John Chrysostom, 4th c.

Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles / 3

Homily XVI on Acts vii. 6, 7.

Homily XVI.

Acts 7:6–7

“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, not[1] 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,[2] 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. 27:43).—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.[3] 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.” (Acts 7:8).—Here[4] he seems to hint now at the type. “And the patriarchs moved with envy, sold Joseph into Egypt.” (Acts 7:9.) Here again, the type of Christ.[5] 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.” (Acts 7:10). 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.” (Acts 7:11–13). 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.” (Acts 7:13–18). 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.” (Acts 7:20.) 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 [[6]but the Resurrection by itself, independently.]—“And he was mighty,” it says, “in word and in deed” (Acts 7:22): 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. For[7] 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.” (Acts 7:39.) See the plotted-against eventually becoming the authors of salvation to those plotting against them:[8] 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, Acts 7:6–7.) This[9] 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 increased, 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 learn[10] 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.[11]—And observe, how, while he seems to concede something to circumcision, he in fact allows it nothing (Acts 7:8); since the Promise was before it, and it followed after.—“And the patriarchs,” he says, “moved with envy.” (Acts 7:9.) Where it does no harm, he humors (χαρίζεται) them:[12] for they prided themselves much on these also.—[13]And 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. (Acts 7:10.) This[14] 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 Emmor the father of Sychem.”[15] (Acts 7:11–16). 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” (Acts 7:17–18). 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.” (Acts 7:19.) “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.” (Acts 7:20.) 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.” (Acts 7:21.) 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.” (Acts 7:22.) “Was trained,” both[16] in discipline and in letters. “And when he was full forty years old.” (Acts 7:23.) 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.” (Acts 7:23–25.)—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” (Acts 6:15).—“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?” (Acts 7:26–28.) Do you mark with what mildness he addresses them? He who had shown his wrath in the case of the other, shows his gentleness[17] 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.” (Acts 7:29.) 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.” (Acts 7:30.) 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.” (Acts 7:31.) 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.” (Acts 7:32–33.) Lo![18] 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.” (Isa. 9:6. 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 in Egypt, and I have heard their groaning, and am come down to deliver them. And now come, I will send thee into Egypt.” (Acts 7:34.) 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:” not[19] 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. 32:15): 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. 3:19.) Also[20] (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. 19:71.) 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.” (Eccl. 7:2.) But, likely enough, you[21] 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 confidence, see what sort of things he said and did: “But I said in my prosperity,” says he, “I shall never be moved.” (Ps. 30:6.) 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. 15:26.) 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. 26:19.) 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. 28:20.) 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. (Gen. 9:22.) 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 Kgs. 19:20.) For, saith the Scripture, “When thou hast eaten, and drunk, and art filled, take heed to thyself.” (Deut. 6:11–12.) 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. 73:6. 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. 4:4.) 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; but[22] 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.” (Sir. 31:20.) 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 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: all[23] (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 together.—The same may be seen in the river,[24] 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. 6:8.) 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.

Homily XVII on Acts vii. 35.

Homily XVII.

Acts 7:35

“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 19:15.) 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” (Acts 7:36–37): 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.” (Acts 7:38.) 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:” (Acts 7:39) 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.” (Acts 7:40; Acts 7:43.) 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.” (Acts 7:44.) Even when there was a Tabernacle, yet there were no sacrifices. “Did ye offer unto Me slain beasts and sacrifices?” (Amos 5:25.) 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. (Acts 7:45–46.) 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.” (Acts 7:47–50.) 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?” (Isa. 66:1–2.)

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. (Acts 7:35–50.) Do you mark that they themselves (Stephen’s hearers) are concerned in those old miracles also? “This is that Moses:” (Acts 7:37) 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.[25] “This is he that was in the Church in the wilderness, and, that said unto the children of Israel.” (Acts 7:38.) Do you mark that thence comes the root, and that “salvation is from the Jews?” (John 4:22.) “With the Angel,” it says, “which spake unto him.” (Rom. 11:16.) Lo, again he affirms that it was He (Christ) that gave the Law, seeing Moses was with “Him” in the Church in the wilderness.[26] And here he puts them in mind of a great marvel, 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.[27] 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.” (Acts 7:39.) But concerning those, Ezekiel says that they are not “living;” as when he says, “And I gave you statutes that are not good.” (Ezek. 20:25.) 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.” (Acts 7:40.) O the folly! “Make,” say they; “that they may go before us.” Whither? “Into Egypt.”[28] 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. Where[29] 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”—they[30] did not say, “a God.”—And 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” (Acts 7:41): 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” (Acts 7:42.) 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,[31] “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 lively ordinances, and “lively oracles. And rejoiced”—that is the reason for the feasts. (Exod. 32:5–6.) “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.”[32] The cause of sacrifices! “And I will carry you away beyond Babylon.” (Acts 7:43.) Even the captivity, an impeachment of their wickedness! “But a Tabernacle,” say you, “there was (the Tabernacle) ‘of Witness.’” (Acts 7:44.) (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:” so[33] 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.[34] 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” (Acts 7:45): and there was no temple! And yet the Gentiles also had 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” (Acts 7:46): and built not:—so far was the Temple from being a great matter! “But Solomon built Him an house.” (Acts 7:47.) 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.” (Acts 7:48–49.) 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. (Acts 7:50.)

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.” (Acts 7:51.) 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 them[35]—“who have received the Law by the disposition of Angels, and have not kept it.” (Acts 7:52.) 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 He[36] who wrought those works, should also have wrought these.[37] “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 Kgs. 19:10.) 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. 18:18.)

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. 19:46.) If we chance to be among heathens, let us thus stop their mouths. without wrath, without harshness. (Comp. Hom. in 1 Cor. 4 §6; xxxiii. §4, 5; Col. 11 §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. For[38] 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 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. 2:8) 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 (ἐπιεικεί& 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 Kgs. 18:21) 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. 18:3.) 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: let[39] 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 if[40] the stranger also feed them, even 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. 5:22.) 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. 26:7.) Moses, when he saw a stranger doing an injury, even slew him (Exod. 2:22): 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. 12:3) 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.

Homily XVIII on Acts vii. 54.

Homily XVIII.

Acts 7:54

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

See,[41] 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.” (Acts 4:16.) 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.—“If[42] 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: now[43] this word 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. 26:64), 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.” (Acts 7:55–58.) 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:[44] 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 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. 13:21.) “And the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling[45] upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Acts 7:59.) 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.” (Acts 7:60.) 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.” (Acts 8:1.) 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 widows[46]: 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 that[47] 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.” (Acts 8:2.) 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?[48] Fit eulogy to be spoken over his grave has the Evangelist recorded, in this 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.

He[49] mentions the cause of his (angelic) appearance (Recapitulation, Acts 7:54; Acts 8:2.); “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.” (Acts 7:56–57.) 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.” (Acts 7:58.) 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 long[50] only the Lord permitted the soul to remain in him. “And having said this, he fell asleep.” (Acts 7:60.)—“And they were all scattered abroad throughout the region of Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1.) 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. 10:5.) “Except the Apostles,” it says: they, in this way also, 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.” (Acts 8:3.) 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.” (Acts 8:4–9.) Observe[51] 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.” (Acts 8:10–15.) 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.” (Acts 8:16–17.) 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.” (Acts 8:18–19.)

“The[52] persecution,” say you, “gained strength.” True, but at that very time to men possessed before (by a hostile power) it brought deliverance. For it planted the miracles like a stronghold, in the heart of the enemy’s country.—Not even the death of Stephen quenched their rage, nay, increased it rather: it scattered wide the teachers, so that the greater became the discipleship.—“And there was joy.” And yet there had been “great lamentation:” true; but mark again the good—“Of a long time” was the malady, but this man brought them deliverance.—And how came he to baptize Simon also? Just as Christ chose Judas.—And “beholding the signs” which he did, forasmuch as the others did not receive the (power of working) signs, he durst not ask for it.—How was it then that they did not strike him dead, as they did Ananias and Sapphira? Because even in the old times, he that gathered sticks (on the sabbath-day) was put to death as a warning to others (Num. 15:32) and in no other instance did any suffer the same fate. So too on the present occasion, “Peter said to him, Thy money perish, because thou hast imagined that the gift of God is to be purchased with money.”—(Acts 8:20.) Why had not these received the Holy Ghost, when baptized? Either because Philip kept this honor for the Apostles; or, because he had not this gift (to impart); or, he was one of the Seven: which is rather to be said. Whence, I take it, this Philip was one of the Apostles.[53] But observe; those went not forth: it was Providentially ordered that these should go forth and those be lacking, because of the Holy Ghost: for they had received power to work miracles, but not also to impart the Spirit to others: this was the prerogative of the Apostles. And observe (how they sent) the chief ones: not any others, but Peter [and John[54]]. “And when Simon,” it says, “saw that through laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given.” He would not have said, “And having seen,”[55] unless there had been some sensible manifestation.[56] “Then laid they their hands on them,” etc. Just as Paul also did, when they spake with tongues. (Acts 19:6.) Observe the execrable conduct of Simon. “He offered money,” with what object? And yet he did not see Peter doing this for money. And it was not of ignorance that he acted thus; it was because he would tempt them, because he wished to get matter of accusation against them. And therefore also Peter says, “Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter, for thine heart is not right before God “because thou hast thought,” etc. (Acts 8:21.) Once more he brings to light what was in the thoughts, because Simon thought to escape detection. “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive the bond of inquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (Acts 8:22–24.) Even this[57] he did only formally, as words of course, when he ought to have wept and mourned as a penitent. “If perchance it may be forgiven thee.” Not as though it would not have been pardoned, had he wept, but this is the manner of the Prophet also, to denounce absolutely, (ἀπαγορεύειν) and not to say, “Howbeit, if thou do this, thy sin shall be forgiven,” but that in any wise the punishment shall take effect.

(a) “Therefore they that were scattered abroad, went everywhere, preaching the word.” But[58] I would have thee admire how even in a season of calamity they neglected not the preaching. “Hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Recapitulation, Acts 8:4–6.) Just as in the case of Moses by contrast (with the magicians) the miracles were evident miracles, so here also. There was magic, and so these signs were manifest. (b) “For unclean spirits came out of many that were possessed with them” (Acts 8:7); for this was a manifest miracle:—not as the magicians did: for the other (Simon), it is likely, bound (men with spells);—“and many,” it says, “that were palsied and lame were healed.” There was no deceit here: for it needed but that they should walk and work. “And to him they all gave heed, saying, This (man) is the Power of God.” (Acts 8:10.) And that was fulfilled which was spoken by Christ, “There shall come false Christs and false Prophets in My name.”—(Matt. 24:24.) “And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries.” (Acts 8:11.) (a) And yet there ought to have been not one demoniac there, seeing that of a long time he had been bewitching them with sorceries: but if there were many demoniacs, many palsied, these pretences were not truth. But Philip here by his word also won them over, discoursing concerning the kingdom of Christ. (Acts 8:12.) “And Simon,” it says, “being baptized, continued with Philip (Acts 8:13): not for faith’s sake, but in order that he might become such (as he). (b) But why did they not correct him instantly? They were content with his condemning himself. For this too belonged to their work of teaching (τἥς διδασκαλίας). But[59] when he had not power to resist, he plays the hypocrite, just as did the magicians, who said, “This is the finger of God.” And indeed that he might not be driven away again, therefore he “continued with Philip,” and did not part from him. “And when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem,” etc. (Acts 8:13–14.) See how many things are brought about by God’s Providence through the death of Stephen! (a) “But they,” it says, “having come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost: for as yet He was fallen upon none of them. Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 8:15–17.) Seest thou that it was not to be done in any ordinary manner, but it needed great power to give the Holy Ghost? For it is not all one, to obtain remission of sins, and to receive such a power. (b) By degrees it is, that those receive the gift. It was a twofold sign: both the giving to those, and the not giving to this man.[60] Whereas then this man ought, on the contrary, to have asked to receive the Holy Ghost, he, because he cared not for this, asks power to give It to others. And yet those received not this power to give: but this man wished to be more illustrious than Philip, he being among the disciples! (a) “He offered them money.” (Acts 8:18–19.) What? had he seen the others doing this? had he seen Philip? Did he imagine they did not know with what mind he came to them? (b) “Thy money with thee to perdition” (Acts 8:20): since thou hast not used it as it ought to be used. These are not words of imprecation, but of chastisement. “To thee,” he says, be it (to thee): being such. As if one should say, Let it perish along with thy purpose. Hast thou so mean conceptions of the gift of God, that thou hast imagined it to be altogether a thing of man? It is not this. (a) Wherefore also Peter well calls the affair a gift: “Thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.” Dost thou observe how on all occasions they are clean from money? “For thine heart is not right in the sight of God.” (Acts 8:21.) Dost thou see how he does all of malice? To be simple, however, was the thing needed. (b) For had it been done with simplicity,[61] he would have even welcomed his willing mind. Seest thou that to have mean conceptions of great things is to sin doubly? Accordingly, two things he bids him: “Repent and pray, if haply the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.” (Acts 8:22.) Seest thou it was a wicked thought he had entertained? Therefore he says, “If haply it may be forgiven thee:” because he knew him to be incorrigible. (a) “For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” (Acts 8:23.) Words of exceeding wrath! But otherwise he did not punish him: that faith may not thereafter be of compulsion; that the matter may not seem to be carried ruthlessly; that he may introduce the subject of repentance: or also, because it suffices for correction to have convicted him, to have told him what was in his heart, to have brought him to confess himself overcome (ὅτι ἐ& 128·λω). For that he says, “Pray ye for me,” is a confession that he has done wrong. Observe him,[62] what a miscreant he is; when he was convicted, then he believed: when again he was convicted, then he became humble.[63] “Seeing[64] his miracles,” [“he was amazed,” and came over.] He thought to be able to escape detection: he thought the thing was an art: but when he had not power to defeat (ἑλεἵν) the Apostles, * * *. (b) Again, he fears the multitude, and is afraid to deny it; and yet he might have said, “I did not know: I did it in simplicity: but he was struck with dismay first by the former circumstance, that he was overcome (ὅτι ἐ& 128·λω), by the miracles and secondly by this, that his thoughts are made manifest. Therefore he now takes himself a long wayoff, to Rome, thinking the Apostle would not soon come there.

“And they, when they had testified, and preached the word of the Lord, returned to Jerusalem. (Acts 8:25.) “Testified,” probably because of him (Simon), that they may not be deceived; that thenceforth they may be safe. “Having preached,” it says, “the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem.” Why do they go thither again where was the tyranny of the bad, where were those most bent upon killing them? Just as generals do in wars, they occupy that part of the scene of war which is most distressed. “And preached the Gospel in many villages of the Samaritans.” Observe them again, how they do not (προηγουμένως) of set purpose come to Samaria, but driven by stress of persecution, just as it was in the case of Christ; and how when the Apostles go thither, it is to men now believers, no longer Samaritans. “But when the Apostles,” it says, “which were at Jerusalem heard this, they sent unto them Peter and John. Sent” them, again, to rid them of magic. And[65] besides, (the Lord) had given them a pattern at the time when the Samaritans believed. “And in many villages,” it says, “of the Samaritans, they preached the Gospel.” (John 4:39.) Observe how actively employed even their journeys were, how they do nothing without a purpose.[66]

Such travels should we also make. And why do I speak of travels? Many possess villages and lands, and give themselves no concern, nor make any account of this. That baths may be provided, their revenues increased, courts and buildings erected, for this they take plenty of pains: but for the husbandry of souls, not so. When you see thorns—answer me—you cut them up, you burn, you utterly destroy them, to rid your land of the hurt thence arising. And seest thou the laborers themselves overrun with thorns, and dost not cut them up, and art thou not afraid of the Owner Who shall call thee to account? For ought not each individual believer to build a Church, to get a Teacher, to cooperate (συναί· ρεσθαι) (with him), to make this above all his object, that all may be Christians? Say, how is it likely thy laborer should be a Christian, when he sees thee so regardless of his salvation? Thou canst not work miracles, and so convert (πεῖσαι) him. By the means which are in thy power, convert him; by kindness, by good offices, by gentleness, by courting (κολακεί& 139·) him, by all other means. Market-places, indeed, and baths, the most do provide; but no Churches: nay, sooner everything than this! Wherefore I beseech and implore, as a favor I entreat, yea as a law I lay it down, that there be no estate to be seen destitute of a Church.[67] Tell not me, There is one hard by; there is one in the neighboring properties; the expense is great, the income not great. If thou have anything to expend upon the poor, expend it there: better there than here. Maintain a Teacher, maintain a Deacon, and a sacerdotal body complete. As by a bride, whether a wife whom thou takest, or a daughter whom thou givest in marriage,[68] so act by the Church: give her a dowry. So shall thy estate be filled with blessing. For what shall not be there of all that is good? Is it a small thing, tell me, that thy wine-press should be blessed;[69] a small thing, tell me, that of thy fruits God is the first to taste, and that the first fruits are there (with Him)? And then even for the peace of the laboring people this is profitable. Then as one whom they must respect, there will be the presbyter among them and this will contribute to the security of the estate. There will be constant prayers there through thee[70] (infra, note 1, p. 119) hymns and Communions through thee; the Oblation on each Lord’s Day. For only consider what a praise it will be, that, whereas others have built splendid tombs, to have it said hereafter: “Such a one built this,” thou hast reared Churches! Bethink thee that even until the coming of Christ thou shalt have thy reward, who hast reared up the altars of God.

Suppose an Emperor had ordered thee to build an house that he might lodge there, wouldest thou not have done everything to please him? And here now it is palace of Christ, the Church, the Church which thou buildest. Look not at the cost, but calculate the profit. Thy people yonder cultivate thy field: cultivate thou their souls: they bring to thee thy fruits, raise thou them to heaven. He that makes the beginning is the cause of all the rest: and thou wilt be the cause that the people are brought under Christian teaching (κατηχουμένων) both there, and in the neighboring estates. Your baths do but make the peasants less hardy, your taverns give them a taste for luxury, and yet you provide these for credit’s sake. Your markets and fairs, (πανηγύρεις) on the other hand, promote[71] covetousness. But think now what a thing it would be to see a presbyter, the moving picture of Abraham, gray-headed, girded up, digging and working with his own hands? What more pleasant than such a field! Their virtue thrives. No intemperance there, nay, it is driven away: no drunkenness and wantonness, nay, it is cast out: no vanity, nay, it is extinguished. All benevolent tempers shine out the brighter through the simplicity of manners. How pleasant to go forth and enter into the House of God, and to know that one built it himself: to fling himself on his back in his litter, and[72] after the bodily benefit of his pleasant airing, be present both at the evening and the morning hymns, have the priest as a guest at his table, in associating with him enjoy his benediction, see others also coming thither! This is a wall for his field, this its security. This is the field of which it is said, “The smell of a full field which the Lord hath blessed.” (Gen. 27:27.) If, even without this, the country is pleasant, because it is so quiet, so free from distraction of business, what will it not be when this is added to it? The country with a Church is like the Paradise of God. No clamor there, no turmoil, no enemies at variance, no heresies: there you shall see all friends, holding the same doctrines in common. The very quiet shall lead thee to higher views, and receiving thee thus prepared by philosophy, the presbyter shall give thee an excellent cure. For here, whatever we may speak, the noise of the market drives it all out: but there, what thou shalt hear, thou wilt keep fixed in thy mind. Thou wilt be quite another man in the country through him: and moreover to the people there he will be director, he will watch over them both by his presence and by his influence in forming their manners. And what, I ask, would be the cost? Make for a beginning a small house (ἐν τάξει ναοὕ) to serve as temple. Thy successor will build a porch, his successor will make other additions, and the whole shall be put to thy account. Thou givest little, and receivest the reward for the whole. At any rate, make a beginning: lay a foundation. Exhort one another, vie one with another in this matter. But now, where there is straw and grain and such like to be stored, you make no difficulty of building: but for a place where the fruits of souls may be gathered in, we bestow not a thought; and the people are forced to go miles and miles, and to make long journeys, that they may get to Church! Think, how good it is, when with all quietness the priest presents himself in the Church, that he may draw near unto God, and say prayers for the village, day by day, and for its owner! Say, is it a small matter, that even in the Holy Oblations evermore thy name is included in the prayers, and that for the village day by day prayers are made unto God?—How greatly this profits thee for all else! It chances[73] that certain (great) persons dwell in the neighborhood, and have overseers: now to thee, being poor, one of them will not deign even to pay a visit: but the presbyter, it is likely, he will invite, and make him sit at his table. How much good results from this! The village will in the first place be free from all evil suspicion. None will charge it with murder, with theft: none will suspect anything of the kind.—They have also another comfort, if sickness befall, if death.—Then again the friendships formed there by people as they go side by side (to and from the Church) are not struck up at random and promiscuously: and the meetings there are far more pleasant than those which take place in marts and fairs. The people themselves also will be more respectable, because of their presbyter. How is it you hear that Jerusalem was had in honor in the old times above all other cities? Why was this? Because of the then prevailing religion. Therefore it is that where God is honored, there is nothing evil: as, on the contrary, where He is not honored, there is nothing good. It will be great security both with God and with men. Only, I beseech you, that ye be not remiss: only may you put your hand to this work. For if he who brings out “the precious from the vile,” shall be “as the mouth of God” (Jer. 15:19); he who benefits and recovers so many souls, both that now are and that shall be even until the coming of Christ, what favor shall not that person reap from God! Raise thou a garrison against the devil: for that is what the Church is. Thence as from headquarters let the hands go forth to work: first let the people hold them up for prayers, and then go their way to work. So shall there be vigor of body; so shall the tillage be abundant; so shall all evil be kept aloof. It is not possible to represent in words the pleasure thence arising, until it be realized. Look not to this, that it brings in no revenue: if[74] thou do it at all in this spirit, then do it not at all; if thou account not the revenue thou gettest thence greater than from the whole estate beside; if thou be not thus affected, then let it alone; if thou do not account this work to stand thee more in stead than any work beside. What can be greater than this revenue, the gathering in of souls into the threshing-floor which is in heaven! Alas, that ye know not how much it is, to gain souls! Hear what Christ says to Peter, “Feed My sheep.” (John 21:15–17.) If, seeing the emperor’s sheep, or herd of horses, by reason of having no fold or stable, exposed to depredation, thou wert to take them in hand, and build a fold or stables, or also provide a shepherd or herdsman to take charge of them, what would not the emperor do for thee in return? Now, thou gatherest the flock of Christ, and puttest a shepherd over them, and thinkest thou it is no great gain thou art earning? But, if for offending even one, a man shall incur so great a punishment, how can he that saves so many, ever be punished? What sin will he have thenceforth? for, though he have it, does not this blot it out? From the punishment threatened to him that offends, learn the reward of him that saves. Were not the salvation of even one soul a matter of great importance, to offend would not move God to so great anger. Knowing these things, let us apply ourselves forthwith to this spiritual work. And let each invite me, and we will together help to the best of our ability. If there be three joint-owners, let them do it by each bearing his part: if but one, he will induce the others also that are near. Only be earnest to effect this, I beseech you, that in every way being well-pleasing unto God, we may attain unto the eternal blessings, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever world without end. Amen.

Homily XIX on Acts viii. 26, 27.

Homily XIX.

Acts 8:26–27

“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, this[75] (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.” (Acts 8:27–28.) 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.[76] 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?” (Acts 8:29–31.) 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 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.” (Acts 8:32–35.) 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?” (Acts 8:36.) Mark the eager desire, mark[77] 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.” (Acts 8:38–39.) 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.[78] “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.” (Acts 8:40.) 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,[79] and Philip would have grieved him by declining to comply with his request, the time being not yet come. (a) But[80] at the same time here was an encouraging assurance for them that they shall also prevail over the heathen: for[81] indeed the high character (τὸ ἀξιόπιστον) of the (first) believers 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, Acts 8:26.) (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,[82] and see with what frequency! (c) “An eunuch,” it says, “a man of great authority, under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians.”[83] (Acts 8:27.) 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) but[84] what was there to hinder his learning all (these particulars) accurately, while in the chariot? “Was reading the prophet Esaias.” (Acts 8:28.) 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.” (Acts 8:29.) Not now the Angel[85] 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 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?” (Acts 8:30.) 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. Look[86] 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. 7:8.) was fulfilled in him. “And,” it says, “he besought Philip, that he would come up and sit with him.” (Acts 8:31.) 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, showed[87] that he wished to say (something). “And the place,” it says, “of the Scripture which he read was this: As a sheep He was led to the slaughter.”[88] (Acts 8:32.) 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?” That[89] 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.[90] 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.” (Acts 8:36.) 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.” (Acts 8:38.) 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;” (Acts 8:39) 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.” (Acts 8:40.) 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. & Dr. v. 36; Ezek. 3:12.) 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.” (Acts 9:1–2.) 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 16:2.) 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. He[91] was not afraid lest 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?” (Acts 9:3–4.) 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 that[92] 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”: (Acts 22:6; Acts 26:12) 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). But[93] 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?” (Acts 9:5) 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.[94] And they which were 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.” (Acts 9:6.) 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.[95] “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” (Acts 9:7–8):—the spoils of the devil (τὰ σκεύη αὐτοὕ), “his goods” (Matt. 13:29), 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.” (Acts 9:9.) 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 pretensions[96]): what say you to this man? Why then not immediately after His resurrection? That 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,[97] 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 12:29, 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, but all at once inspired him with such ardent zeal? Wherefore was it, that he wished even to go into hell itself[98] 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,[99] (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) But[100] why is it (so ordered) 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. Because[101] 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.[102] (Acts 8:22–23; Acts 8:32; Acts 8:33.) It is likely he had heard that He was crucified, [and now he learns], 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. 6:7.) 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. 1:13–16.) 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,[103] 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 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 Ananias[104] 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 up[105] 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” (Isa. 30:10), we read, they said of old to the Prophets: but ye do worse, saying, Speak:[106] 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 our[107] 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 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,”[108] 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. 4:13.) 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:[109] and then it departed from me.”—(Eccl. 7:24.) 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 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 9:44.) “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. 24:51; Matt. 7:23.) Surely,[110] 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 14:26): and “I am not come to bring peace upon earth, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34; Luke 12:51): and “In the world ye shall have tribulation—(John 16:33.) excellent[111] 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.” (Isa. 35:6.) “The Lord shall give the word to them that preach the Gospel” (Ps. 68:11): and, “A new heaven and a new earth.” (Isa. 65:17.) 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 1:1), 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 you a New Testament.” (Jer. 31:31.) 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.

Homily XX on Acts ix. 10, 12.

Homily XX.

Acts 9:10; Acts 9:12

“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?[112] 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.” (Acts 9:13.) 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.” (Acts 9:14.) 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 10:26.) 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 to speak of our achievements. And,[113] 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.” (Acts 9:15–16.) “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.[114] “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.” (Acts 9:17.) As he said this, he laid his hands upon him. “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales.” (Acts 9:18.) 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: (Acts 9:8) which was just his case in respect of the Law, until[115] the Name of Jesus was put on him. “And he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And having taken food, he recovered strength.” (Acts 9:19.) 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,[116] that He is the Son of God.” (Acts 9:20.) 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. Even[117] 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.” (Acts 9:21–22.) 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.[118]

(Recapitulation.) But let us look at what relates to Ananias.[119] The Lord said not to him, Converse with him, and catechize him. For if, when He said, “He prayeth, and hath seen a man laying his hands upon him,” (Acts 9:11–12.) He did not persuade him, much less had He said this. So that he shall not disbelieve thee, “he hath seen in a vision.” Observe how in the former instance neither is Philip told all immediately. Fear not, He saith: “for this man is a chosen vessel for Me. (Acts 9:15.) He more than sufficiently released him of his fear, if the case be so that this man shall be so zealous in our cause, as even to suffer many things. And justly he is called “a vessel” (or, instrument)—for reason shows that evil is not a physical quality: “a vessel of election” (or, chosen instrument), He saith; for we choose that which is approved. And let not any imagine, that (Ananias) speaks in unbelief of what was told him, as imagining that Christ was deceived: far from it! but affrighted and trembling, he did not even attend to what was said, at hearing the name of Paul. Moreover, the Lord does not tell that He has blinded him: at the mention of his name fear had prepossessed his soul: “see,” he says, “to whom Thou art betraying me: ‘and hither for this very purpose is he come, to bind all that call upon Thy Name.’ I fear, lest he take me to Jerusalem: why dost Thou cast me into the mouth of the lion?” He is terrified, even while he speaks these words; that from every quarter we may learn the energetic character (ἀρετήν) of the man. For that these things should be spoken by Jews, were nothing wonderful: but that these (the believers) are so terrified, it is a most mighty proof of the power of God. Both the fear is shown, and the obedience greater after the fear. For there was indeed need of strength. Since He says, “a vessel of election,” that thou mayest not imagine that God is to do all, He adds, “to bear My Name before Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel. Ananias has heard what he most desired—that against the Jews also he will take his stand: this above all gave him courage. “For I,” saith He, “will show him how great things he must suffer for My Name’s sake.” At the same time also this is said by way of putting Ananias to the blush: If he, that was so frantic, shall suffer all things, and thou not willing even to baptize him! “It is well,” saith he: “let him continue blind” (this[120] is why he says these words): “he is blind: why dost Thou at all bid me open his eyes, that he may bind (men) again?” Fear not the future: for that opening of his eyes he will use not against you, but for you (with reference to that saying, “That he may receive his sight” (Acts 9:12), these words are spoken): for not only will he do you no harm, but he “will suffer many things.” And what is wonderful indeed is,[121] that he shall first know “how great things he shall suffer,” and then shall take the field against the perils.—“Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus”—he saith not, “Who made thee blind,” but, “Who appeared with thee in the way, hath sent me unto thee that thou mayest receive thy sight” (Acts 9:17): observe this man also, how he utters nothing boastful, but just as Peter said in the case of the lame man, “Why look ye on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made him to walk,” (Acts 3:12) so here also he saith, “Jesus, Who appeared unto thee.” (b) Or,[122] (he saith it) that the other may believe: and he saith not, He that was crucified, the Son of God, He that doeth wonders: but what? “He that appeared unto thee:” (speaking) from what the other knew: as Christ also added no more, neither said, I am Jesus, the Crucified, the Risen: but what? “Whom thou persecutest.” Ananias said not, “The persecuted,” that he may not seem as it were to rave over him (ἐπενθουσί& 139·ν), to deride him, “Who appeared unto thee in the way:” and yet He did not (visibly) appear, but was seen by the things done. And immediately he added, wishing to draw a veil over the accusation: “That thou mayest receive thy sight.” I came not to reprove the past, but to bestow the gift: “that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” (a) With hands laid on, he spake these words. “And immediately there fell from his eyes,” etc. (Acts 9:18): a double blindness is removed.—And why saith it, “Having taken food, he was strengthened?” (Acts 9:19.) Because they that are in such case become relaxed: he had no heart to partake of food before, until he obtained the mighty gifts. (c) It seems to me, that both Paul and Cornelius, at the very instant when the words were spoken, received the Spirit. And yet (in this case) the giver was no great one. So true is it, that there was naught of man’s in the things done, nor aught was done by man, but God was present, the Doer of these things. And at the same time (the Lord) both teaches him to think modestly of himself, in that He does not bring him to the Apostles who were so admired, and shows that there is nothing of man here. He was not filled, however, with the Spirit which works signs: that in this way also his faith might be shown; for he wrought no miracles. “And straightway,” it says, “in the synagogues he preached Jesus”—(Acts 9:20) not that He is risen—not this: no, nor that He liveth: but what? immediately he strictly expounded the doctrine—“that this is the Son of God. And all that heard him were amazed,” etc. (Acts 9:21.) They were reduced to utter incredulity. And yet they ought not to have wondered only, but to worship and reverence. “Is not this he,” etc. He had not merely been a persecutor, but “destroyed them which called on this Name”—they did not say, “on Jesus;” for hatred, they could not bear even to hear His name—and what is more marvellous still, “and came hither for this purpose,” etc. “We cannot say, that he associated with the Apostles before.” See by how many (witnesses) he is confessed to have been of the number of the enemies! But Paul not only was not confounded by these things, nor hid his face for shame, but “increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews” (Acts 9:22), i.e. put them to silence, left them nothing to say for themselves, “proving, that this is very Christ.” “Teaching,” it says: for this man was a teacher.

“And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him.”[123] (Acts 9:23.) The Jews again resort to that valid argument (ἰσχυρὸν συλλογισμόν) of theirs, not now seeking false-accusers and false-witnesses; they cannot wait for these now: but what do they? They set about it by themselves. For as they see the affair on the increase, they do not even use the form of a trial. “But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.” (Acts 9:24.) For this was more intolerable to them than the miracles which had taken place—than the five thousand, the three thousand, than everything, in short. And observe him, how he is delivered, not by (miraculous) grace, but by man’s wisdom—not as the apostles were—(ἐκεἴνοι, Acts 5:19) that thou mayest learn the energetic (ἀρετὴν) character of the man, how he shines even without miracles. “Then the disciples took him by night,” that the affair might not be suspected, “and let him down by the wall in a basket.”[124] (Acts 9:25.) What then? having escaped such a danger, does he flee? By no means, but goes where he kindled them to greater rage.

(Recapitulation, Acts 9:20–21.) “And straightway in the synagogues he preached Jesus”—for he was accurate in the faith—“that this is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed,” etc., for indeed it was incredible. “But Saul increased,” etc. Therefore “after many days” this happens: viz. the Jews “took counsel to kill him. And their laying await was known of Saul.” (Acts 22.) What does this mean? It is likely that for awhile he did not choose to depart thence, though many, perhaps, besought him; but when he learnt it, then he permitted his disciples: for he had disciples immediately.

“Then the disciples,” etc. (Acts 9:25.) Of this occurrence he says: “The ethnarch of Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desiring to apprehend me.” (2 Cor. 11:32.) But observe the Writer here,[125] that he does not tell the story ambitiously, and so as to show what an important person Paul was, saying, “For they stirred up the king,” and so forth: but only, “Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall—in a basket:” for they sent him out alone, and none with him. And it was well they did this: the consequence being, that he showed himself to the Apostles in Jerusalem. Now they sent him out, as bound to provide for his safety by flight: but he did just the contrary—he leaped into the midst of those who were mad against him. This it is to be on fire, this to be fervent indeed! From that day forth he knew all the commands which the Apostles had heard: “Except a man take up his cross, and follow Me.” (Matt. 10:38.) The very fact that he had been slower to come than the rest made him more zealous: for “to whom much is forgiven” (Luke 7:47) the same will love more, so that the later he came, the more he loved: * * *[126] and having done ten thousand wrongs, he thought he could never do enough to cast the former deeds into the shade. “Proving” (Acts 9:22), it says: i.e. with mildness teaching. And observe, they did not say to him, Thou art he that destroyed: why art thou changed? for they were ashamed: but they said it to themselves. For he would have said to them, This very thing ought to teach you, as in fact he does thus plead in his speech before Agrippa. Let us imitate this, man: let us bear our souls in our hands ready to confront all dangers.—(That he fled from Damascus) this was no cowardice:[127] he preserved himself for the preaching. Had he been a coward, he would not have gone to Jerusalem, would not immediately have commenced teaching: he would have abated somewhat of his vehemence: for he had been taught by the fate of Stephen. He was no coward, but he was also prudent (οἰκονομικός) (in husbanding himself). Wherefore he thought it no great thing to die for the Gospel’s sake, unless he should do this to great advantage: willing not even to see Christ, Whom most of all he longed to see, while the work of his stewardship among men was not yet complete. (Phil. 1:23–24). Such ought to be the soul of a Christian. From[128] his first appearance from the very outset, the character of Paul declared itself: nay even before this, even in the things which he did “not according to knowledge” (Rom. 10:2), it was not by man’s reasoning that he was moved to act as he did.[129] For if, so long afterwards, he was content not to depart, much more at the beginning of his trading voyage, when he had but just left the harbor! Many things Christ leaves to be done by (ordinary) human wisdom, that we may learn that (his disciples) were men, that it was not all everywhere to be done by grace: for otherwise they would have been mere motionless logs: but in many things they managed matters themselves.—This is not less than martyrdom,—to shrink from no suffering for the sake of the salvation of the many. Nothing so delights God. Again will I repeat what I have often said: and I repeat it, because I do exceedingly desire it: as Christ also did the same, when discoursing concerning forgiveness: “When ye pray, forgive if ye have aught against any man:” (Mark 11:25.) and again to Peter He said, “I say not unto thee, Forgive until seven times, but until seventy-times seven.” (Matt. 18:22.) And Himself in fact forgives the transgressions against Him. So do we also, because we know that this is the very goal of Christianity, continually discourse thereof. Nothing is more frigid than a Christian, who cares not for the salvation of others. Thou canst not here plead poverty: for she that cast down the two mites, shall be thine accuser. (Luke 21:1.) And Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none.” (Acts 3:6.) And Paul was so poor, that he was often hungered, and wanted necessary food. Thou canst not plead lowness of birth: for they too were ignoble men, and of ignoble parents. Thou canst not allege want of education: for they too were “unlearned men.” (Acts 4:13.) Even if thou be a slave therefore and a runaway slave, thou canst perform thy part: for such was Onesimus: yet see to what Paul calls him, and to how great honor he advances him: “that he may communicate with me,” he says, “in my bonds.” (Phlm. 5:13.) Thou canst not plead infirmity: for such was Timothy, having often infirmities; for, says the apostle, “Use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake, and thine often infirmities.” (1 Tim. 5:23.) Every one can profit his neighbor, if he will fulfil his part. See ye not the unfruitful trees, how strong they are, how fair, how large also, and smooth, and of great height? But if we had a garden; we should much rather have pomegranates, or fruitful olive trees: for the others are for delight to the eye, not for profit, which in them is but small. Such are those men who only consider their own interest: nay, not such even since these persons are fit only for burning: whereas those trees are useful both for building and for the safety of those within. Such too were those Virgins, chaste indeed, and decent, and modest, but profitable to none (Matt. 25:1) wherefore they are burned. Such are they who have not nourished Christ. For observe that none of those are charged with particular sins of their own, with fornication, for instance, or with perjury; in short, with no sin but the having been of no use to another. Such was he who buried his talent, showing indeed a blameless life, but not being useful to another. (Matt. 25:25.) How can such an one be a Christian? Say, if the leaven being mixed up with the flour did not change the whole into its own nature, would such a thing be leaven? Again, if a perfume shed no sweet odor on those who approach it, could we call it a perfume? Say not, “It is impossible for me to induce others (to become Christians)”—for if thou art a Christian, it is impossible but that it should be so. For as the natural properties of things cannot be gainsaid, so it is here: the thing is part of the very nature of the Christian. Do not insult God. To say, that the sun cannot shine, would be to insult Him: to say that a Christian cannot do good, is to insult God, and call Him a liar. For it is easier for the sun not to give heat, nor to shine, than for the Christian not to send forth light: it is easier for the light to be darkness, than for this to be so. Tell me not that it is impossible: the contrary is the impossible. Do not insult God. If we once get our own affairs in a right state, the other will certainly follow as a natural and necessary consequence. It is not possible for the light of a Christian to be hid; not possible for a lamp so conspicuous as that to be concealed. Let us not be careless. For, as the profit from virtue reaches both to ourselves, and to those who are benefited by it: so from vice there is a two-fold loss, reaching both to ourselves, and to those who are injured by it. Let there be (if you will) some private man, who has suffered numberless ills from some one, and let no one take his part, yet let that man still return good offices; what teaching so mighty as this? What words, or what exhortations could equal it? What wrath were it not enough to extinguish and soften? Knowing therefore these things, let us hold fast to virtue, as knowing that it is not possible to be saved otherwise, than by passing through this present life in doing these good works, that we may also obtain the good things which are to come, 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.

Homily XXI on Acts ix. 26, 27.

Homily XXI.

Acts 9:26–27

“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. 1:17), (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:”[130] or else, that the laying await for him in Damascus was after his return from Arabia;[131] 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 being[132] 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,[133] he 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. 2:1) or else he means a different occasion. (Acts 11:30.)[134] 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 Acts 22:17–21) 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.[135] He[136] was no longer a wild beast, but a man mild and gentle! And observe 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” (Acts 11:24), 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.”[137] (Acts 15:39.) 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” (Acts 9:28): 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.” (Acts 9:29.) 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 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” (Acts 9:30), 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; so[138] to cut off the excuse of idle people: for if it was so in the case of Paul, much more in theirs.[139] “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.”[140] (Acts 9:31.) 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. Paul[141] departed, and there 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.” (Acts 9:32.) 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 (Acts 1:15; Acts 2:15; Acts 3:4–12; Acts 4:8; Acts 5:3–15.): when healings were wrought by the shadow, still it was he. And look: where there was danger, he was the man, and where good[142] 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.” (Acts 9:33–34.) 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.” (Acts 9:35.) 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. (Acts 3:6.) 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” (Acts 5:15); for many miracles had been wrought there; but here this is the first that 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.” (Acts 9:36–38). Why did they wait till she was dead? Why was not Peter solicited (ἐσκύλη) before this? So right-minded (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, seeing[143] 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.” (Acts 9:39.) They do not beseech, but leave it to him to give her life (σωτηρίαν.) See[144] 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, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.” (Acts 9:40.) 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. “And[145] he gave her his hand.” (Acts 9:41.) 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.” (Acts 9:42–43.) 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;”[146] 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, Acts 9:26.) He did not come up to them unabashed, but with a subdued manner. “Disciples”[147] 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. (Acts 9:27.)—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.” (Acts 9:28–29.) This gave them all confidence. “But they went about to slay him: which when the brethren knew” etc. (Acts 9:30.) 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) 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.—So[148] 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. (Acts 9:32–34.)[149] 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,” but[150] 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. (Acts 9:35–36.) 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 together. Not a word of wailing there, nor of mourning. See[151] 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.” (Acts 9:40.) 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.” (Acts 9:42.) 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.

[152] 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 celebrating. Say,[153] 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 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,[154] 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 one[155] 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 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 14:21.) 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 if[156] 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. 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,[157] 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,[158] wishing us to be benefited one by the other. See: he is benefited, thou art benefited: 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 general 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?”[159] 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 sense[160] that we make mention of martyrs, and this, 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.

Homily XXII on Acts x. 1-4.

Homily XXII.

Acts 10:1–4

“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.[161] 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,[162] and his reading on his road, and while 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.” (Acts 10:1.) A “band,” σπεἵρα, is what we now call a “numerous.”[163] “A devout man,” he says, “and one that feared God with all his house” (Acts 10:2): 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:[164] 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.” (Acts 10:3.) 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.” (Acts 10:4.) 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 send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter.” (Acts 10:5.) 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.” (Acts 10:6.) 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. “And[165] 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.” (Acts 10:7–8.) 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” (Acts 10:9.)—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.” (Acts 10:10.) What means this expression,[166] ἔκστασις, “trance?” 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.” (Acts 10:11–16.) What is this? It is a symbol of the whole world. The[167] man was uncircumcised: and —for he had nothing in common with the Jews—they would all accuse him as a transgressor: “thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them: (Acts 11:3)” this[168] 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. I[169] 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.” (Acts 11:8; Acts 10:14.) 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.[170] The earth then, this is what the linen sheet denotes, and the wild beasts in it, are they of the Gentiles, 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! Wherefore[171] 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.”[172] And yet it was the same (Lord) that had discoursed above (in the Law) concerning things clean and unclean. But in that sheet were also “all the four-footed beasts of the earth:” the clean with the unclean. And[173] 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” (Acts 10:17–18), 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; Acts 10:19–20.) 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.” (Acts 10:21–22.) They speak his praises, so as to persuade him that an Angel has in fact appeared unto him. “Then called he them in,”[174] (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.” (Acts 10:23–24.) 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, Acts 10:1–2.) 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! But[175] mark the greatness of the assurance. (c) To this end[176] 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. (Acts 10:3). It was not in his sleep that the Angel appeared to him, but while he was awake, in the daytime, “about the ninth hour. He[177] 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.[178] 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.” (Acts 10:5.) So far, he signified that the sending for him would be for good consequences, but in what way good, he did not intimate.[179] 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. “And[180] as they went on their journey, and drew nigh to the city” (Acts 10:9): 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.” (Acts 10:13.) Probably he was on his knees when he saw the vision.—To me[181] 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 the cleanness (imparted to them).—But why is this done? For[182] 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. 10:5.) * * 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 16:3; Acts 21:16.)—Observe[183] 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.” (Acts 10:18.) As it was a mean looking house, they asked below, they inquired[184] 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.” (Acts 10:19–20.) And he does not say, For to this end did the vision appear unto thee; but, “I have sent them. Then Peter went down” (Acts 10:21)—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:[185] what is the cause wherefore ye are come?” He saw a soldier, saw a man:[186] 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. “And[187] they said, etc. into his house.” (Acts 10:22.) 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.” (Acts 10:24.) It was right that his kinsmen and friends should be gathered to him. But being there present,[188] 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” (Acts 10:2; Acts 10:22); and what is more[189] 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. And[190] over the domestics too, so * *. Not so this man; but he was “one that feared God with all his house” (Acts 10:2), 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. 2:10); 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 4:14): 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 9:44.) 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,[191] it quenches all.—A fountain does 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. And[192] 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 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. 6:17), 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.

References

  1. ↑ 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.

  2. ↑ ῞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.

  3. ↑ The relation of Acts 7:6–7; Acts 7:5 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. 15:13–14) 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.

  4. ↑ 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).”

  5. ↑ 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.

  6. ↑ 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 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.”

  7. ↑ 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, Acts 7:24, who is here supposed to be one of the parties in the strife mentioned in Acts 7:26. 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.

  8. ↑ 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.

  9. ↑ 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.

  10. ↑ Edd. from E. D. F. “how they exhibited a great (example of) philosophy.”

  11. ↑ 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.”

  12. ↑ 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.

  13. ↑ 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).”

  14. ↑ 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. 41:42–43, 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.

  15. ↑ The reading of τοῦ Συχέμ (T. R.), doubtless meaning the “father of Sychem” (Gen. 33:19), is replaced by Tisch., W. and H. (after א. 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.

  16. ↑ καὶ παιδεί& 139· καὶ γράμμασιν, as the comment on ἐπαιδεύθη Acts 7:22, 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.

  17. ↑ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, B. C. F. D. N. but A. E. Edd. ἐπὶ τούτου “in the case of this man.” So perhaps Œcumen. 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.

  18. ↑ So A. B. N. Cat. (in C. the sentence ῎Ιδου—᾽Ιακὼβ is omitted by an oversight caused by the homœoteleuton ᾽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.”

  19. ↑ 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.”

  20. ↑ 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.”

  21. ↑ 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.

  22. ↑ 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.”

  23. ↑ 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.’”

  24. ↑ Edd. from E. “in the sea, under a violent storm in winter,” and below, “the fishes floating at top, dead, which by reason of the cold had not power to sink to the bottom.”

  25. ↑ 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.

  26. ↑ The meaning of Acts 7:38 is that Moses became (γενόμενος) a mediator between God (represented by the Angel) and the people. Cf. Gal. 3:19 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 Exod. 19. the first mention of angels in connection with the giving of the law being in a highly poetic passage in Moses’ benediction, Deut. 33:2. (Even here the Heb. text is uncertain. Cf. the lxx. in loco). The function of angels in the giving of the 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 7:53; Heb. 2:2). See Lightfoot on Gal. 2:19.—G.B.S.

  27. ↑ By λόγια ζῶντα are meant living oracles in the sense of operative, effectual, as Jesus affirmed his words to be “spirit and life” (John 6:63). They contain vital truth. The law was indeed “weak” (Rom. 8:3) 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.

  28. ↑ It is not probable that this passage (Acts 7:39–40) 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 (Exod. 32:4; 1 Kgs. 12:28). It seems clearly implied in Ezek. 20:7–8; Ezek. 20:24, 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.

  29. ↑ ῎Ενθα μὲν εὐχαριστεῖν ἔδει, A, B, C. D. F., but N. and Cat. ἀχαριστεῖν.—Ε. Καὶ ἔνφα μὲν αὐτοὺς ἀχαριστεῖν ἦν. Edd. εὐχ.

  30. ↑ 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 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.”

  31. ↑ 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. (Isa. 1:11, 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.”)

  32. ↑ Our passage here follows the lxx. which speaks of Moloch and Remphan. The terms in the original (vid. R.V.: Amos 5:25–27) 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 (Acts 7:43) to lay emphasis upon the charge of idolatry, and in replacing Damascus by Babylon (Acts 7:43), 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. 18:21, and Deut. 18:10. 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.

  33. ↑ 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.

  34. ↑ 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. 25:22; Num. 9:15.—G.B.S.

  35. ↑ 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.

  36. ↑ 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 Œc. 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.

  37. ↑ ᾽Αγγέλων (Acts 7:53) 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. 3:19; Heb. 2:2) and is prominent in later Jewish theology (Cf. Josephus, Ant. XV. v. 3) Vid. note *, p. 107.—G.B.S.

  38. ↑ 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.

  39. ↑ 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.

  40. ↑ 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 which should have been our safeguard will prove a bane to us.”—Perhaps this is the sense intended in the old reading; but if so, καὶ οὕτω is unsuitable.

  41. ↑ 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.

  42. ↑ 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.—Œcumenius, 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.

  43. ↑ τοῦτο δὲ εὐσεβείας ἦν τὸ ῥ& 210·μα. i.e. all that Stephen had spoken in accusation of their wickedness, especially Acts 7:51–53, 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 γένηται. They had desired to injure his reputation for sanctity, and now feared that his speech would have the opposite result.

  44. ↑ 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.”

  45. ↑ A. E. N. Cat. omit the τὸν Θεόν.

  46. ↑ 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.

  47. ↑ ὅτι τῇ χάριτι μόνον κατώρθουν. Or, “that by grace they only succeeded,” i.e. always, without failure.

  48. ↑ 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. Acts 2:5; Luke 2:25) in every case, except in Acts 22:12when it refers to Ananias, a Christian, but is used in describing him in a legal point of 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 19:38–39).—G.B.S.

  49. ↑ 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.

  50. ↑ 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.” Œcumen, repeats this, almost in the same words.

  51. ↑ In the old text, Acts 8:4–10, are given continuously, and Acts 8:11–19; between them the brief comments which we have restored to their proper places, viz. here and after Acts 8:15: and after Acts 8:19, the comment which we have placed after Acts 8:17. In the modern text, the first comment (omitting λέγων εἶναι κ. τ. λ.) is placed after Acts 8:10; in the second, the words, καὶ σημεῖα μεγάλα ἐγένετο, are omitted; the rest is given after Acts 8:19.

  52. ↑ The modern text E. F. D. Edd. “But although the persecution then most gained strength, nevertheless God again delivered them, ἐπιτείχισας αὐτοῖς τὰ σημεῖα. Stephen’s death, however, did not quench their rage, nay, increased it rather, wherefore also the teachers, etc. But observe again how good things take their turn with them, and how they are in joy. ‘For there was great joy,’ it says, ‘in that city.’ And yet there had also been ‘great lamentation.’ Thus is God ever wont to do, and to temper things grievous with things joyful, that He may be more held in admiration. But of a long time had this disease been upon Simon; wherefore not even thus is he rid of it.” But in the genuine text, (A. B. C. N. Cat. ad. v. 15–17, and 3, 4.) the subject to ἐξείλετο and ἐπετείχισε is not Θεὸς, but διωγμὸς: and the persons delivered are not the disciples, but the Samaritans, described as προκατεχόμενοι, viz. under the influence of Simon’s sorceries. In the last sentence, the meaning is entirely mistaken: for the νόσημα is the infatuation of the Samaritans, not the wickedness of Simon.—᾽Επετείχισε γὰρ αὐτοῖς τὰ σημεῖα can hardly be rendered without an awkward periphrasis: ἐπιτειχ. τί τινι, a phrase frequently used by St. Chrys., means to raise up something against a person as an ἐπιτείχισμα, (as Decelea in Attica against the Athenians in the Peloponnesian war:) see Mr. Field’s Index to Hom. in Matt.

  53. ↑ So A. B. C. N. Cat. Of the Edd., Savile alone retains this clause, the rest follow the mod. text, which rejects it. And indeed it can hardly be doubted, that St. Chrys. himself would have expunged, or altered this statement, had he revised these Homilies: for in the next Hom. he shows that the Philip of Acts 8:26–40 was certainly not the Apostle, but probably one of the seven deacons. The fact seems to be, that having had no occasion until now to discuss this question, he had assumed (as others had done before him) that the Philip of the Eunuch’s history was the Apostle of that name: thus in Hom. ad Gen. xxxv. §2 (delivered but a few years before), he takes this for granted. Here, however, he perceives that the Philip who preached at Samaria could not be the Apostle: but at present he is still under the impression, that the person by whom the Eunuch was converted was St. Philip the Apostle, and accordingly speaks as in the text, “This Philip, I take it, was one of the Seven; he of the story of the Eunuch was one of the Apostles.” Of course it was impossible on a review of the circumstances to rest in this conclusion; and in the very beginning of the next Homily he tacitly revokes the notion here advanced, and points out how the command, “Arise, and go to the south,” must have been addressed to Philip in Samaria (the deacon), and not Philip the Apostle in Jerusalem. (See the note there.) The early writers frequently confound the Philip of this chapter (the deacon and evangelist, Acts 21:9, with the Apostle: Polycrates ap. Eus. H. E. iii. 30, and v. 24, (see Vales and Heinichen on the former passage.) Const. Apol. vi. 7. S. Clementine Strom. iii. p. 192. Comp. St. Augustin Serm. 266. §5.—S. Isadore of Pelusium, Ep. 448, in reply to a correspondent who was not satisfied with his statement (Ep. 447), that “Philip who baptized the Eunuch and catechized Simon was not the Apostle, but one of the Seven,” and requested proof from Scripture (᾽Επειδὴ καὶ μαρτυρίαν ζητεῖς γραφικήν.…᾽Επειδὴ πολλῶν ἀποδειξέων ἐρᾷς,) bids him observe, ch. viii. 1. that the Apostles remained at Jerusalem: that Philip the Apostle would have been competent to impart the gift of the Spirit: and further suggests, that Philip the deacon, fleeing from the persecution, was on his way through Samaria to Cæsarea his native place, (where we afterwards find him Acts 21:9), when these events befell, viz. the preaching, etc., at Samaria, and the conversion of the Eunuch.—In the next sentence, ἐκεῖνοι (i.e. the Apostles) οὐκ ἐξῄεσαν· ᾠκονομήθη τούτους (i.e. Philip the deacon and others) ἐξελθεῖν· καὶ ἐκείνους (the Apostles) ὑστερῆσαι: “should come after,” or rather, “should be lacking, be behindhand, not be forthcoming (at the time):” but Cat. καὶ ἐκείνους ἑτέρως, “and those (the Apostles) otherwise.”—The modern text, after “next to Stephen,” proceeds thus: “Wherefore also, when baptizing, he did not impart the Spirit to the baptized, for neither had he authority to do so, since the gift belonged only to the Twelve. But observe; those went not forth; it was Providentially ordered that these should go forth, οἳ καὶ ὑστέρουν τῆς χάριτος διὰ τὸ μήπω λαβεῖν Πν. & 169·Α., who were deficient in the grace because they had not yet received the Holy Ghost. For they received power, etc. Consequently, this was the prerogative of the Apostles.”

  54. ↑ Καὶ ὅρα τοὺς κορυφαίους οὐκ ἄλλους τινὰς ἀλλὰ Πέτρον. B. C. D. F. N. Cat. but A. adds, seemingly from a marginal gloss, καὶ ᾽Ιωάννην μὴν, “and John, however,” E. (Edd.) ὅθεν καὶ τοὺς κορ. οὐκ ἄλλους τινὰς ἔστιν ἰδεῖν τοῦτο ποιοῦντας. “Whence also the leaders, not any others, are to be seen doing this.”

  55. ↑ Οὐκ ἂν δὲ εἶπεν, A. B. D. F. οὐκ ἂν δίδοται τότε εἶπεν, C. οὐκ ἂν εἶδεν, Cat. Sav. marg. ἴδενN. Read, οὐκ ἂν “ἰδὼν δὲ” εἶπεν.—E. οὐκ ἂν οὕτως εἶπεν.

  56. ↑ Chrys. appropriately remarks that the word ἰδὼν (Acts 8:18) implies that there were visible manifestations connected with the gifts of the Spirit here spoken of. This would seem to show that when it said (Acts 8:16) that the Holy Spirit had not fallen upon any of the Samaritans, that the ordinary influences of the Spirit which accompany conversion, were not referred to, but some special and miraculous endowments such as the gift of tongues, and of prophecy and perhaps of miracles were meant.—G.B.S.

  57. ↑ Καὶ τοῦτο ἀφοσιώσει (μόνον add. D. F.) ἐποίει, δεὸν κλαῦσαι καὶ πενθῆσαι. Cat. ἀφοσιωμένως, l. ἀφοσιουμένως, “as a mere formal ceremony ominis causa.”

  58. ↑ What follows, to the end of the Exposition, has by some accident fallen into strange confusion. In the Translation we have endeavored to restore the proper order. In the first place it should be observed, that the portion beginning Οἱ μὲν διαμαρτυράμενοι, p. 148. D. Ben. and ending at ὅτε πρῶτον ἐπίστευσαν, p. 149. A. consisting of about 20 lines, is interchanged with the portion of about 25 lines, beginning Δεὸν οὖν τοῦτον, and ending ἐκεῖ τοῦ ἀποστόλου, p 149, C. These being restored to their proper order, which is evident from the contents of the two portions, we have, to the end of the Recapitulation, two portions, dividing at οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἑλεῖν τοὺς ἀποστόλους (ἐξίστατο,) p. 148, B. the former beginning with the exposition of Acts 8:4, the second with Acts 8:7, and both ending at Acts 8:24. These, it may be supposed, are two several and successive expositions. But it will be seen on comparing them, that each in itself is often abrupt and incomplete, and that their parts fit into each other in a way which can hardly be accidental. It may also be remarked, that the length of each is the same; each containing about 46 lines. We have marked the order of the mss. and Edd. by the letters a, b, prefixed to the several parts.

  59. ↑ This sentence alone seems still to be out of its place. ᾽Επειδὴ δὲ ἀντιστῆναι οὐκ ἴσχυσεν κ. τ. λ. might be very fitly inserted in the passage below, ending οὐκ ἴσχ. ἑλεῖν τ. ἀπ. which is otherwise mutilated: see the note there.

  60. ↑ Between this and the following sentence the mss. and Edd. give the exposition of Acts 8:25.

  61. ↑ Εἰ γὰρ μετὰ ἀφελείας ἐγίνετο, καὶ κἂν F.) ἀπεδέξατο (ἀπεδέξαντο C. F.) αὐτοῦ τὴν προθυμίαν. B. C. F. The preceding sentence from (a) is καὶ μὴν ἀφελῆ ἔδει εἶναι. The connection being lost, this passage was not understood, and A. omits it, B. F. N. read ἀσφάλειας, and E. D. substitute, “If however he had come (προσῆλθεν) as he ought to have come, he would have been received, he would not like a pest have been driven away.”

  62. ↑ ῞Ορα αὐτὸν μιαρὸν ὄντα. The modern text (Edd.) alters the sense: ὅρα πῶς, καίτοι μιαρὸς ὢν, ὅμως. “See how, miscreant though he is, nevertheless, etc.”

  63. ↑ Simon believed (Acts 8:13) only in an intellectual sense, being impressed with wonder, rather than convinced of sin. So, now, it is fear of calamity and penalty, not repentance, which leads him to ask the apostles to pray for him.—G.B.S.

  64. ↑ Θεωρῶν αὐτοῦ τὰ σημεῖα, ἐνόμιζε δύνασθαι λανθάνειν· ἐνόμιζε τεχνην εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα· ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐκ ἴσχυσὲν ἰδεῖν (Sav. marg. ἑλεῖν) τοὺς ἀποστόλους, ἐξίστατο καὶ προσῆλθεν. A. B. C. This, which is the conclusion of (a), is both corrupt and defective. He is enlarging upon the μιαρία of Simon’s conduct, as shown in the preceding ὅτε ἠλέγχθη.…ὅτε πάλιν ἠλέγχθη: comp. the following sentence. It looks as if the sentence ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἀντιστῆναι οὐκ ἴσχυσεν κ. τ. λ. must belong to this place. The reading ἑλεῖν τ. ἀπ. is probably the true one: ὅτι ἑ& 128·λω is twice said of Simon. Perhaps the passage may be restored somewhat thus: “Seeing his miracles, he was amazed, and came over.” He thought to escape detection, he thought the thing was an art: but when he had not power to resist, he plays the hypocrite, as the magicians did, who said, “This is the finger of God. Having seen the Apostles,” (hence the reading ἰδεῖν τ. ἀπ.) how by laying on of hands etc.; again he thought it was an art, he thought to purchase it with money: but when he was not able to defeat the Apostles (as it was said above, “he wished to get matter of accusation against them,”) again he plays the hypocrite, and says, “Pray ye for me. etc.”—Edd. from E. “Seeing signs wrought he was amazed, showing that all was a lie (on his part). It is not said, Προσῆλθεν, but, ᾽Εξίστατο. And why did he not do the former at once? He thought to be able, etc. ἐπειδη δὲ οὐκ ἴσχυσε λαθεῖν τ. ἀπ., προσῆλθεν.”

  65. ↑ ἄλλως δέ, καὶ τύπον αὐτοῖς ἐδεδώκει τοτε, ὅτε οἱ Σαμαρεῖται ἐπίστευσαν. A. B. D. F. Sav. marg. But C. “to rid them of magic, to put them in mind of the doctrine which they learned from Christ when first they believed:” which reading is adopted by E. and Edd.

  66. ↑ The preaching of Philip in Samaria was the first Gentile mission, for the Samaritans were a mixed people and were regarded as heathen by the Jews. An interesting concatenation of events took its rise in the bold preaching of Stephen. On the one side there proceeded from this the increased opposition of the Jewish nation and the sad calamity of the preacher’s own death, but on the other there flowed from this opposition and the persecution which was consequent upon it great benefit. The Christians were indeed scattered abroad by ill-treatment, but with them went the gospel message, and the great work of heathen missions dated directly back to the martyrdom of Stephen. Christian history furnishes no more impressive illustration of the saying of Tertullian: “The blood of martyrs is seed.”—G.B.S.

  67. ↑ In St. Chrysostom’s time, little had been done for the conversion and instruction of the peasantry: hence in the latter half of the fourth century paganus came to be as synonymous with “heathen.” Even Christian proprietors neglected their duty in this regard, while they improved their properties, and swelled their revenues by great oppression of their tenants and laborers: see Hom. in Matt. xliii., lxi. and at the same time connived at the practice of the old idolatries, for the sake of the dues accruing to them from the temples which still remained. Thus Zeno of Verona, Serm. xv. p. 120, complains: In prædiis vestris fumantia undique sola fana non nostis, quæ, si vera dicenda sunt, dissimulanda subtiliter custoditis. Jus templorum ne quis vobis eripiat, quotidie litigatis. The Christianity which was outwardly professed in the country parts was often for want of Churches and Clergy little more than nominal: and the heathen orator Libanius, in his Oratio pro Templis, addressed to the Emperor Theodosius, perhaps did not greatly exaggerate in the following description: “When you are told, that through this proceeding on your part (viz. the destruction of the Temples and suppression of the sacrifices) many are become Christians, you must not forget to distinguish between show and reality. They are not a whit changed from what they were before: they only say they are so. They resort indeed to public acts of religion, and mingle themselves with the general body of Christians. But when they have a show of praying, they invoke either none or the Gods.”—Moreover, the country clergy were often themselves ill-taught and needing instruction. Thus Hom. in Col. (t. xi. p. 392) delivered at Constantinople, Chrys. says: “How much instruction is needed by your brethren in the country, and by their teachers (καὶ τοὺς ἐκείνων διδασκάλους)!” Which perhaps was the result of a law passed a.d. 398, Cod. Theodos. xvi. tit. 2 l. 33 which enacted, that the clergy for the Churches founded on states, or in villages, should be from no other state or village, but that to which the Church pertained: and of these a certain number, at the discretion of the bishop, according to the extent of the village, etc.—On the other hand, Chrys. “on the Statues,” Or, xix. t. ii. p. 189 dwells with much delight on the virtues and patriarchal simplicity of the rural clergy in Syria, and the Christian attainments of their people.

  68. ↑ ῾Ωσανεὶ γυναῖκα ἀγαγὼν ἢ νυμφην, ἢ θυγατέρα, τῇ ᾽Εκκλ. οὕτω διάκεισο. Before θυγ., A. B. F. N. insert καὶ, E. alone δοὺς, and so Edd. Perhaps we may read ὡσανεὶ νύμφῃ, ἢ γυν. ἀγ., ἢ δοὺς θυγ.

  69. ↑ “The first-fruits of corn and of grapes, or wine were presented as oblations at the Altar, and the elements for the Holy Eucharist thence taken. See Can. Apost. ii. Cod. Afr. c. 37. Concil. Trull. c. 28. In a Sermon of St. Chrys. on the Ascension, this peculiar usage is mentioned, that a handful of ears of corn in the beginning of harvest was brought to the Church, words of benediction spoken over them, and so the whole field was considered as blessed. ῞Οπερ γίνεται ἐπὶ τῶν πεδίων τῶν σταχυηφόρων, ὀλίγους τις στάχυας λαβὼν, καὶ μικρὸν δράγμα ποιήσας καὶ προσενεγκὼν τῷ Θεῷ, διὰ τοῦ μικροῦ πᾶσαν τὴν ἄρουραν εὐλογεῖ· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κ. τ. λ. (t. ii. 450. C.)” Neander.

  70. ↑ διὰ σέ. Erasm. propter te, Ben. pro te, but this would be ὑπὲρ σοῦ, as below where this benefit is mentioned, ὑπὲρ τοῦ κεκτημένου.

  71. ↑ αἴτιαι πλεονεξίας. Edd. from E. ἰταμούς· τὰ δὲ ἐνταῦθα πᾶν τοὐναντίον. “make them forward and impudent. But here all is just the reverse.” Below, ὡς εἰκόνα βαδίζοντα τοῦ ᾽Αβρ. in the sense above expressed, as if it had been βαδίζουσαν. E. has εἰς for ὡς, “walking after the likeness:” and Sav. marg, εἰς οἶκον βαδ. μετὰ τὸν ᾽Αβρ. “walking into his house after (the manner of) Abraham.”

  72. ↑ καὶ ῥ& 178·ψαι ἑαυτὸν ὕπτιον καὶ μετὰ τὴν αἰ& 240·ραν τὴν σωματικὴν καὶ λυχνικοῖς καὶ ἑωθινοῖς ὕμνοις παραγενέσθαι. This passage has perplexed scribes and editors. Αἰ& 240·ρα “a swing, swinging bed, hammock,” or, as here, “litter,” or rather, “a swinging in such a conveyance: after the swinging motion in his litter, pleasant and healthful for the body.” The meaning is: “without fatigue, lying at his ease on his back, he is borne to Church in his litter, and after this wholesome enjoyment for the body, gets good for his soul, in attending at evening and morning prayer. Ben. seipsumque projicere supinum, et post illam corpoream quietem: as if it related to taking rest in his bed, which is inconsistent with the scope of the description. Erasmus, et quiescere “in villa” securum, et habere “deambulationem” servientem corpori, “to sleep securely ‘in his villa,’ and to ‘take a walk’ which is good for the body.” Neander simply, und sich niederzuwerfen, “to prostrate himself,” (viz. on entering the Church)—overlooking both ὕπτιονand αἰ& 240·ραν σωμ. Of the mss. A., for καὶ ῥ& 178·ψαι κ. τ. λ. substitutes, καὶ μετὰ τροφὴν σωμ. “and after taking food for the body.” C. ex corr. gives ἑώανfor αἰ& 240·ραν, F. ὥραν, Sav. marg. “ὥρανal. ἑῴαν:” both unmeaning: N. ωραν with two letters erased before it; and B. καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐνάτην ὥραν τῆς σωματικῆς μεταλαβεῖν τροφῆς καὶ ἐν λυχν., “and after the ninth hour to partake of the food for the body, and to attend at evening and morning hymns:” quæ lectio non spernenda videtur,’ Ben. On the contrary, it is both needless and unsuitable, for the repast is mentioned afterwards. The “hymns” are the ψαλμὸς ἐπιλύχνιος s. λυχνικὸς, ad incensum lucernæ, which was Ps. 41 ψαλμὸς ἑωθινὸς, Ps. 63 St. Chrysost. in Ps. 40 and Constit. Apost. ii. 59, viii. 37.

  73. ↑ Συμβαίνει τινὰς εκ γειτόνων οἰκεῖν καὶ ἐπιτρόπους ἔχειν. Sav. marg. λέγειν. The meaning is not clearly expressed, but it seems to be this; “It chances that some important personage has an estate in your neighborhood, and occasionally resides there. His overseer informs him of your Church: he sends for your presbyter, invites him to his table, gains from him such information about your village, as he would never have acquired otherwise; for he thinks it beneath him even to call upon you. In this way, however, he learns that yours is a well-ordered village: and should any crime be committed in that part of the country by unknown persons no suspicion even will light upon your people; no troublesome inquisition will be held, no fine or penalty levied on your estate.” The v. 1. λέγειν cannot be the true reading, but something of this sort must be supplied: οἵ καὶ λέγουσιν αὐτῷ. It seems also that something is wanting between τινὰς and ἐκ γειτ. e.g. τινὰς ἐκ τῶν δυνατωτέρων ἐκ γειτ. οἰκεῖν. 3 ὅλως εἰ οὕτω ποιεῖς μὴ ποιήσῃς. Ben. Si omnino id facias, ne facias tamen. Neander, Wenn du so handelst, wirst du nichts thun, as if it were οὐ ποιήσεις.

  74. ↑ ὅλως εἰ οὕτω ποιεῖς μὴ ποιήσῃς. Ben. Si omnino id facias, ne facias tamen. Neander, Wenn du so handelst, wirst du nichts thun, as if it were οὐ ποιήσεις.

  75. ↑ 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.

  76. ↑ “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.

  77. ↑ ἀκρίβειαν. Below, ὁρᾷς ὅτι τὰ δόγματα ἀπηρτισμένα εἶχε. The Acts 8:37 (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.

  78. ↑ 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.”

  79. ↑ συναπελθεῖν (Œc. συμπαρελθεῖν) αὐτᾷ. As there is no αὐτὸν, the meaning seems to be as above expressed, not, “would have desired Philip to go with him.”

  80. ↑ 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.

  81. ↑ 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 blamed him?—The modern text:“—sufficient to persuade the learners to be roused up themselves also to the same zeal.”

  82. ↑ εὐχερῶς, ὅρα μεθ᾽ ὅσης ἀφθονίας. Cat. The mss. omit εὐχερῶς. He means, angelic manifestations.

  83. ↑ 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. 23:1) 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.

  84. ↑ 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 Acts 8:28 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.

  85. ↑ ἁρπάζει: but this, derived from Acts 8:39 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 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).”

  86. ↑ ῎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.

  87. ↑ 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 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 Acts 8:35 (So, Meyer, Hackett, and Thayer’s Lex.)

  88. ↑ 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 Acts 8:35 (So, Meyer, Hackett, and Thayer’s Lex.)

  89. ↑ ῍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.

  90. ↑ 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. Isa. 53.) 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.

  91. ↑ 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).”

  92. ↑ 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.

  93. ↑ ᾽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.

  94. ↑ The Acts 9:5–6 to πρὸς αὐτὸν, were absent from Chrysostom’s copy (and Cat. Œc. Theoph.) as from Codd. A. B. C. (of New Test.) and Laud’s Gr. and Lat. of Acts: but the last have the clause, σκληρόν σοι π. κ. λ. after διώκεις, Acts 9:4. 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 Acts 22:9. “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.”

  95. ↑ 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 26:15–16 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 1.; then after a while, Christ called them a second time, (see Hom. in Matt. xiv. §2) namely, to be fishers of men, Matt. 4. 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.

  96. ↑ ῎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 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?”

  97. ↑ ᾽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.

  98. ↑ Διά τι καὶ εἰς γεένναν ηὔξατο ἀπελθεῖν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ; The modern text substitutes, “that he wished even to be accursed (Rom. 9:2.) 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.)

  99. ↑ 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?’”

  100. ↑ The letters (a) (b) denote the order of the two parts in mss. and Edd.

  101. ↑ 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 Acts 8:32–33; Isa. 53:7–12.—“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.

  102. ↑ In the quotation the N.T. follows the LXX. (Isa. 53:7–8), 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 Isa. 53:8 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 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.

  103. ↑ 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.

  104. ↑ 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.

  105. ↑ 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.”

  106. ↑ 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.

  107. ↑ 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.

  108. ↑ 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.

  109. ↑ 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.”

  110. ↑ ῏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.”

  111. ↑ 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.”

  112. ↑ Œcumen. 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.

  113. ↑ 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.

  114. ↑ 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.”

  115. ↑ “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 εἶναι αἰτίας. “Some say that these were the cause of his blindness:” which is accepted by Edd.—And below, “lest any should imagine,” etc., where τις, E. bracketted by Sav., adopted by the other Edd. is due to the same hand.

  116. ↑ For Ιησοῦν (the reading accredited by the leading authorities in Acts 9:20) here and in the second exposition, E. alone has Χριστὸν (with text recept.) adopted by Edd.

  117. ↑ Καὶ εὐθέως ἐκ τροοιμίων, θανατῶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἦν viz. ch. vii. 58. C. has θανάτων, for which A. conjecturally substitutes θαύμαστος.

  118. ↑ The narratives given by Paul himself of his conversion in Acts 22 and Acts 26 as well as allusion to the subjects in his epistles, present some harmonistic difficulties, which have, however, been greatly exaggerated by a criticism which is unfavorable to the historical character of the Acts. The constant factors in all the accounts are: the light from heaven, the voice of Jesus and Saul’s answer, and the solemn charge commissioning Saul to bear the name of Christ to the Gentiles. In Acts 26. the interview with Ananias is omitted; in Acts 22. it is narrated, but the occasion of Ananias’ going to Saul is not given; in Acts 9. the Lord is represented as speaking to him and bidding him go, and it is affirmed that at the same time Saul has a vision of his coming. In Acts 22. the address of Ananias is considerably more extended than in Acts 9. Some minor points of difference have been noted, as: in Acts 9:7 it is said that Saul’s companions heard the voice but saw no one, while in Acts 22:9, it is said that they saw the light but heard not the voice of Him who spoke. The discrepancy is resolved by many by translating ἤκουσαν(Acts 22:9) “understood”—an admissable sense (so, Lechler, Hackett, Lange). It is certainly an unwarranted criticism which rejects the common matter of the various narratives upon the ground of such incidental variations in the traditions in which a great and mysterious experience has been preserved.—G.B.S.

  119. ↑ Σκεῦος δὲ καλεῖται δικαίως· δεικνύντος τοῦ λόγου ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι φυσικὴ ἡ κακία· σκεῦος, φησὶν, ἐκλογῆς· τὸ δόκιμον γὰρ ἐκλεγόμεθα. A. B. C. N. i.e. “Justly is he called a σκεῦος, for he is well-fitted for the work of Christ by his energy and earnestness. These need but to be turned to the right objects. It is contrary to right reason to say, that evil is a physical quality or essence, and therefore unchangeable. (See this argued Hom. lix. in Matt. p. 596.) A fit implement, therefore, and of no common kind: a σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς, of all others to be chosen, because of its approved suitableness for the purpose.” Thus St. Chrysostom constantly interprets this expression. Hom. xviii. in Rom. §6 t. ix. 638. “When the stars were created, the Angels admired: but this man Christ Himself admired, saying, A chosen vessel is this man to Me!” Comm. in c. 1. Gal. §9, t. x. 674 “Called me by His grace. Yet God saith, that He called Him, because of his virtue, (διὰ τὴν ἀρετήν,) saying, A chosen vessel, etc.: i.e. fit to do service, and do a great work…But Paul himself everywhere ascribes it all to grace.” Hom. iii. in 1 Tim. §1, t. xi. 562. “God, foreknowing what he would be before he began to preach, saith, A chosen vessel etc. For as they who in war bear the royal standard, the labarum as we call it, have need of much skill and bravery not to deliver it into the enemy’s hands, so they that bear the name of Christ,” etc. And de Compunct. ad Demetr. lib. i. §9, t. i. 138. “Since grace will have our part, (τὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν ζητεῖ,) therefore some it follows and abides with, from some it departs, and to the rest it never even reaches. And to show that God first examined well the bent of the will (προαίρεσις,) and thereupon gave the grace before this blessed man had done aught wonderful, hear what the Lord saith of him: A chosen vessel,” etc.—The modern text: “And having said Σκεῦος, so as to show that the evil in him (ἡ κακία αὐτοῦ) is not physical, He adds, ἐκλογῆς, to declare that he is also approved; for,” etc.—Œcumen. δείκνυσιν ὅτι οὐκ ἐστὶ φυσικὴ ἡ κακία αὐτῷ, “The Lord shows that vice is not natural to him.”

  120. ↑ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα λέγει: i.e. Ananias’ objection, (Acts 9:13) in fact comes to this: this was the feeling which prompted his words. The innovator substitutes, διὰ τοῦτο νῦν ἥμερος, ὅτι…“therefore is he now gentle, because he is blind:” E. Edd.—The meaning is; “In saying, ‘I will show him how much he shall suffer,’ etc. the Lord rebukes Ananias’ reluctance to baptize him, and restore his sight: his answer, ‘Lord, I have heard,’ etc. was in fact as good as saying, Let him remain blind, it is better so.” The parenthetic, πρὸς τὸ, ῞Ινα ἀναβλέψῃ, ταῦτα εἴρηται, looks like a marginal note of one who did not perceive the connection.—E. makes it, “To that saying, ‘That he may receive his sight,’ let this be added.”

  121. ↑ Καὶ τὸ δὴ θαυμαστὸν ὅτι πρότερον πείσεται, καὶ τότε. So all our mss. (Cat. τὸ πρ.) We conjecture the true reading to be, ὅτι πρότερον εἴσεται: “he shall first know,” viz. “how many things he must suffer,” etc. Acts 9:16.

  122. ↑ In the mss. and Edd. the portions here marked b, a, c, occur in the order a, b, c. The clause ἢ ὥστε πιστεῦσαι ἐκεῖνον being thus thrown out of its connection, perplexed the scribes: Cat. omits ἣ, “until he obtained the mighty gifts, so that he (ἐκεῖνον, Ananias?) believed.” A. E. F. D. reject the clause altogether. N. ὥστε καὶ π. ἐ.

  123. ↑ It is noticeable that in Acts 22:17, Paul is reported as connecting his going to Jerusalem directly with the narrative of his conversion, while in Gal. 1:16–17 he states that it was not until three years after his conversion that he went up to Jerusalem. The various notices can only be matched together on the view that the coming to Jerusalem mentioned in Acts 9:26 was the same as that of Gal. 1:18, and that this occurred about three years after his conversion. The ἡμέραι ἱκαναί of Acts 9:23 must therefore include the time spent in Arabia (Gal. 1:17)., after which Paul must have returned to Damascus, before going up to Jerusalem. In this way the narratives can be harmonized without admitting a contradiction (as Baur, Zeller, De Wette); it is probable, however, that Luke did not know of the visit to Arabia, but connected Paul’s going to Jerusalem closely with his conversion.—G.B.S.

  124. ↑ The best textual authorities (A. B. C. א,) and critics (Tisch. W. and H., Lechler, Meyer, Gloag) here read: “his (Saul’s) disciples,” So R.V.…The reference is to the band of converts whom he had been successful in winning at Damascus. In Paul’s own narrative of his escape from Damascus (2 Cor. 11:33) he states more specifically that he was let down “through a window, through the wall.” This may have been either through the window of a house overhanging the wall, or through a window in the face of some portion of the wall (Cf. Josh. 2:15; 1 Sam. 19:12).—G.B.S.

  125. ↑ τοῦτον: Edd. τὸν εὐαγγελιστὴν: and below from E. alone, “ἀλλὰ μόνον ὅτι ἐπήγειραν τὸν βασιλέα, not speaking ambitiously, and making Paul illustrious, but only (saying) that they stirred up the king.” But he does not say it, and his not saying it is the very thing which Chrys. commends: ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα τοῦτον οὐ φιλοτίμως λέγοντα, οὐδὲ λαμπρὸν δεικνύντα τὸν Π., “᾽Επήγειραν γάρ,” φησιν, “τὸν βασιλέα.” The φησὶν here is put hypothetically, “as if he had said,” or “when he might have said.” The sentence, however, requires something to complete it, such as we have added in the translation.

  126. ↑ ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἔνεδρα (N. ἕνεδρα) ἐποίει τὸν πρῶτον χρόνον, καὶ μυρία ἠδικηκὼς, οὐδὲν ἡγεῖτο ἱκανὸν, κ. τ. λ. So all our mss. except E. If ἔνεδρα be not corrupt, it seems to be used in a sense unknown to the Lexicons.—Edd. from E. “Therefore it is that he so pillories (στηλιτεύων) his former life, and brands (στίζων) himself repeatedly, and thinks nothing enough,” etc.

  127. ↑ Hom.xxv. in 2 Cor. p. 615. Hom. v. de Laud. S. Pauli, t. ii. 501.

  128. ↑ Hom.xxvi. in 2 Cor. p. 617, B.

  129. ↑ Μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ πρὸ τούτου, καὶ ἐν οἷς οὐ κατὰ γνῶσιν ἐποίει, οὐκ (B. οὐδὲ, A. om. ἀνθρωπίνῳ κινούμενος λογισμῷ διεπράττετο. i.e. “Even as a persecutor, he was not swayed by common worldly considerations.” The mod. t. (Edd.) perverts the Author’s meaning:“—nay even before this. For in the things, etc. he was moved by man’s reasoning to act as he did.”

  130. ↑ 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 9 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.”

  131. ↑ 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.

  132. ↑ E. F. D. Edd. “As not being a teacher, but a disciple:” the reading of A. B. C. N. is attested by Cat. Œc. but below it is said that he joined himself to the disciples, ἅτε μαθητὴν ὄντα, Infra, note 1, p. 135.

  133. ↑ 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. 1:17–21, is referred to; the subject therefore of λέγει, ἀφίησιν is Paul, and ταύτην means the visit in Acts 9 The next sentence, for ἢ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο πάλιν κ. τ. λ. requires to be remodelled as above, e. g. δέον λέγειν ὅτι 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 high-priest) 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.”

  134. ↑ Chrys. here confuses the visits of Paul to Jerusalem. That mentioned in Acts 11:30, was the second visit, when he went to carry the gift of alms to the poor. The visit mentioned in Gal. 2:1, synchronizes with Acts 15:1, sq., when Paul went to attend the Apostolic council.—G.B.S.

  135. ↑ 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 (Acts 9:27) 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. 1:18) 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. 1:18).—G.B.S.

  136. ↑ 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, Œc. substitutes (from below) καὶ χρηστὸς σφόδρα. The mod. t. transposes the clause to the comment on Acts 9:27. 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, 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. Œc, 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.

  137. ↑ 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 Acts 9:28, 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 Acts 9:28.

  138. ↑ This and the next clause are transposed in the mss. so that ἐπ᾽ αὐτῶν would mean “in the case of the brethren.”

  139. ↑ The reason given in Acts 9:30 for Paul’s leaving Jerusalem is, that he was in danger of being slain by his opponents; that assigned by himself in Acts 22:17–18 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.

  140. ↑ 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.

  141. ↑ 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, i.e. why does Peter delay his journey until Paul is gone, and all is quiet? Because them they most respected, as having,” etc.

  142. ↑ 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, Acts 6:2. 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.

  143. ↑ 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. Œcum, 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.

  144. ↑ ῾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 οἰ& 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!”

  145. ↑ In the mss. Καὶ κρατήσας, φησί, τῆς χειρός. & 169·Ορα (E. Edd. ᾽Ενταῦθα δείκνυσι) κατὰ μέρος κ. τ. λ. But the passage cited is from Luke 8:52, καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, ἐφώνησε κ. τ. λ. to which, and probably to the ἐκβαλὼν ἔξω πάντας there preceding, St. Chrys. here referred.

  146. ↑ 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.”

  147. ↑ 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.

  148. ↑ 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.

  149. ↑ 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.

  150. ↑ ᾽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.”

  151. ↑ ῞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.)

  152. ↑ ῎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.”

  153. ↑ 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.

  154. ↑ 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.

  155. ↑ ῞Οταν δὲ ἀνακαλούμενος ῥ& 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.

  156. ↑ Εἰ γὰρ Παῦλος ἕτερον ἠλέ& 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. 1:11.” But here the reference seems to be to 2 Cor. 2:10, “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 οἷ& 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.

  157. ↑ εὐλᾶβῆ γυναῖκα καὶ θυγάτριον ἀγαγέσθαι σεμνόν. A. B. C. In the Edd. καὶ θυγ. σεμνὸν, is transposed after μὴ πλουτοῦντα υἱ& 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.”

  158. ↑ 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, 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?”

  159. ↑ 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.

  160. ↑ 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 of His triumph (and this is our commemoration of truth), and the prisoners are set at liberty (and in this sense we name our dead).

  161. ↑ 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 15:7). 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. 8:10; Matt. 28:54; Acts 10:1–2).—G.B.S.

  162. ↑ 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 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.

  163. ↑ “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.

  164. ↑ 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 ἀσθενεί& 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.”

  165. ↑ 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.

  166. ↑ 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. 2:21. the ἔκστασις which fell upon Adam denotes a kind of insensibility, for ἔκστ. means τὸ ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ γενέσθαι: and in Acts 10:10 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 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 fœminis somniat, prophetæ in ecstasi locuti sunt, ut nescirent quid loquerentur, et cum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent quid dicerent.” Id. Prœm. 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.

  167. ↑ 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.

  168. ↑ 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.”

  169. ↑ 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 Acts 11:8, “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.

  170. ↑ 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 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. 2:11–12). 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 15; Gal. 1; Gal. 2.) 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.

  171. ↑ 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.

  172. ↑ 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 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.

  173. ↑ 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.”

  174. ↑ 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.

  175. ↑ ᾽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.”

  176. ↑ 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.

  177. ↑ 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.

  178. ↑ The old text: “And thy prayers, saith he. So far,” etc. Edd. “And send for Simon, who is called Peter. So far, etc.”

  179. ↑ The text is defective here. He seems to be commenting upon the variations of the different narratives: viz. the writer himself Acts 10:6. mentions only the command to send for Peter. (p. 142, note 4.) The messengers Acts 10:22 add, “And to hear words of thee.” Cornelius, Acts 10:32, “who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.” St. Peter Acts 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 Acts 11:14.

  180. ↑ 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.

  181. ↑ ᾽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. Œcumen. 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, Œcumen. 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.

  182. ↑ 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.”

  183. ↑ 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.”

  184. ↑ So Cat. and the mss. except E., which has οὐ τοὺς γείτονας ἠρώτων, and so Œcumen. 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.

  185. ↑ 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.

  186. ↑ In the old text, the last words of the citation, Acts 10:22. 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.

  187. ↑ ᾽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.

  188. ↑ 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.

  189. ↑ 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.

  190. ↑ A. B. καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας δὲ οὕτως. ᾽Αλλ᾽ οὗτος οὐχ οὕτως, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τῆς οἰκίας ἁπάσης. & 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.

  191. ↑ 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.

  192. ↑ Καίτοιγε οὐδὲν ἴσον. & 174·Αν γὰρ σὺ ταύτης κ. τ. λ.—Edd., Οὐδὲν ταύτης ἴσον. & 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.

Source: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, vol. 11: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans, ed. Philip Schaff, , pp. 101–148. Christian Classics Ethereal Library: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111

3
Page creation date: 2026-10-21, Update: 2026-10-21
Want to fix or comment? Tell us in the chat: https://bibleox.com/la/chat