature to suffice for this), but that thou mayest be gladdened also, “For wine maketh glad the heart of man.” (ib. 15.) And by knowing this you will know how far the use of wine is allowable. Whence are the fowls and the wild beasts nourished? thou wilt hear from his words, “All these wait upon Thee, to give them their meat in due season.” (ib. 27.) If thou sayest, For what purpose are the cattle? he will answer thee, that these also are for thee, “That causeth the grass,” he says, “to grow for the cattle, and the green herb for the service (or retinue)of men.” (ib. 14.) What is the use of the moon? hear him saying, “He made the moon for seasons.” (Ps. civ. 19.) And that all things seen and those not seen are made, is a thing that he has also clearly taught us by saying, “Himself spake, and they were made, He commanded, and they were created.” (ib. xxxiii. 9.) And that there is an end of death, this he also teaches when he says, “God shall deliver my soul from the hand of hell when He shall receive me.” (ib. xlix. 15.) Whence was our body made? he also tells us; “He remembereth that we are dust” (ib. ciii. 14); and again, whither goeth it away? “It shall return to its dust.” (ib. civ. 29.) Why was this universe made? For thee: “For thou crownest him with glory and honor, and settest him over the works of Thy hands.” (ib. viii. 5, 6.) Have we men any community with the Angels? This he also tells us, saying as follows, “Thou hast made him a little lower than the Angels.” Of the love of God, “Like as a father pitieth his own children, even so is the Lord merciful to them that fear Him.” (ib. ciii. 13.) And of the things that are to meet us after our present life, and of that undisturbed condition, he teacheth, “Return unto thy rest, O my soul.” (ib. cxvi. 7.) Why the Heaven is so great, this he will also say. For it is because “the heavens declare the glory of God.” (ib. xix. 1.) Why day and night were made,—not that they may shine and give us rest only, but also that they may instruct us. “For there are no speeches nor words, the sounds of which (i.e. day and night) are not heard.” (ib. 3.) How the sea lies round about the earth, this too thou wilt learn from hence. “The deep as a garment is the envelopment thereof.”1637 For so the Hebrew has it.

But having a sample in what I have mentioned, ye will have a notion of all the rest besides, the things about Christ, about the resurrection, about the life to come, about the resting, about punishment, about moral matters, all that concerns doctrines, and you will find the book filled with countless blessings. And if you fall into temptations, you will gain much comfort from hence. If you fall into sins even, you will find countless remedies stored up here, or if into poverty or tribulation, you will see many havens. And if thou be righteous thou wilt gain much security hence, and if a sinner much relief. For if thou be just and art ill-treated, thou wilt hear him say, “For Thy sake are we killed all the day long, we are counted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Ps. xliv. 22.) “All these things have come upon us, and yet have we not forgotten Thee.” (ib. 17.) And if thy well-doings make thee high, thou wilt hear him say, “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, for in Thy sight shall no man living be justified” (ib. cxliii. 2), and thou wilt be straightway made lowly. And if thou be a sinner, and hast despaired of thyself, thou wilt hear him continually singing, “To-day, if ye will hear His voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation” (ib. xcv. 7, 8), and thou wilt be stayed up speedily. And if thou have a crown even on thy head, and art high-minded, thou wilt learn that “a king is not saved by a great host, neither shall a giant be saved by the greatness of his might” (ib. xxxiii. 16): and thou wilt find thyself able to be reasonable. If thou be rich, and in reputation, again thou wilt hear him singing, “Woe to them that trust in their own might, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches,” (ib. xlix. 6.) And, “As for man, his days are as grass” (ib. ciii. 15), And “His glory shall not go down with him, after him” (ib. xlix. 17): and thou wilt not think any of the things upon the earth are great. For when what is more splendid than all, even glory and power, is so worthless, what else of things on earth is worth accounting of? But art thou in despondency? Hear him saying, “Why art thou so sorrowful, O my soul, and why dost thou so disturb me? Trust in God, 1637 Ps. civ. 6. Where Aquila and Theodotion have the feminine, which would be expected in speaking of the sea. See Theodoret on the Psalm. for I will confess unto Him.” (ib. xlii. 5.) Or dost thou see men in honor who deserve it not?1638 “Fret not thyself at them that do wickedly. For as the grass shall they be dried up, and as the green herb shall they soon fall away.” (ib. xxxvii. 1, 2) Dost thou see both righteous and sinners punished? be told that the cause is not the same. For “many” he says, “are the plagues of sinners.” (ib. xxxii. 10.) But in the case of the righteous, he does not say plagues,1639 but, “Many are the troubles of the righteous, but the Lord delivereth them out of them all.” (ib. xxxiv. 19.) And again, “The death of the sinner is evil.” (ib. 21.) And, “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.” (ib. cxvi. 15.) These things do thou say continually: by these be instructed. For every single word of this has in it an indiscoverable ocean of meaning. For we have been just running over them only: but if you were minded to give these passages accurate investigation, you will see the riches to be great. But at present it is possible even by what I have given, to get cleared of the passions that lie on you. For since he forbids our envying, or being grieved, or despondent out of season, or thinking that riches are anything, or tribulation, or poverty, or fancying life itself to be anything, he frees thee from all passions. So for this let us give thanks to God, and let us have our treasure always in hand, “that by patience and comfort of the Scriptures we may have hope” (Rom. xv. 4), and enjoy the good things to come. Which God grant that we may all attain, by the grace and love toward man of our Lord Jesus Christ. By Whom and with Whom, etc.

Rom. XV. 14

“And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another.” (So most: S. Chrys. “others.”)

He had said, “Inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.” (Rom. xi. 13.) He had said, “Take heed lest He also spare not thee.” (ib. 21.) He had said, “Be not wise in your own conceits” (ib. xii. 16); and again, “Why dost thou judge thy brother?” (ib. xiv. 10) And, “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?” (ib. 4.) And several other like things besides. Since then he had often made his language somewhat harsh, he now speaks kindly (θεραπεύει). And what he said in the beginning, that he doth in the end also. At the beginning he said, “I thank my God for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” (ib. i. 8.) But here he says, “I am persuaded that ye also are full of goodness, being able also to admonish others;” and this is more than the former. And he does not say, I have heard, but, “I am persuaded,” and have no need to hear, from others. And, “I myself,” that is, I that rebuke, that accuse you. That “ye are full of goodness,” this applies to the exhortation lately given. As if he said, It was not as if you were cruel, or haters of your brethren, that I gave you that exhortation, to receive, and not to neglect, and not to destroy “the work of God.” For I am aware that “ye are full of goodness.” But he seems to me here to be calling their virtue perfect. And he does not say ye have, but “ye are full of.” And the sequel is with the same intensitives: “filled with all knowledge.” For suppose they had been affectionate, but yet did not know how to treat those they loved properly. This was why he added, “all knowledge. Able to admonish others,” not to learn only, but also to teach.

Ver. 15. “Nevertheless, I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort.”

Observe the lowly-mindedness of Paul, observe his wisdom, how he gave a deep cut in the former part, and then when he had succeeded in what he wished, how he uses much kindliness next. For even without what he has said, this very confession of his having been bold were enough to unstring their vehemency. And this he does in writing to the Hebrews also, speaking as follows, “But, beloved, I am persuaded better things of you, and things which belong unto salvation, though we thus speak.” (Heb. vi. 9.) And to the Corinthians again, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.” (1 Cor. xi. 2.) And in writing to the Galatians he says, “I have confidence in you, that ye will be none otherwise minded.” (Gal. v. 10.) And in all parts of his Epistles one may find this to be frequently observed. But here even in a greater degree. For they were in a higher rank, and there was need to bring down their fastidious spirit, not by astringents only, but by laxatives also. For he does this in different ways. Wherefore he says in this place too, “I have written the more boldly unto you,” and with this even he is not satisfied, but has added, “in some sort,” that is, gently; and even here he does not pause, but what does he say? “As putting you in mind.”1640 And he does not say as teaching, nor simply putting in mind, (ἀναμιμνήσκων) but he uses a word (ἐπαναμιμνήσκων) which means putting you in mind in a quiet way. Observe the end falling in with the introduction. For as in that passage he said, “that your faith is made known in all the world.” (Rom. i. 8.) So in the end of the Epistle also, “For your obedience hath reached unto all.” (ib. xvi. 19.) And as in the beginning he wrote, “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that ye may be established; that is, that I may be comforted together with you” (ib. i. 11, 12); so here also he said, “As putting you in mind.” And having come down from the seat of the master, both there and here, he speaks to them as brethren and friends of equal rank. And this is quite a Teacher’s duty, to give his address that variety which is profitable to the hearers. See then how after saying, “I have written the more boldly,” and, “in some sort,” and, “as putting you in mind,” he was not satisfied even with these, but making his language still more lowly, he proceeds:

“Because of the grace that is given me of God.” As he said at the beginning, “I am a debtor.” (Rom. i. 14.) As if he had said, I have not snatched at the honor for myself, neither was I first to leap forward to it, but God commanded this, and this too according unto grace, not as if He had separated me for this office because I deserved it. Do not ye then be exasperated, since it is not I that raise myself up, but it is God that enjoins it. And as he there says, “whom I serve in the Gospel of His Son” (ib. 9), so also here, after saying, “because of the grace given unto me by God,” he adds,

Ver. 16. “That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering (ἱερουργοὕντα) the Gospel of God.”

For after his abundant proof of his statements, he draws his discourse to a more lofty tone, not speaking of mere service, as in the beginning, but of service and priestly ministering (λειτουργίαν καί ὶερουργίαν). For to me this is a priesthood, this preaching and declaring. This is the sacrifice I bring. Now no one will find fault with a priest, for being anxious to offer the sacrifice without blemish. And he says this at once to elevate (πτερὥν) their thoughts, and show them that they are a sacrifice, and in apology for his own part in the matter, because he was appointed to this office. For my knife, he says, is the Gospel, the 1640 Besides the interpretation adopted by Chrys. which joins ἀπὸ μερους closely with ἀναμιμνήσκων and understands it to mean, in a sort—gently, two other views deserve notice (1) that which joins it to τολμηρότερον—in part, or somewhat more boldly (Hodge) and (2) that which joins it to ἔγραψα—I have written more boldly in parts of the epistle (De Wette, Meyer, Alford). Both our Eng. vss. seem to understand it as Chrys. viz.: as a conciliatory modification of “more boldly,” and connecting with it the explanatory statement that the reason of his more bold writing was the kindly one of putting them in remembrance.—G.B.S. word of the preaching. And the cause is not that I may be glorified, not that I may appear conspicuous, but that the “offering up (προσφορὰ) of the Gentiles may be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.”

That is, that the souls of those that are taught by me, may be accepted. For it was not so much to honor me, that God led me to this pitch, as out of a concern for you. And how are they to become acceptable? In the Holy Ghost. For there is need not only of faith, but also of a spiritual way of life, that we may keep the Spirit that was given once for all. For it is not wood and fire, nor altar and knife, but the Spirit that is all in us.1641 For this cause, I take all means to prevent that Fire from being extinguished, as I have been also enjoined to do. Why then do you speak to those that need it not? This is just the reason why I do not teach you, but put you in mind, he replies. As the priest stands by stirring up the fire, so I do, rousing up your ready-mindedness. And observe, he does not say, “that the offering up of” you “may be” etc. but “of the Gentiles.” But when he says of the Gentiles, he means the whole world, the land, and the whole sea, to take down their haughtiness, that they might not disdain to have him for a teacher, who was putting himself forth (τεινόμενον) to the very end of the world. As he said in the beginning, “as among the other Gentiles also, I am a debtor to Greeks, and also to barbarians, to wise, and to foolish.” (Rom. i. 13, 14, see p. 347.)

Ver. 17. “I have therefore whereof I may glory, through Jesus Christ, in those things which pertain to God.”

Inasmuch as he had humbled himself exceedingly, he again raised his style, doing this also for their sakes, lest he should seem to become readily an object of contempt. And while he raises himself, he remembers his own proper temper, and says, “I have therefore whereof to glory.” I glory, he means, not in myself, not in our zeal, but in the “grace of God.”

Ver. 18. “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God.”1642

Rom. XV. 25–27

“But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it has pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily, and their debtors they are.”

Since he had said that I have no longer “more place in these parts,” and, “I have a great desire, these many years, to come unto you,” but he still intended to delay; lest it should be thought that he was making a jest of them, he mentions the cause also why he still puts it off, and he says, that “I am going unto Jerusalem,” and is apparently giving the excuse for the delay. But by means of this he also makes good another object, which is the exhorting of them to alms, and making them more in earnest about it. Since if he had not been minded to effect this, it had sufficed to say, “I am going unto Jerusalem.” But now he adds the reason of his journey. “For I go,” says he, “to minister to the saints.” And he dwells over the subject, and enters into reasonings, and says that they “are debtors,” and that, “if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things,” that they might learn to imitate these. Wherefore also there is much reason to admire his wisdom for devising this way of giving the advice. For they were more likely to bear it in this way than if he had said it in the form of exhortation; as then he would have seemed to be insulting them, if, with a view to incite them, he had brought before them Corinthians and Macedonians.1651 Indeed, this is the ground on which he does incite the others as follows, saying, “Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the Churches in Macedonia.” (2 Cor. viii. 1.) And again he incites the Macedonians by these. “For your zeal,” he says, “hath provoked very many.” (ib. ix. 2.) And by the Galatians in like manner he does this, as when he says, “As I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye.” (1 Cor. xvi. 1.) But in the case of the Romans he does not do so, but in a more covert way. And he does this also in regard to the preaching, as when he says, “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?” (ib. xiv. 36.) For there is nothing so powerful as emulation. And so he often employs it. For elsewhere too he says,” “And so ordain I in all the Churches;” (ib. vii. 17); and again, “As I teach everywhere in every Church.” (ib. iv. 17.) And to the Colossians he says, “that the Gospel increaseth and bringeth forth fruit in all the world.” (Col. i. 6.) This then he does here also in the case of 1651 “That, as Chrys., Calvin, Grotius, and many, including Rückert and Olshausen assume, Paul intended ‘courteously and gently’ (Luther) to suggest to the Romans that they should likewise bestow alms on those at Jerusalem, is very improbable, inasmuch as no reason is perceivable why he should not have ventured on a direct summons, and seeing, moreover, that he looked upon the work of collection as concluded, ver. 25,” Meyer.—G.B.S. alms. And consider what dignity there is in his expressions. For he does not say, I go to carry alms, but “to minister” (διακονὥν). But if Paul ministers, just consider how great a thing is doing, when the Teacher of the world undertakes to be the bearer, and when on the point of travelling to Rome, and so greatly desiring them too, he yet prefers this to that. “For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia,” that is, it meets their approbation, their desire. “A certain contribution.” And, he does not say alms, but “contribution” (κοινωνίαν). And the “certain” is not used without a meaning, but to prevent his seeming to reproach these. And he does not say the poor, merely, but the “poor saints,” so making his recommendation twofold, both that from their virtue and that from their poverty. And even with this alone he was not satisfied, but he adds, “they are their debtors.” Then he shows how they are debtors. For if, he says, “the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their debt (A.V. duty) is also to minister unto them in carnal things.” But what he means is this. It was for their sakes that Christ came. To them it was that all the promises were made, to them of the Jews. Of them Christ came. (Wherefore also it said, “Salvation is of the Jews.”) (John iv. 22.) From them were the Apostles, from them the Prophets, from them all good things. In all these things then the world was made a partaker. If then, he says, ye have been made partakers in that which is greater, and when it was for them that the banquet was prepared, ye have been brought in to enjoy the feast that was spread (Matt. xxii. 9), according to the Parable of the Gospel, ye are debtors also to share your carnal things with them, and to impart to them. But he does not say to share, but “to minister” (λειτουργἥσαι), so ranking them with ministers (διακόνων), and those that pay the tribute1652 to kings. And he does not say in your carnal things, as he did in “their spiritual things.” For the spiritual things were theirs. But the carnal belonged not to these alone, but were the common property of all. For he bade money to be held to belong to all,1653 not to those who were its possessors only.

Ver. 28. “When therefore I have performed this, and have sealed unto them this fruit.”

That is, when I have laid it up as it were in the royal treasuries, as in a place secure from robbers and danger. And he does not say alms, but “fruit” again, to show that those who gave it were gainers by it. “I will come by you into Spain.” He again mentions Spain to show his forwardness (ἀόκνον) and warmth towards them.

Ver. 29. “And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness of the blessing of the Gospel of Christ.”

Rom. XVI. 5

“Salute my well-beloved Epenetus, who is the first-fruits of Achaia unto Christ.”

I Think that many even of those who have the appearance of being extremely good men, hasten over this part of the Epistle1669 as superfluous, and having no great weight in it. And I think that the same befalls them in regard to the genealogy that is in the Gospel. For because it is a catalogue of names, they think they cannot get any great good from it. Yet the gold founders’ people1670 are careful even about the little fragments;1671 while these pass over even such great cakes of gold. That this then may not befall them, what I have already said were enough to lead them off from their listlessness. For that the gain even from this is no contemptible one, we have shown even from what was said on a former occasion, when we lifted up your soul by means of these addresses. We will endeavor then to-day also to mine in this same place. For it is possible even from bare names to find a great treasure. If, for instance, you were shown why Abraham was so called, why Sarah, why Israel, why Samuel, you would find even from this a great many real subjects of research. And from times too, and from places, you may gather the same advantage. For the good man waxes rich even from these; but he that is slothful, does not gain even from the most evident things. Thus the very name of Adam teaches us no small wisdom, and that of his son, and of his wife, and most of the others. For names serve to remind us of several circumstances. They show at once God’s benefits and women’s thankfulness. For when they conceived by the gift of God, it was they who gave these names to the children. But why are we now philosophizing about names, while meanings so important are neglected, and many do not so much as know the very names of the sacred books? Still even then we ought not to recede from an attention to things of this sort. For “thou oughtest,” He says, “to have put My money to the exchangers.” (Matt. xxv. 27.) And therefore though there be nobody that listens to it, let us do our part, and show that there is nothing superfluous, nothing added at random in the Scriptures. For if these names had no use, they would not then have been added to the Epistle, nor would Paul have written what he has written. But there are some even so lowminded, and empty, and unworthy of Heaven, as not to think that names only, but whole books of the Bible are of no use, as Leviticus, Joshua, and more besides. And in this way many of the simple ones have been for rejecting the Old Testament, and advancing on in 1669 So mss. Ben. Sav. ἐντολῆς. 1670 Stallbaum ad Plat. Phileb. 74. 1671 See the Introduction to Boyle’s Reflections, where this is beautifully applied to the improvement of all fragments of time by meditation. the way, that results from this evil habit of mind, have likewise pruned away many parts of the New Testament also. But of these men,1672 as intoxicated and living to the flesh, we do not make much account. But if any be a lover of wisdom, and a friend to spiritual entertainments, let him be told that even the things which seem to be unimportant in Scripture, are not placed there at random and to no purpose, and that even the old laws have much to profit us. For it says, “All these things are types (A.V. ensamples) and are written for our instruction.” (1 Cor. x. 11.) Wherefore to Timothy too he says, “Give heed to reading, to exhortation” (1 Tim. iv. 13), so urging him to the reading of the old books, though he was a man with so great a spirit in him, as to be able to drive out devils,1673 and to raise the dead. Let us now keep on with the subject in hand. “Salute my well-beloved Epenetus.” It is worth learning from this how he distributes to each the different praises. For this praise is no slight one, but even very great, and a proof of great excellence in him, that Paul should hold him beloved, Paul who had no idea of loving by favor, and not by cool judgment. Then another encomium comes, “Who is the first-fruits of Achaia.” For what he means is, either that he leaped forward before any one else, and became a believer (and this were no slight praise), or that he displayed more religious behavior than any other. And on this account after saying, “who is the first-fruits of Achaia,” he does not hold his peace, but to prevent your suspecting it to be a glory of the world’s, he added, “unto Christ.” Now if in civil matters, he that is first seemeth to be great and honorable, much more so in these. As then it was likely that they were of low extraction, he speaks of the true noble birth and preëminency, and gives him his honors from this. And he says, that he “is the first-fruits,” not of Corinth only, but of the whole nation, as having become as it were a door, and an entrance to the rest. And to such, the reward is no small one. For such an one will reap much recompense also from the achievements of others, in that he too contributed much toward them by beginning.

Ver. 6. “Greet Mary, who bestowed much labor on us.”

How is this? a woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only, but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women amongst us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them. But if we come to know whence it comes, that they are so adorned, we too shall speedily overtake them. Whence then is their adorning? Let both men and women listen. It is not from bracelets, or from necklaces, nor from their eunuchs either, and their maid-servants, and gold-broidered dresses, but from their toils in behalf of the truth. For he says, “who bestowed much labor on us,” that is, not on herself only, nor upon her own advancement, (see p. 520) (for this many women of the 1672 Such as the Manichees, see St. Aug. Conf. p. 340, O.T. note at the end, and Marcion. Tert. adv. M. lib. 4. 1673 This was done by his relics. St. Chrys. Hom. 1 ad Pop. Ant. §2, on the Statues, p. 4, O.T. present day do, by fasting, and sleeping on the floor), but upon others also, so carrying on the race Apostles and Evangelists ran. In what sense then does he say, “I suffer not a woman to teach?” (1 Tim. ii. 12.) He means to hinder her from publicly coming forward (1 Cor. xiv. 35), and from the seat on the bema,1674 not from the word of teaching.1675 Since if this were the case, how would he have said to the woman that had an unbelieving husband, “How knowest thou, O woman, if thou shalt save thy husband?” (ib. vii. 16.) Or how came he to suffer her to admonish children, when he says, but “she shall be saved by child-bearing1676 if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety?” (1 Tim. ii. 15.) How came Priscilla to instruct even Apollos? It was not then to cut in sunder private conversing for advantage that he said this, but that before all, and which it was the teacher’s duty to give in the public assembly; or again, in case the husband be believing and thoroughly furnished, able also to instruct her. When she is the wiser, then he does not forbid her teaching and improving him. And he does not say, who taught much, but “who bestowed much labor,” because along with teaching (τοὓ λόγου) she performs other ministries besides, those in the way of dangers, in the way of money, in the way of travels. For the women of those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the Apostles their labors for the Gospel’s sake. In this way they went travelling with them, and also performed all other ministries. And even in Christ’s day there followed Him women, “which ministered unto Him of their substance” (Luke viii. 3), and waited upon the Teacher.

Ver. 7. “Salute Andronicus and Junia my kinsmen.”

This also looks like an encomium. And what follows is much more so. And what sort is this of? “And my fellow-prisoners.” For this is the greatest honor, the noble proclamation. And where was Paul a prisoner, that he should call them “my fellow-prisoners?” A prisoner indeed he had1677 not been, but he had suffered things worse1678 than prisoners, in being 1674 A raised place in which the Clergy were, v. Suicer, and Bingham, b. viii. c. 6, §1, and 9–12. 1675 Or “Teaching of the word.” τοῦ λόγου τῆς διδασκαλίας, but we have τοῦ λόγου τῆς παρακλήσεως, Heb. xiii. 22. The word of Exhortation. 1676 St. C. does not seem to be here alluding to the former, but to the latter part of this very difficult passage. The most comprehensive view of it, on this interpretation, seems to be, that Christ has so hallowed all pain, that it has a saving influence in it: yet not in such wise saving, that the bearing of the great pain and peril of childbearing will atone for the neglect of the after labors of education. See Marlorate and Corn. a Lapide. in loc. The whole interpretation is questionable. Theoph. mentions some who take the words “the childbearing” of the birth of our Lord, which he rejects as not agreeing with what follows. But Estius justly observes, that the “abiding,” etc. may be better applied to the man and wife. 1677 St. Chrys. takes the word in its literal sense of a captive in war. If so meant it might be figurative, but it most likely refers either to an imprisonment, or to what he speaks of 2 Cor. xi. 26, as perils from robbers. 1678 Lit. “far more like a prisoner”—for Field reads αἰχμαλωτότερα for χαλεπώτερα. not an alien only to his country and his family, but in wrestling with famine and continual death, and thousands of other things. For of a prisoner the only misfortune is this, that he is separated from his relations, and often has to be a slave instead of being free. But in this case one may mention temptations thick as snow-flakes, which this blessed person underwent by being carried and taken about, scourged, fettered, stoned, shipwrecked, with countless people plotting against him. And captives indeed have no further foe after they are led away, but they even experience great care from those who have taken them. But this man was continually in the midst of enemies, and saw spears on every side, and sharpened swords, and arrays, and battles. Since then it was likely that these shared many dangers with him, he calls them fellow-captives. As in another passage also, “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner.” (Col. iv. 10.) Then another praise besides. “Who are of note among the Apostles.” And indeed to be apostles1679 at all is a great thing. But to be even amongst these of note, just consider what a great encomium this is! But they were of note owing to their works, to their achievements. Oh! how great is the devotion (φιλοσοφία) of this woman,1680 that she should be even counted worthy of the appellation of apostle!1681 But even here he does not stop, but adds another encomium besides, and says, “Who were also in Christ before me.”

For this too is a very great praise, that they sprang forth and came before others. But let me draw your attention to the holy soul, how untainted it is by vanity. For after glory such as his in kind and degree, he sets others before himself, and does not hide from us the fact of his having come after them, nor is ashamed of confessing this. And why art thou surprised at his not being ashamed of this, when he shunneth not even to parade before men his former life, calling himself “a blasphemer, and a persecutor?” (1 Tim. i. 13.) Since then he was not able to set them before others on this score, he looked out himself, who had come 1679 St. Chrys. on 2 Cor. viii. 23, p. 215. O.T. and Phil. ii. 25, p. 104 O.T. takes this word to mean messengers of the Churches. Theodoret, on Phil. ii. 25, takes it to mean “Bishop,” as on 1 Tim. ii. 8, he says, “they then called the same persons Bishops and Elders, but those who are now called Bishops they named Apostles.” St. Chrys. Hom. in St. Ignat. call him an Apostle. 1680 Hammond reads the name Junias, and supposes a man to be intended. 1681 It is impossible to determine with certainty whether ἐπισήμοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (7) means that the persons referred to were themselves apostles, or merely that they were held in high esteem by the apostles. The interpretation of Chrys. (the former) is possible both in point of language and in view of the fact that ἀποστόλοι embraced more than the twelve in N.T. usage, e.g. Paul, Barnabas, and probably, James, the Lord’s Brother (Gal. i. 19) (so Tholuck, Rückert, Ewald). The more probable view is that Andronicus and Junias [not Junia as Chrys., certainly not if his interpretation is correct; that a woman should have been an apostle is out of the question] are designated as distinguished, honorably known among (by) the apostles. (So De Wette, Philippi, Hofmann, Meyer).—G.B.S. in after others, and from this he did find means of bestowing a praise upon them by saying, “Who were in Christ before me.”

Ver. 8. “Greet Amplias my beloved.”

Here again he passes encomiums upon his person by his love. For the love of Paul was for God, carrying countless blessings with it. For if being loved by the king is a great thing, what a great encomium must it be to be beloved by Paul? For if he had not acquired great virtue, he would not have attracted his love? Since as for those who live in vice and transgressions he is accustomed (οἶδε) not only to abstain from loving them, but even to anathematize them. As when he says, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus, let him be accursed” (1 Cor. xvi. 22); and, “If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. i. 8.)

Ver. 9. “Salute Urbane, my helper in the Lord.”

This is a greater encomium than the other. For this even comprehends that. “And Stachys, my beloved.” This again is an honor of the same kind.

Ver. 10. “Salute Apelles, approved in Christ.”

There is no praise like this, being unblamable, and giving no handle in the things of God. For when he says, “approved in Christ,” he includes the whole list of virtues. And on what ground does he nowhere say my Lord such an one, my Master this? It is because these encomiums were greater than those. For those are mere titles of rank (τιμἥς), but these are of virtue. And this same honor he paid them not at random, or as addressing several of inferior virtue with the high and great characters. For so far as he is addressing, and that too one along with another, and in the same letter, he honors them all alike. But by stating the praises particularly to each, he sets before us the virtue peculiar to each; so as neither to give birth to envy by honoring one and dishonoring another, nor to work in them listlessness and confusion, by giving them all the same dignity, though they did not deserve the same. See now how he again comes to the admirable women. For after saying, “Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ household,”

Ver. 11. “Salute Herodion my kinsman; greet them which be of the household of Narcissus;”

Who, it is likely, were not so worthy as the afore-mentioned, on which account also he does not mention them all by name even, and after giving them the encomium which was suited to them, that of being faithful, (and this the meaning of,)

“Which are in the Lord.”

He again reverts to the women, and says,

Ver. 12. “Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord.”

Rom. XVI. 17, 18

“Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

Again an exhortation, and prayer after the exhortation. For after telling them to “mark them which cause1697 divisions,” and not to listen to them, he proceeds, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly:” and, “The grace of our Lord be with you.” And notice how gently too he exhorts them: doing it not in the character of a counsellor, but that of a servant, and with much respect. For he calls them brethren, and supplicates them likewise. For, “I beseech you, brethren,” (he says). Then he also puts them on the defensive by showing the deceitfulness of those who abused them. For as though they were not at once to be discerned, he says, “I beseech you to mark,” that is, to be exceedingly particular about, and to get acquainted with, and to search out thoroughly—whom, pray? why, “those that cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned.”1698 For this is, if anything the subversion of the Church, the being in divisions. This is the devil’s weapon, this turneth all things upside-down. For so long as the body is joined into one, he 1697 Field with most mss. omits ποιοῦντας; of course it is to be supplied from the context. 1698 At Rome also there were, as in so many other places, those who, either within or in contact with the church, made divisions and perverted the true Christian teaching. The Epistle to the Romans deals but to a small extent directly with these persons. It is, in the main, constructive. Galatians is a letter on similar lines of teaching but more polemic in character. In the case of how few of the churches to which the apostle wrote could he spare himself the unpleasant task of warning them against heretics or immoral tendencies of life. In Corinth the abuses were chiefly of a moral and practical character. In Colossæ and perhaps in Ephesus, there was a Judeo-Gnostic theosophy which threatened the Christian faith of the people. The Roman church was, probably, predominantly Gentile and was a Pauline church, in the sense, that, though not founded by Paul, it had been trained in the Pauline “gospel,” the type of doctrine more or less peculiar to that apostle. The extended refutation of Jewish claims to special divine favor in chaps. ii. and iii. as well as the consideration of the problem offered by the lapse of the Jews in chaps. ix., x., and xi., shows that there was an reportant Jewish element in the church, while these concluding warnings (17, 18) intimate the presence of Judaizing heretics who sought to conceal their real wickedness by smooth and plausible language and thus to lead innocent and unsuspecting Christians astray.—G.B.S. has no power to get an entrance, but it is from division that the offence cometh. And whence is division? From opinions contrary to the teaching of the Apostles. And whence come opinions of this sort? From men’s being slaves to the belly, and the other passions. For “such,” he says, “serve not the Lord, but their own belly.” And so there would be no offence, there would be no division, unless some opinion were thought of contrary to the doctrine of the Apostles. And this he here points out by saying, “contrary to the doctrine.” And he does not say which we have taught, but “which ye have learned,” so anticipating them, and showing that they were persuaded of and had heard them and received them. And what are we to do to those who make mischief in this way? He does not say have a meeting and come to blows, but “avoid them.” For if it was from ignorance or error that they did this, one ought to set them right. But if they sin willingly, spring away from them. And in another place too he says this. For he says, “Withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly” (2 Thess. iii. 6): and in speaking to Timothy about the coppersmith, he gives him the like advice, and says, “Of whom be thou ware also.” (2 Tim. iv. 15.) Then also to lash (κωμῳδὥν) those who dare to do such things, he mentions also the reason of their devising this division. “For they that are such,” he says, “serve not our Lord Christ, but their own belly.” And this he said too when he wrote to the Philippians, “Whose god is their belly.” (Phil. iii. 19.) But here he appears to me to intimate those of the Jews, whom he ever uses particularly to find fault with as gluttonous. For in writing to Titus too, he said of them, “Evil beasts, slow bellies.” (Tit. i. 12, see v. 10.) And Christ also blames them on this head: “Ye devour widows’ houses” (Matt. xxiii. 14), He says. And the Prophets accuse them of things of the kind. For, “My beloved,” He says, “hath waxen fat and gross, and hath kicked” (Deut. xxxii. 15). Wherefore also Moses exhorted them, and said, “When thou hast eaten and drunken and art full, remember the Lord thy God.” (ib. vi. 11, 12.) And in the Gospels, they who say to Christ, “What sign showest thou unto us?” (John vi. 30) pass over everything else, and remember the manna. So do they everywhere appear to be possessed with this affection. How then comest thou not to be ashamed at having slaves of the belly for thy teachers, when thou art a brother of Christ? Now the ground of the error is this, but the mode of attack is again a different disorder, viz. flattery. For it is by “fair speeches,” he says, “that they deceive the hearts of the simple.” For their attention reaches only to words; but their meaning is not such, for it is full of fraud. And he does not say that they deceive you, but “the hearts of the simple.” And even with this he was not satisfied, but with a view to making this statement less grating, he says,

Ver. 19. “For your obedience is come abroad unto all men.”

This he does, not to leave them free to be shameless, but to win them beforehand with encomiums, and the number of his witnesses, to arrest their attention. For neither is it I alone that am the witness, but the whole world. And he does not say for your understanding, but, “your obedience:” that is, their compliance, which was evidence of much meekness in them. “I am glad therefore on your behalf.” And this is no small encomium too. Then, after the praise, admonition. For lest, after liberating them from any charges against them, he should make them the more listless, as not being observed; he gives them another hint in the words,

“I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.”

You see then how he attacks them again, and that without their suspecting it. For this looks like intimating that some of them were apt to be led astray.

Ver. 20. “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.”

For since he had spoken of those who “caused divisions and offences among them,” he has mentioned “the God of peace” also, that they might feel hopeful about the riddance of these evils. For he that rejoiceth in this (i.e., peace) will put an end to that which makes havoc of it. And he does not say, will subject, but “will bruise” (Gen. iii. 19), which is a stronger expression. And not those people only, but also him who was the general over them herein, Satan. And not “will bruise” merely, but “under your feet,” so that they may obtain the victory themselves, and become noble by the trophy. And the time again is made a ground of comfort. For he adds, “shortly.” And this was prayer and prophecy as well at once. “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.”

That greatest weapon; that impregnable wall; that tower unshaken! For he reminds them of the grace, that he may give them the more alacrity. Because if ye have been freed from the ills more grievous by far, and freed by grace only, much more will ye be freed from the lesser, now ye have become friends too, and contribute your own share likewise. You see how he neither puts prayer without works, nor works without prayer. For after giving them credit for their obedience, than he prays; to show that we need both, our own part as well as God’s part, if we are to be duly saved. For it was not before only, but now too, even though we be great and in high esteem, we need grace from Him.

Ver. 21. “Timotheus my work-fellow saluteth you.”

Observe the customary encomiums again. “And Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater my kinsmen.”

This Jason Luke also mentions, and sets before us his manliness also, when he says, that “they drew” him “to the rulers of the city, crying,” etc. (Acts xvii. 5.) And it is likely that the others too were men of note. For he does not mention relations barely, unless they were also like him in religiousness.

Ver. 22. “I Tertius, who wrote this Epistle, salute you.”

This too is no small encomium, to be Paul’s amanuensis. Still it is not to pass encomiums on himself that he says this, but that he might attach a warm love to him on their part, for this ministration.

Ver. 23. “Gaius mine host (ξένος), and of the whole Church, saluteth you.”