John Chrysostom, 4th c.

Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles / 6

Homily XLI on Acts xix. 8, 9.

Homily XLI.

Acts 19:8–9

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

(a) See him in every place forcing his way into the synagogue, and in this manner departing thence. For in every place, he wished to have the occasion given him by them.[1] (c) He wished to separate the disciples thence, and to have the beginning for ceasing to assemble with them, given by (the Jews) themselves. And it was not for nothing that he did this (b) which I have said. He was henceforth “provoking them to jealousy.” For both the Gentiles readily received him, and the Jews, upon the Gentiles receiving him, repented. (a) This is why he continually made a stir among them,[2] “for three months arguing and persuading concerning the kingdom of God:” for you must not suppose because you hear of his “speaking boldly,” that there was any harshness: it was of good things that he discoursed, of a kingdom: who would not have heard him? “But when divers were hardened, speaking evil of the way.” They might well call it “the way;” this was indeed the way, that led into the kingdom of heaven. “He departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. And this was done for the space of two years, so that all that were in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks.” (Acts 19:10.) (a) Do you mark how much was effected by his persisting?[3] “Both Jews and Greeks heard: (c) all that dwelt in Asia:” it was for this also that the Lord suffered him not to go into Asia (Acts 16:6) (on a former occasion); waiting, as it seems to me, for this same conjuncture. (Hom. xl. p. 245.) (b) “And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: so that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.” (Acts 19:11–12.) Not touched the wearer only (and so were healed), but also receiving them, they laid them upon the sick (and so healed them).[4] (g) “He that believeth on Me,” saith Christ, “doeth greater works than those which I do.” (John 14:12.) This, and the miracle of the shadows is what He meant (in those words). (d) “Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.” (Acts 19:13.) So entirely did they do all by way of trade! Observe: vagabond, or, itinerant, Jewish exorcists. And to believe indeed, they had no mind; but by that Name they wished to cast out the demons. “By Jesus, whom Paul preacheth.” Only see what a name Paul had got! “And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.” (Acts 19:14–16.) They did it in secret: then their impotence is publicly exposed. (f) Then not the Name does anything, unless it be spoken with faith. (h) See how they used their weapons against themselves! (j) So far were they from thinking Jesus to be anything great: no, they must needs add Paul, as thinking him to be something great. Here one may marvel how it was that the demon did not cooperate with the imposture of the exorcists, but on the contrary exposed them, and laid open their stage-play. He seems to me (to have done this) in exceeding wrath: just as it might be, if a person being in uttermost peril, should be exposed by some pitiful creature, and wish to vent all his rage upon him. “Jesus I know, and Paul I know.” For, that there may not seem to be any slight put upon the Name of Jesus, (the demon) first confesses (Him), and then has permission given him. For, to show that it was not any weakness of the Name, but all owing to the imposture of those men, why did not the same take place in the case of Paul? “They fled out of that house naked and wounded:” he sorely battered their heads, perhaps rent their garments. (e) “And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, that dwelt at Ephesus, and fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. And many of them that had believed came confessing and making known their practices.” (Acts 19:17–18.) For since they had got to possess such power as, by means of the demons, to do such things, well might this be the consequence. “And many of them that practised curious arts, brought their books together, and burnt them in the presence of all men;”—having seen that there was no more use of them now that the demons themselves do these things—“and reckoned up the price of them, and found the amount fifty thousand pieces of silver.[5] So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.” (Acts 19:19–20.) (i) “And”[6] (so) “he disputed,” in the school of one Tyrannus for two years:” where were believers, and believers exceedingly (advanced in the faith). Moreover (Paul) writes (to them) as to great men.

(Recapitulation.) (b) “And having entered in to the synagogue,” etc. (Acts 19:8.) But[7] why ἐπαρρησιάζετο? It means, he was ready to confront dangers, and disputed more openly, not veiling the doctrines. (a) “But when some were hardened, and spake evil of the way, having departed from them, he separated the disciples.” (Acts 19:9.) He put a stop, it means, to their evil-speaking: he did not wish to kindle their envy, nor to bring them into more contention. (c) Hence let us also learn not to put ourselves in the way of evil-speaking men, but to depart from them: he did not speak evil, when himself evil spoken of. “He disputed daily,” and by this gained the many, that, being evil intreated and (evil) spoken of, he did not (utterly) break away from them, and keep aloof. (e) The evil-speakers are defeated. They calumniated the doctrine itself; (therefore) so as neither to rouse the disciples to wrath, nor * * them, he withdrew,[8] showing that everywhere alike they repel salvation from them. Here now he does not even apologize, seeing that the Gentiles everywhere have believed. “In the school of one Tyrannus:” it was not that he sought the place, but without more ado where there was a school (there he discoursed).[9] (d) And look, no sooner is the trial from those without over, than this from the demons begins. Mark the infatuated Jewish hardness. Having seen his garments working miracles, they paid no heed to it. What could be greater than this? But, on the contrary, it resulted in just the opposite effect. If any of the heathens believe not, having seen the (very) dust working these effects, let him believe.[10] (f) Wonderful, how great the power of them that have believed! Both Simon for the sake of merchandise sought the grace of the Spirit, and these for this object did this. What hardness (of heart)! Why does not Paul rebuke them? It would have looked like envy, therefore it is so ordered. This same took place in the case of Christ (Mark 9:36): but then the person is not hindered, for it was the beginning of the new state of things: since Judas also is not hindered, whereas Ananias and Sapphira were struck dead: and many Jews even for opposing (Christ) suffered nothing, while Elymas was blinded. “For I am not come,” saith Christ, “to judge the world, but that the world might be saved.” (John 3:17.) “And seven sons,” etc. (Acts 19:14.) See the villany of the men! They still continued to be Jews, while wishing to make a gain of that Name. All that they did was for glory and profit. (g) Look,[11] in every case, how men are converted not so much in consequence of good things as of things fearful. In the case of Sapphira, fear fell upon the Church, and men dared not join themselves to them: here they received handkerchiefs and aprons, and were healed: and after this, then they came confessing their sins. (Hereby) the power of the demons is shown to be a great one, when it is against unbelievers. For why did he not say, “Who is Jesus?” He was afraid, lest he also should suffer punishment; but, that it might be permitted him to take revenge upon those who mocked him, he did this; “Jesus,” says he, “I know,” etc. He was in dread of Paul. For why did not those wretched men say to him, We believe? How much more splendid an appearance they would have made had they said this, that is, if they had claimed Him as their Master? But instead of that, they spoke even those senseless words, “By Jesus, whom Paul preacheth.” Do you mark the forbearance (of the writer), how he writes history and does not call names? This makes the Apostles admirable. “And the evil spirit,” etc. (Acts 19:15), for what had happened at Philippi (Acts 16:16) had given a lesson to these also. He mentions the name, and the number, thereby giving to the persons then living a credible proof of what he wrote. And why were they itinerant? For the sake of merchandise: not assuredly to bear tidings of the word; how should that be their object? And[12] how ran they anon, preaching by the things they suffered? “Insomuch,” it says, “that all that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord.” Ought not this to have converted all? And marvel not, for nothing convinces malice. But come now, let us look at the affair of the exorcists, with what an evil disposition (they acted). Why the same was not done in the case of Christ, is an inquiry for another time, and not for the present, save that this also was well and usefully ordered. It seems to me that they did this also in mockery, and that in consequence of this (punishment), none dared even at random to name that Name. Why did this put them upon confession? Because this was a most mighty argument of God’s omniscience (therefore), before they should be exposed by the demons, they accused themselves, fearing lest they should suffer the same things. For when the demons their helpers are their accusers, what hope is there thenceforth, save the confession by deeds?

But see, I pray you, after such signs had been wrought, what evils within a short space ensue. Such is human nature: it soon forgets. Or, do ye not remember what has been the case among ourselves? Did not God last year shake our whole city?[13] Did not all run to baptism? Did not whoremongers and effeminate and corrupt persons leave their dwellings, and the places where they spent their time, and change and become religious? But three days passed, and they returned again to their own proper wickedness. And whence is this? From the excessive laziness. And what marvel if, when the things have passed away (this be the case), seeing that, the images lasting perpetually, the result is such? The fate of Sodom—say, does it not still last (in its effects)?[14] Well, did the dwellers beside it become any the better? And what say you to the son of Noah? Was he not such (as he is represented), did he not see with his eyes so vast a desolation, and yet was wicked? Then let us not marvel how, when such things had been done, these Jews (at Ephesus) believe not, when we see that belief itself often comes round for them into its opposite,[15] into malignity; as, for instance, when they say that He hath a devil, He, the Son of God! Do you not see these things even now, and how men are many of them like serpents, both faithless and thankless, men who, viper-like, when they have enjoyed benefits and have been warmed by some, then they sting their benefactors? This we have said, lest any should marvel, how, such signs having been wrought, they were not all converted. For behold, in our own times happened those (miracles) relating to the martyr Babylas,[16] those relating to Jerusalem, those relating to the destruction of the temples, and not all were converted. Why need I speak of ancient things? I have told you what happened last year; and none gave heed to it, but again little by little they fell off and sunk back. The heaven stands perpetually crying aloud that it has a Master, and that it is the work of an Artificer, all this that we see—I mean the world—and yet some say that it is not so. What happened to that Theodorus last year—whom did it not startle? And yet nothing came of it, but having for a season become religious, they returned to the point from which they had started in their attempt to be religious. So it was with the Jews. This is what the Prophet said of them: “When He slew them, then they sought Him, and turned early unto God.” (Ps. 78:34.) And what need to speak of those things that are common to all? How many have fallen into diseases, how many have promised, if raised up, to work so great a change, and yet they have again become the same as ever! This, if nothing else, shows that we have natural free-will—our changing all at once. Were evil natural, this would not be: things that are natural and necessary, we cannot change from. “And yet,” you will say, “we do change from them. For do we not see some, who have the natural faculty to see, but are blinded by fear?” (True—) because this also is natural: * * if a different (necessity of) nature come not also into operation:[17] (thus) it is natural to us, that being terrified we do not see; it is natural to us that when a greater fear supervenes, the other gives way. “What then,” you will say, “if right-mindedness[18] be indeed according to nature, but fear having overpowered it cast it out?” What then if I shall show that some even then are not brought to a right mind, but even in these fears are reckless? Is this natural? Shall I speak of ancient things? Well then, of recent? How many in the midst of those fears continued laughing, mocking, and experienced nothing of the sort? Did not Pharaoh change immediately, and (as quickly) run back to his former wickedness? But here, as if (the demons) knew Him not, they (the exorcists) added, “Whom Paul preacheth,” whereas they ought to have said, “the Saviour of the world.” “Him that rose again.” By this they show that they do know, but they did not choose to confess His glory. Wherefore the demon exposes them, leaping upon them, and saying, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?” So that not ye are believers, but ye abuse that Name when ye say this. Therefore the Temple is desolate,[19] the implement easy to be overcome. So that ye are not preachers; mine, says he, ye are. Great was the wrath of the demon. The Apostles had power to do this to them, but they did it not as yet. For they that had power over the demons that did these things to them, much more had power over the men themselves. Mark how their forbearance is shown, in that they whom they repulsed do these things, while the demons whom they courted do the contrary. “Jesus,” says he, “I know.” Be ashamed, ye that are ignorant (of Him). “And Paul I know.” Well said, “Think not that it is because I despise them, that I do these things.” Great was the fear of the demon. And why without these words did he not rend their garments? For so he would both have sated his wrath, and established the delusion. He feared as I said, the unapproachable force, and would not have had such power had he not said this. But observe how we find the demons everywhere more right minded (than the Jews), not daring to contradict nor accuse the Apostles, or Christ. There they say, “We know Thee who Thou art” (Matt. 8:29); and, “Why art Thou come hither before the time to torment us” (Mark 1:24): and again, “I know Thee who Thou art, the Son of God.” And here, “These men are servants of the most high God” (Acts 16:17): and again, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know.” For they exceedingly feared and trembled before those holy persons. Perhaps some one of you, hearing of these things, wishes he were possessed of this power, so that the demons should not be able to look him in the face, and accounts those saints happy for this, that they had such power. But let him hear Christ saying, “Rejoice not because the demons are subject unto you” (Luke 10:20), because He knew that all men rejoice most in this, through vainglory. For if thou seekest that which pleaseth God, and that which is for the common good, there is another, a greater way. It is not so great to free from a demon as it is to rescue from sin. A demon hinders not to attain unto the kingdom of Heaven, nay, even cooperates, unwillingly indeed, but nevertheless cooperates by making him that has the demon more sober-minded; but sin casts a man out.

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

From this let us study to free our neighbors, and before our neighbors, our own selves. Let us see to it, lest we have a demon: let us examine ourselves strictly. More grievous than a demon is sin, for the demon makes men humble. See ye not those possessed with a demon, when they have recovered from the attack, how downcast they are, of how sad a countenance, how fraught with shame their faces are, how they have not even courage to look one in the face? See the strange inconsistency! While those are ashamed on account of the things they suffer, we are not ashamed on account of the things we do; while they are abashed being wronged, we are not abashed when doing wrong: and yet their condition is not a subject for shame, but for pity and tenderness and indulgence: nay, great is the admiration it calls for, and many the praises, when struggling against such a spirit, they bear all thankfully: whereas our condition in very deed is a subject for ridicule, for shame, for accusation, for correction, for punishment, for the worst of evils, for hell-fire; calling for no compassion whatever. Seest thou, that worse than a demon is sin? And those indeed, from the ills they suffer, reap a double profit: first, their being sobered and brought to more self-control; then, that having suffered here the chastisement of their own sins, they depart hence to their Master, purified. For indeed upon this we have often discoursed to you, that those who are punished here, if they bear it thankfully, may naturally be supposed to put away thereby many of their sins. Whereas from sins the mischief resulting is twofold; first, that we offend; secondly, that we become worse. Attend to what I say. Not this is the only injury we get from sin, that we commit a sin: but another and a worse is this, that our soul receives a habit. Just as it is in the case of the body—for it will be more plain when put in the form of an example—as he who has taken a fever has got harm not only in this respect, that he is sick, but also that after the sickness he is become weaker, even though he may return to health after a long disease: just so in the case of sin, though we may regain health, yet we are far from having the strength we need. For[20] take the case of one who has been insolently abusive: does he not suffer his deserts for his abusive conduct? Aye, but there is another and a worse thing to rue (which is), that his soul is become more insensible to shame. For from each several sin that is committed, even after the sin has been done and has ceased, there remains a kind of venom instilled into our souls. Do you not hear people saying, when they are recovered from sickness, “I dare not drink water now?” And yet the man has regained his health: aye, but the disease has done him this harm also. And whereas those (possessed) persons, albeit suffering ill, are thankful, we, when faring well, blaspheme God, and think ourselves very ill used: for you will find more persons behaving thus in health and wealth than in poverty and sickness. For there stands the demon over (the possessed), like a very hangman, fierce, uttering many (menaces), even as a schoolmaster brandishing the lash, and not suffering them to give way to any laxity. And suppose that some are not at all brought to a sober mind, neither are these liable to punishment;[21] no small thing this: even as fools, even as madmen and children, are not called to account, so neither are these: since for things that are done in a state of unconsciousness, none can be so merciless as to call the doers to account. Why then, in a far worse condition than those who are possessed of evil sprits are we that sin. We do not, indeed, foam at the mouth, nor distort our eyes, or throw about our hands convulsively; but as for this, would that we did it in our body and not in our soul! Will you that I show you a soul, foaming, filthy, and a distortion of the mind’s eyes? Think of those who are in a passion and drunken with rage; can any form be filthier than the words they discharge? In very deed it is like a sputtering of noisome slaver. And just as the possessed know none of those who are present, so neither do these. Their understanding darkened, their eyes distorted, they see not who is friend, who foe, who worthy of respect, who contemptible, but they see all alike without a difference. And then, do you not see them, how they tremble, just like those others? But they do not fall to the ground, say you? True, but their soul lies on the ground and falls there in convulsions: since had it stood upright, it would not have come into the condition it is in. Or think you not that it betokens a soul abjectly sprawling and lost to all self-possession, the things men can do and say when drunken with rage? There is also another form of madness worse than this. What may this be? When men cannot so much as suffer themselves to vent their anger, but instead of that nourish within their own bosoms, to their own proper hurt,[22] as it were a very hangman with his lash, the rancorous remembrance of wrongs. For it is a bane to themselves first, the malice that they bear. To say nothing of the things to come, what torture, think you, must that man undergo in the scourging of his soul, as day by day he looks how he may avenge himself on his enemy? He chastises himself first, and suffers punishment, swelling (with suppressed passion), fighting against himself, setting himself on fire. For needs must the fire be always burning within thee: while raising the fever to such a height, and not suffering it to wane, thou thinkest thou art inflicting some evil on the other, whereas thou art wasting thyself, ever bearing about with thee a flame which is always at its height, and not letting thy soul have rest, but evermore being in a state of fury, and having thy thoughts in a turmoil and tempest. What is more grievous than this madness, to be always smarting with pain, and ever swelling and inflamed? For such are the souls of the resentful: when they see him on whom they wish to be revenged, straightway it is as if a blow were struck them: if they hear his voice, they cower and tremble: if they be on their bed, they picture to themselves numberless revenges, hanging, torturing that enemy of theirs: and if, beside all this, they see him also to be in renown, O! the misery they suffer! Forgive him the offence, and free thyself from the torment. Why continue always in a state of punishment, that thou mayest once punish him, and take thy revenge? Why establish for thyself a hectic disease?[23] Why, when thy wrath would fain depart from thee, dost thou keep it back? Let it not remain until the evening, says Paul. (Eph. 4:26.) For like some eating rot or moth, even so does it gnaw through the very root of our understanding. Why shut up a beast within thy bowels? Better a serpent or an adder to lie within thy heart, than anger and resentment: for those indeed would soon have done with us, but this remains forever fixing in us its fangs, instilling its poison, letting loose upon us an invading host of bitter thoughts. “That he should laugh me to scorn,” say you, “that he should despise me!”[24] O wretched, miserable man, wouldest thou not be ridiculed by thy fellow-servant, and wouldest thou be hated by thy Master? Wouldest thou not be despised by thy fellow-servant, and despisest thou thy Master?

To be despised by him, is it more than thou canst bear, but thinkest thou not that God is indignant, because thou ridiculest Him, because thou despisest Him, when thou wilt not do as He bids thee? But that thine enemy will not even ridicule thee, is manifest from hence (that), whereas if thou follow up the revenge, great is the ridicule, great the contempt, for this is a mark of a little mind; on the contrary, if thou forgive him, great is the admiration, for this is a mark of greatness of soul. But you will say, he knows not this. Let God know it, that thou mayest have the greater reward. For He says, “Lend to those of whom ye hope not to receive.” (Luke 6:34.) So let us also do good to those who do not even perceive that one is doing them good, that they may not, by returning to us praise or any other thing, lessen our reward. For when we receive nothing from men, then we shall receive greater things from God. But what is more worthy of ridicule, what more paltry, than a soul which is always in anger, and wishing to take revenge? It is womanly, this disposition, it is babyish. For as the babes are angry even with lifeless things, and unless the mother beats the ground, they will not let go their anger:[25] so do these persons wish to revenge themselves on those who have aggrieved them. Why then, it is they who are worthy of ridicule: for to be overcome by passion, is the mark of a childish understanding, but to overcome it, is a sign of manliness. Why then, not we are the objects of ridicule, when we keep our temper, but they. It is not this that makes men contemptible—not to be conquered by passion: what makes them contemptible is this—to be so afraid of ridicule from without, as on this account to choose to subject one’s self to one’s besetting passion, and to offend God, and take revenge upon one’s self. These things are indeed worthy of ridicule. Let us flee them. Let a man say, that having done us numberless ills, he has suffered nothing in return: let him say that he might again frantically assault us, and have nothing to fear. Why, in no other (better) way could he have proclaimed our virtue; no other words would he have sought, if he had wished to praise us, than those which he seems to say in abuse. Would that all men said these things of me: “he is a poor tame creature; all men heap insults on him, but he bears it: all men trample upon him, but he does not avenge himself.” Would that they added, “neither, if he should wish to do so, can he:” that so I might have praise from God, and not from men. Let him say, that it is for want of spirit that we do not avenge ourselves. This does us no hurt, when God knows (all): it does but cause our treasure to be in greater safety. If we are to have regard to them, we shall fall away from everything. Let us not look to what they say, but to what becomes us. But, says he, “Let no man ridicule me,” and some make a boast of this. O! what folly! “No man,” says he, “having injured me, has ridiculed me:” that is, “I had my revenge.” And yet for this thou deservest to be ridiculed, that thou didst take revenge. Whence came these words among us—being, as they are, a disgrace to us and a pest, an overthrow of our own proper life and of our discipline? It is in downright opposition to God that thou (so) speakest. The very thing which makes thee equal to God—the not avenging thyself—this thou thinkest a subject for ridicule! Are not we for these things worthy to be laughed at, both by ourselves, and by the heathen, when we thus speak against God? I wish to tell you a story of a thing that happened in the old times (which they tell) not on the subject of anger, but of money. A man had an estate in which there was a hidden treasure, unknown to the owner: this piece of ground he sold. The buyer, when digging it for the purpose of planting and cultivation, found the treasure therein deposited, and came[26] and wanted to oblige the seller to receive the treasure, urging that he had bought a piece of ground, not a treasure. The seller on his part repudiated the gift, saying, “The piece of ground (is not mine), I have sold it, and I have no concern whatever with this (treasure).” So they fell to altercation about it, the one wishing to give it, the other standing out against receiving it. So chancing upon some third person, they argued the matter before him, and said to him, “To whom ought the treasure to be assigned?” The man could not settle that question; he said, however, that he would put an end to their dispute—he would (if they pleased) be master of it himself. So he received the treasure, which they willingly gave up to him; and in the sequel got into troubles without end, and learnt by actual experience that they had done well to have nothing to do with it. So ought it be done likewise with regard to anger; both ourselves ought to be emulous[27] not to take revenge, and those who have aggrieved us, emulous to give satisfaction. But perhaps these things also seem to be matter of ridicule: for when that madness is widely prevalent among men, those who keep their temper are laughed at, and among many madmen he who is not a madman seems to be mad. Wherefore I beseech you that we may recover (from this malady), and come to our senses, that becoming pure from this pernicious passion, we may be enabled to attain unto the kingdom of heaven, through the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily XLII on Acts xix. 21, 23.

Homily XLII.

Acts 19:21; Acts 19:23

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

He sends Timothy and Erastus into Macedonia, but himself remains at Ephesus. Having made a long enough stay in that city, he wishes to remove elsewhere again. But how is it, that having from the first chosen to depart into Syria, he turns back to Macedonia? “He purposed,” it says, “in the Spirit,” showing that all (that he did) was done not of his own power. Now he prophesies, saying, “I must also see Rome:” perhaps to comfort them with the consideration of his not remaining at a distance, but coming nearer to them again, and to arouse the minds of the disciples by the prophecy. At this point,[28] I suppose, it was that he wrote his Epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus, saying, “I would not have you ignorant of the trouble which came to us in Asia.” (2 Cor. 1:8.) For since he had promised to go to Corinth, he excuses himself on the score of having loitered, and mentions the trial relating the affair of Demetrius. “There arose no small stir about the Way.”[29] Do you see the renown[30] (acquired)? They contradicted, it says: (then) came miracles, twofold: (then) again, danger: such is the way the threads alternate throughout the whole texture (of the history). “For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver temples of Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen.” (Acts 19:24.). “Which made,” it says, “silver temples of Diana.” And how is it possible that temples could be made of silver? Perhaps as small boxes (κιβώρια.)[31] Great was the honor paid to this (Diana) in Ephesus; since, when (Hom. in Eph. Prol.) their temple was burnt it so grieved them, that they forbade even the name of the incendiary ever to be mentioned. See how, wherever there is idolatry, in every case we find money at the bottom of it. Both in the former instance it was for money, and in the case of this man, for money. (Acts 19:13.) It was not for their religion, because they thought that in danger; no, it was for their lucrative craft, that it would have nothing to work upon. Observe the maliciousness of the man. He was wealthy himself, and to him indeed it was no such great loss; but to them the loss was great, since they were poor, and subsisted on their daily earnings. Nevertheless, these men say nothing, but only he. And observe:[32] “Whom having collected, and the workmen of like occupation,” having themselves common cause with him, “he said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth” (Acts 19:25); then he brought the danger home to them, that we are in danger of falling from this our craft into starvation. “Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands: so that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at naught; but also, that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” (Acts 19:26–28.) And yet the very things he spoke were enough to bring them to true religion: but being poor senseless creatures, this is the part they act. For if this (Paul being) man is strong enough to turn away all, and the worship of the gods is in jeopardy, one ought to reflect, how great must this man’s God be, and that he will much more give you those things, for which ye are afraid. Already (at the outset) he has secured a hold upon their minds by saying, “This Paul hath turned away much people, saying, that they be no gods, which are made with men’s hands.” See what it is that the heathen are so indignant at; because he said that “they which be made of men are no gods.” Throughout, he drives his speech at their craft. Then that which most grieved them he brings in afterwards. But, with the other gods, he would say, we have no concern, but that “the temple also of the great goddess Diana is in danger to be destroyed.” Then, lest he should seem to say this for the sake of lucre, see what he adds: “Whom the whole world worshippeth.” Observe how he showed Paul’s power to be the greater, proving all (their gods) to be wretched and miserable creatures, since a mere man, who was driven about, a mere tentmaker, had so much power. Observe the testimonies borne to the Apostles by their enemies, that they overthrew their worship.[33] There (at Lystra) they brought “garlands and oxen.” (Acts 14:13.) Here he says, “This our craft is in danger to be set at naught.—Ye have filled (all) everywhere with your doctrine.” (Acts 5:28.) So said the Jews also with regard to Christ: “Ye see how the world is going after Him” (John 12:19); and, “The Romans shall come and take away our city.” (John 11:48). And again on another occasion, “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also.” (Acts 17:6).—“And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath.” Upon what was that wrath called forth? On hearing about Diana, and about their source of gain. “And cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians. And the whole city was filled with confusion: and rushed with one accord into the theatre.” (Acts 19:29). Such is the way with vulgar minds, any trivial occasion shall hurry them away and inflame their passions. Therefore[34] it behooves to do (things) with (strict) examination. But see how contemptible they were, to be so exposed to all (excitements)! “Having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel, they dragged them:” (here) again recklessly, just as did the Jews in the case of Jason; and everywhere they set upon them.[35] “And when Paul would have entered in unto the people, the disciples suffered him not,” (Acts 19:30) so far were they from all display and love of glory. “And certain of the Asiarchs, which were his friends, sent unto him, desiring him that he would not adventure himself into the theatre” (Acts 19:31) to a disorderly populace and tumult. And Paul complies, for he was not vainglorious, nor ambitious. “Some therefore cried one thing, and some another: for the assembly was confused.” Such is the nature of the multitude: it recklessly follows, like fire when it has fallen upon fuel; and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together.” (Acts 19:32.) “And they drew Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward.” It was the Jews that thrust him forward;[36] but as providence ordered it, this man did not speak. “And Alexander beckoned with the hand, and would have made his defence unto the people.” (Acts 19:33.) “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” (Acts 19:34.) A childish understanding indeed! as if they were afraid, lest their worship should be extinguished, they shouted without intermission. For two years had Paul abode there, and see how many heathen there were still! “And when the town clerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is temple-keeper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter?” (Acts 19:35.) As if the thing were not palpable. With this saying first he extinguished their wrath. “And of the Diopetes.” There was another sacred object (ἱερὸν) that was so called. Either he means the piece of burnt earth or her image.[37] [38] This (is) a lie. “Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.” (Acts 19:36–37.) All this however he says to the people; but in order that those (workmen) also might become more reasonable, he says: “Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsman which are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another. But if ye enquire anything concerning other matters, it shall be determined in a lawful assembly. For we are in danger to be called in question for this day’s uproar, there being no cause, for which (matter) we shall not be able to give an account for this concourse.” (Acts 19:38–40.) “A lawful assembly,” he says, for there were three assemblies according to law in each month; but this one was contrary to law. Then he terrified them also by saying, “We are in danger to be called to account” for sedition. But let us look again at the things said.

(Recapitulation.) “After these things were ended,” it says, “Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem,” saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” (Acts 19:21.) He no longer speaks here after the manner of a man,[39] or, He purposed to pass through those regions, without tarrying longer. Wherefore does he send away Timothy and Erastus? Of this I suppose he says, “Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone. He sent away,” it says, “two of those who ministered to him” (1 Thess. 3:1), both to announce his coming, and to make them more eager. “But he himself tarried awhile in Asia.” (Acts 19:22.) Most of all does he pass his time in Asia; and with reason: there, namely, was the tyranny, of the philosophers.[40] (Afterwards) also he came and discoursed to them again. “And the same time” etc. (Acts 19:23), for indeed the superstition was excessive. (a) “Ye both see and hear,” so palpable was the result that was taking place—“that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul by persuading hath turned away,” not by violence: this is the way to persuade a city. Then, what touched them closely, “that they be no gods which are made with hands.” (Acts 19:26.) He overturns, says he, our craft: (e) “From this work we have our wealth. Hath persuaded.” How[41] did he persuade—he, a man of mean consideration? How prevail over so great a force of habit? by doing what—by saying what? It is not for a Paul (to effect this), it is not for a man. Even this is enough, that he said, “They are no gods.” Now if the impiety (of the heathen religions) was so easy to detect, it ought to have been condemned long ago: if it was strong, it ought not to have been overthrown so quickly. (b) For, lest they should consider within themselves (how strange), that a human being should have such power as this, and if a human being has power to effect such things, why then one ought to be persuaded by that man, he adds: (f) “not only is this our craft in danger to be set at naught, but also,” as if forsooth alleging a greater consideration, “the temple of the great goddess Diana,” etc. (c) “whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.” (Acts 19:27.) (g) “And when they heard, they were filled with wrath, and shouted, Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” (Acts 19:28.) For each city had its proper gods. (d) They thought to make their voice a barrier against the Divine Spirit. Children indeed, these Greeks! (h) And their feeling was as if by their voice they could reinstate the worship of her, and undo what had taken place! “And the whole city,” etc. (Acts 19:29.) See a disorderly multitude! “And when Paul,” etc. (Acts 19:30.) Paul then wished to enter in that he might harangue them: for he took his persecutions as occasions for teaching: “but the disciples suffered him not.” Mark, how great forethought we always find them taking for him. At the very first they brought him out that they might not (in his person) receive a mortal blow; and yet they had heard him say, “I must also see Rome.” But it was providential that he so predicts beforehand, that they might not be confounded at the event. But they would not that he should even suffer any evil. “And certain of the Asiarchs besought him that he would not enter into the theatre.” Knowing his eagerness, they “besought him:” so much did all the believers love him.—“And they drew Alexander,” etc. (Acts 19:33.) This Alexander, why did he wish to plead? Was he accused? No, but it was to find an opportunity, and overturn the whole matter, and inflame[42] the anger of the people. “But when they knew that he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.” (Acts 19:34.) Do you mark the inordinate rage? Well, and with rebuke does the town clerk say, “What man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians—” (Acts 19:35) (coming to the point) which they were frightened about. Is it this,[43] says he, that ye do not worship her? And he does not say, “That knoweth not” Diana, but, “our city,” that it always worshipped her.[44] “Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against.” (Acts 19:36.) Why then do ye make a question about them, as if these things were not plain? (b) Then he quietly chides them, showing that they had come together without reason. “And to do nothing rashly,” he says. Showing that they had acted rashly. (a) “For ye have brought hither,” etc. (Acts 19:37.) They wanted to make religion the pretext for what concerned their own money-making: (c) and it was not right on account of private charges to hold a public assembly. For he put them to a nonplus, and left them not a word to say for themselves.[45] “There being no cause,” he says, “for this concourse, for which” (matter) “we shall not[46] be able to give the account.” (Acts 19:40.) See how prudently, how cleverly, the unbelievers (act). Thus he extinguished their wrath. For as it is easily kindled, so also is it easily extinguished. “And when he had thus spoken,” it says, “he dismissed the assembly.” (Acts 19:41.)

Seest thou how God permits trials, and by them stirs up and awakens the disciples, and makes them more energetic? Then let us not sink down under trials: for He Himself will “also make the way of escape, that we may be able to bear them.” (1 Cor. 10:13.) Nothing so makes friends, and rivets them so firmly, as affliction: nothing so fastens and compacts the souls of believers: nothing is so seasonable for us teachers in order that the things said by us may be heard. For the hearer when he is in ease is listless and indolent, and seems to suffer annoyance from the speaker: but when he is in affliction and distress, he falls into a great longing for the hearing. For when distressed in his soul, he seeks on all sides to find comfort for his affliction: and the preaching brings no small comfort. “What then,” you will say, “of the Jews? How was it that in consequence of their weakheartedness, they did not hear?” Why, they were Jews, those ever weak and miserable creatures: and besides, the affliction in their case was great, but we speak of affliction in moderation. For observe: they expected to be freed from the evils that encompassed them, and they fell into numberless greater evils: now this is no common distress to the soul. Afflictions cut us off from the sympathy we have for the present world, as appears in this, that we wish for death immediately, and cease to be loving of the body: which very thing is the greatest part of wisdom, to have no hankering, no ties to the present life. The soul which is afflicted does not wish to be concerned about many things: repose and stillness are all it desired, content for its part to have done with the things present, even though there be nothing else to follow. As the body when wearied and distressed does not wish to indulge in amours, or gormandizing, but only to repose and lie down in quiet; so the soul, harassed[47] by numberless evils, is urgent to be at rest and quiet. The soul which is at ease is (apt to be) fluttered, alarmed, unsettled: whereas in this there is no vacuity, no running to waste: and the one is more manly, the other more childish; the one has more gravity, in the other more levity. And as some light substance, when it falls upon deep water, is tossed to and fro, just so is the soul when it falls into great rejoicing. Moreover, that our greatest faults arise out of overmuch pleasure, any one may see. Come, if you will, let us represent to ourselves two houses, the one where people are marrying, the other where they are mourning: let us enter in imagination into each: let us see which is better than the other. Why, that of the mourner will be found full of seriousness (φιλοσοφίας); that of the marrying person, full of indecency. For look, (here are) shameful words, unrestrained laughter, more unrestrained motions, both dress and gait full of indecency, words fraught with mere nonsense and foolery: in short, all is ridicule there, all ridiculous.[48] I do not say the marriage is this; God forbid; but the accompaniments of the marriage. Then nature is beside itself in excess of riot. Instead of human beings, those present become brute creatures, some neighing like horses, others kicking like asses: such utter license, such dissolute unrestraint: nothing serious, nothing noble: (it is) the devil’s pomp, cymbals, and pipes, and songs teeming with fornication and adultery. But not so in that house where there is mourning; all is well-ordered there: such silence, such repose, such composure; nothing disorderly, nothing extravagant: and if any one does speak, every word he utters is fraught with true philosophy: and then the wonderful circumstance is, that at such times not men only, but even servants and women speak like philosophers—for such is the nature of sorrow—and while they seem to be consoling the mourner, they in fact utter numberless truths full of sound philosophy. Prayers are there to begin with, that the affliction may stop there, and go no further: many a one comforting the sufferer, and recitals without number of the many who have the like cause for mourning. “For what is man?” (they ask) (and thereupon) a serious examination of our nature—“aye, then, what is man!” (and upon this) an impeachment of the life (present) and its worthlessness, a reminding (one another) of things to come, of the Judgment. (So from both these scenes) each returns home: from the wedding, grieved, because he himself is not in the enjoyment of the like good fortune; from the mourning, light-hearted, because he has not himself undergone the like affliction, and having all his inward fever quenched. But what will you? Shall we take for another contrast the prisons and the theatres? For the one is a place of suffering, the other of pleasure. Let us again examine. In the former there is seriousness of mind; for where there is sadness, there must needs be seriousness. He who aforetime was rich, and inflated with his own importance, now will even suffer any common person to converse with him, fear and sorrow, like some mightier fire, having fallen on his soul, and softening down his harshness: then he becomes humble, then of a sad countenance, then he feels the changes of life, then he bears up manfully against everything. But in a theatre all is the reverse of this—laughter, ribaldry, devil’s pomp, dissoluteness, waste of time, useless spending of days, planning for extravagant lust, adultery made a study of, practical training to fornication, schooling in intemperance, encouragement to filthiness, matter for laughter, patterns for the practice of indecency. Not so the prison: there you will find humbleness of mind, exhoration, incentive to seriousness, contempt of worldly things; (these) are all trodden under foot and spurned and, fear stands over (the man there), as a schoolmaster over a child, controlling him to all his duties. But if you will, let us examine in a different way.[49] I should like you to meet a man on his return from a theatre, and another coming out of prison; and while you would see the soul of the one fluttered, perturbed, actually tied and bound, that of the other you would see enlarged, set free, buoyant as on wings. For the one returns from the theatre, enfettered by the sight of the women there, bearing about chains harder than any iron, the scenes, the words, the gestures, that he saw there. But the other on his return from the prison, released from all (bounds), will no longer think that he suffers any evil as comparing his own case with that of (those) others. (To think) that he is not in bonds will make him thankful ever after; he will despise human affairs, as seeing so many rich men there in calamity, men (once) having power to do many and great things, and now lying bound there: and if he should suffer anything unjustly, he will bear up against this also; for of this too there were many examples there: he will be led to reflect upon the Judgment to come and will shudder, seeing here[50] (in the earthly prison) how it will be there. For as it is with one here shut up in prison, so in that world also before the Judgment, before the Day that is to come. Towards wife, children, and servants, he will be more gentle.

Not so he that comes from the theatre: he will look upon his wife with more dislike, he will be peevish with his servants, bitter towards his children, and savage towards all. Great are the evils theatres cause to cities, great indeed, and we do not even know that they are great. Shall we examine other scenes of laughter also, I mean the feasts, with their parasites, their flatterers, and abundance of luxury, and (compare with them) places where are the halt and blind? As before, in the former is drunkenness, luxury, and dissoluteness, in the latter the reverse.—See also with regard to the body, when it is hot-blooded, when it is in good case, it undergoes the quickest change to sickness: not so, when it has been kept low. Then let me make my meaning clearer to you:—let there be a body having plenty of blood, plenty of flesh, plump with good living: this body will be apt even from any chance food to engender a fever, if it be simply idle. But let there be another, struggling rather with hunger and hardship: this is not easily overcome, not easily wrestled down by disease. Blood, though it may be healthy in us, does often by its very quantity engender disease: but if it be small in quantity, even though it be not healthy, it can be easily worked off. So too in the case of the soul, that which leads an easy, luxurious life, has its impulses quickly swayed to sin: for such a soul is next neighbor to folly, to pleasure, to vainglory also, and envy, and plottings, and slanderings. Behold this great city of ours, what a size it is! Whence arise the evils? is it not from those who are rich? is it not from those who are in enjoyment? Who are they that “drag” men “before the tribunals?” Who, that dissipate properties? Those who are wretched and outcasts, or those who are inflated with consequence, and in enjoyment? It is not possible that any evil can happen from a soul that is afflicted. (Jas. 2:6.) Paul knew the gain of this: therefore he says, “Tribulation worketh patience, and patience experience, and experience hope, and hope maketh not ashamed.” (Rom. 5:3.) Then let us not sink in our afflictions, but in all things give thanks, that so we may get great gain, that we may be well-pleasing to God, who permits afflictions. A great good is affliction: and we learn this from our own children: for without affliction (a boy) would learn nothing useful. But we, more than they, need affliction. For if there, when the passions (as yet) are quiet, (chastisement) benefits them, how much more us, especially possessed as we are by so many! Nay, we behoove rather to have schoolmasters than they: since the faults of children cannot be great, but ours are exceeding great. Our schoolmaster is affliction. Let us then not draw it down willingly upon ourselves, but when it is come let us bear it bravely, being, as it is, always the cause of numberless good things; that so we may both obtain grace from God, and the good things which are laid up for them that love Him, in Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, might, honor, now and evermore, world without end. Amen.

Homily XLIII on Acts xx. 1.

Homily XLIII.

Acts 20:1

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

There was need of much comforting after that uproar. Accordingly, having done this, he goes into Macedonia, and then into Greece. For, it says, “when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia.” (Acts 20:2–3.) Again he is persecuted by the Jews, and goes into Macedonia. “And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus. These going before tarried for us at Troas.” (Acts 20:4–5.) But how does he call Timothy a man “of Thessalonica?”[51] This is not his meaning, but, “Of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius: of Derbe, Timothy,”[52] etc., these, he says, went before him to Troas, preparing the way for him. “And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.” (Acts 20:6.) For it seems to me that he made a point of keeping the feasts in the large cities. “From Philippi,” where the affair of the prison had taken place. This was his third coming into Macedonia, and it is a high testimony that he bears to the Philippians, which is the reason why he makes some stay there. “And upon the day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.” (Acts 20:7.) It was then the (season between Easter and) Pentecost.[53] See how everything was subordinate to the preaching. It was also, it says, the Lord’s day.[54] Not even during night-time was he silent, nay he discoursed the rather then, because of stillness. Mark how he both made a long discourse, and beyond the time of supper itself. But the Devil disturbed the feast—not that he prevailed, however—by plunging the hearer in sleep, and causing him to fall down. “And,” it says, “there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep: and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down, and fell on him, and embracing him, said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted.” (Acts 20:8–12.) But observe, I pray you, the theatre, how crowded it was: and the miracle, what it was. “He was sitting in a window,” at dead of night. Such was their eagerness to hear him! Let us take shame to ourselves! “Aye, but a Paul” say you, “was discoursing then.” Yes, and Paul discourses now, or rather not Paul, either then or now, but Christ, and yet none cares to hear. No window in the case now, no importunity of hunger, or sleep, and yet we do not care to hear: no crowding in a narrow space here, nor any other such comfort. And the wonderful circumstance is, that though he was a youth, he was not listless and indifferent; and though (he felt himself) weighed down by sleep, he did not go away,[55] nor yet fear the danger of falling down. It was not from listlessness that he slumbered, but from necessity of nature. But observe, I beseech you, so fervent was their zeal, that they even assembled in a third loft: for they had not a Church yet. “Trouble not yourselves,” he says. He said not, “He shall come to life again, for I will raise him up:” but mark the unassuming way in which he comforts them: “for his life,” says he, “is in him. When he was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten.” This thing cut short the discourse; it did no harm, however. “When he had eaten,” it says, “and discoursed a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” Do you mark the frugality of the supper? Do you observe how they passed the whole night? Such were their meals, that the hearers came away sober, and fit for hearing. But we, in what do we differ from dogs? Do you mark what a difference (between us and those men)? “And they brought the young man alive, and,” it says, “were not a little comforted,” both because they received him back alive, and because a miracle had been wrought.[56] “And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Thasos,[57] there intending to take in Paul: for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot.” (Acts 20:13.) We often find Paul parting from the disciples. For behold again, he himself goes afoot: giving them the easier way, and himself choosing the more painful. He went afoot, both that he might arrange many matters, and by way of training them to bear a parting from him.[58] “And when he had joined us at Thasos, having taken him on board, we came to Mytilene; and having sailed thence on the morrow, we come over against Chios”—then they pass the island—“and on the next day we touched at Samos, and having stopped at Trogylium, on the following day we came to Miletus. For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.” (Acts 20:14–16.) Why this haste? Not for the sake of the feast, but of the multitude. At the same time, by this he conciliated the Jews, as being one that did honor the feasts, wishing to gain even his adversaries: at the same time also he delivers the word.[59] Accordingly, see what great gain accrued, from all being present. But that the interests of the people of Ephesus might not be neglected on that account, he managed for this in a different way. But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “And having embraced them,” it says, “he departed for to go into Macedonia.” (Acts 20:1.) By this again he refreshed them (ἀνεκτήσατο), giving them much consolation. “And having exhorted” the Macedonians, “with much discourse, he came into Greece.” (Acts 20:2.) Observe how we everywhere find him accomplishing all by means of preaching, not by miracles. “And we, sailed,” etc. The writer constantly shows him to us as hasting to get to Syria; and the reason of it was the Church, and Jerusalem, but still he restrained his desire, so as to set all right in those parts also.[60] And yet Troas is not a large place: why then do they pass seven days in it? Perhaps it was large as regarded the number of believers. And after he had passed seven days there, on the following day he spent the night in teaching: so hard did he find it to tear himself away from them, and they from him. “And when we came together” it says, “to break bread.” (Acts 20:7–12.) At the very time (of breaking bread) the discourse having taken its commencement,* extended:[61] as representing that they were hungry, and it was not unseasonable: for the principal object (which brought them together) was not teaching, but they came together “to break bread;” discourse however having come up, he prolonged the teaching. See how all partook also at Paul’s table. It seems to me, that he discoursed while even sitting at table, teaching us to consider all other things as subordinate to this. Picture to yourselves, I beseech you, that house with its lights, with its crowd, with Paul in the midst, discoursing, with even the windows occupied by many: what a thing it was to see, and to hear that trumpet, and behold that gracious countenance![62] But why did he discourse during night time? Since “he was about to depart,” it says, and was to see them no more: though this indeed he does not tell them, they being too weak (to bear it), but he did tell it to the others. At the same time too the miracle which took place would make them evermore to remember that evening; so that the fall turned out to the advantage of the teacher. Great was the delight of the hearers, and even when interrupted it was the more increased. That (young man) was to rebuke all that are careless (of the word), he whose death was caused by nothing else than this, that he wished to hear Paul. “And we went before to ship,” etc. (Acts 20:13.) Wherefore does the writer say where they came, and where they went to? To show in the first place that he was making the voyage more leisurely—and this upon human grounds—and sailing past (some): also (for the same reason he tells) where he made a stay, and what parts he sailed past; (namely,) “that he might not have to spend the time in Asia.” (Acts 20:16.) Since had he come there, he could not have sailed by; he did not like to pain those who would have begged him to remain. “For he hasted,” it says, “if it were possible for him to keep the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem:” and (this) was not possible (if he stayed). Observe, how he is also moved like other men. For therefore it is that all this is done, that we may not fancy that he was above human nature: (therefore) you see him desiring (something), and hasting, and in many instances not obtaining (his object): for those great and holy men were partakers of the same nature with us; it was in the will and purpose that they differed, and so it was that also they attracted upon themselves the great grace they did. See, for instance, how many things they order by an economy of their own. “That we give not offence” (2 Cor. 6:3) to those who wish (to take offence), and, “That our ministry be not blamed.” Behold, both an irreproachable life and on the other hand condescension. This is (indeed to be) called economy, to the (very) summit and height (of it).[63] For he that went beyond the commandments of Christ, was on the other hand more humble than all. “I am made all things to all men,” he says, “that I might gain all.” (1 Cor. 9:22.) He cast himself also upon dangers, as he says in another place; “In much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments.” (2 Cor. 6:4–5.) And great was his love for Christ. For if there be not this, all else is superfluous, both the economy (of condescending accommodation), and the irreproachable life, and the exposing himself to dangers. “Who is weak,” he says, “and I am not weak? Who is offended, and I burn not?” (2 Cor. 11:29.) These words let us imitate, and let us cast ourselves upon dangers for our brethren’s sake. Whether it be fire, or the sword, cast thyself on it, beloved, that thou mayest rescue (him that is) thy member: cast thyself, be not afraid. Thou art a disciple of Christ, Who laid down His life for His brethren: a fellow-disciple with Paul, who chose to suffer numberless ills for his enemies, for men that were warring against him; be thou filled with zeal, imitate Moses. He saw one suffering wrong, and avenged him; he despised royal luxury, and for the sake of those who were afflicted he became a fugitive, a wanderer, lonely and deserted; he passed his days in a foreign land; and yet he blamed not himself, nor said, “What is this? I despised royalty, with all that honor and glory: I chose to avenge those who were wronged, and God hath overlooked me: and not only hath He not brought me back to my former honor, but even forty years am I passing in a foreign land. Truly, handsomely[64] have I received my wages, have I not!” But nothing of the kind did he say or think. So also do thou: be it that thou suffer any evil for doing good, be it that (thou have to wait) a long time, be not thou offended, be not discomposed: God will of a surety give thee thy reward. The more the recompense is delayed, the more is the interest of it increased. Let us have a soul apt to sympathize, let us have a heart that knows how to feel with others in their sorrows: no unmerciful temper (ὠμόν), no inhumanity.

Though thou be able to confer no relief, yet weep thou, groan, grieve over what has happened: even this is not to no purpose. If it behooves us to feel for those who are justly punished by God, much more for those who suffer unjustly at the hands of men. (They of) “Ænan,”[65] it saith, “came not forth to mourn for the house which was near her” (Mic. 1:11): they shall receive pain, “in return for that they built for derision.” And again, Ezekiel makes this an accusation against them, that they did not grieve for (the afflicted). (Ezek. 16:2.) What sayest thou, O Prophet? God punisheth, and shall I grieve for those that He is punishing? Yea verily: for God Himself that punisheth wisheth this: since neither does He Himself wish to punish, nay, even Himself grieves when punishing. Then be not thou glad at it. You will say, “If they are justly punished, we ought not to grieve.” Why, the thing we ought to grieve for is this—that they were found worthy of punishment. Say, when thou seest thy son undergoing cautery or the knife, dost thou not grieve? and sayest thou not to thyself, “What is this? It is for health this cutting, to quicken his recovery; it is for his deliverance, this burning?” but for all that, when thou hearest him crying out, and not able to bear the pain, thou grievest, and the hope of health being restored is not enough to carry off the shock to nature. So also in the case of these, though it be in order to their health that they are punished, nevertheless let us show a brotherly feeling, a fatherly disposition. They are cuttings and cauteries, the punishments sent by God: but it is for this we ought to weep, that they were sick, that they needed such a mode of cure. If it be for crowns that any suffer these things, then grieve not; for instance, as Paul, as Peter suffered: but when it is for punishment that one suffers justice, then weep, then groan. Such was the part the prophets acted; thus one of them said, “Ah! Lord, dost thou destroy the residue of Israel?” (Ezek. 9:8.) We see men-slayers, wicked men, suffering punishment, and we are distressed, and grieve for them. Let us not be philosophical beyond measure: let us show ourselves pitiful, that we may be pitied; there is nothing equal to this beautiful trait: nothing so marks to us the stamp of human nature as the showing pity, as the being kind to our fellow-men. In fact, therefore do the laws consign to public executioners the whole business of punishment: having compelled the judge to punish so far as to pronounce the sentence, thereafter they call forth those to perform the act itself. So true is it, that though it be justly done, it is not the part of a generous (φιλοσόφου) soul to inflict punishment, but it requires another sort of person for this: since even God punishes not by His own hand, but by means of the angels. Are they then executioners, the angels? God forbid: I say not this, but they are avenging powers. When Sodom was destroyed, the whole was done by them as the instruments: when the judgments in Egypt were inflicted, it was through them. For, “He sent,” it says, “evil angels among them.” (Ps. 78:50.) But when there is need of saying, God does this by Himself: thus, He sent the Son:—(b) but,[66] “He that receiveth you, receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me.” (Matt. 10:40.) (a) And again He saith, “Then will I say unto the angels, Gather together them that do iniquity, and cast them into the furnace.” (Matt. 13:30; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 13:42.) But concerning the just, not so. (c) And again, “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness.” (Matt. 22:13.) Observe how in that case His servants minister: but when the point is to do good, see Himself doing the good, Himself calling: “Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you.” (Matt. 25:34.) When the matter is, to converse with Abraham, then Himself comes to him: when it is, to depart to Sodom, He sends His servants, like a judge raising up those who are to punish. “Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things” (Matt. 25:21); I (will make thee): but that other, not Himself, but His servants bind. Knowing these things, let us not rejoice over those who are suffering punishment, but even grieve: for these let us mourn, for these let us weep, that for this also we may receive a reward. But now, many rejoice even over those who suffer evil unjustly. But not so, we: let us show all sympathy: that we also may have God vouchsafed us, through the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily XLIV on Acts xx. 17-21.

Homily XLIV.

Acts 20:17–21

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

See him, hasting to sail by, and yet not overlooking them, but taking order for all. Having sent for the rulers, through those he discourses to them (the Ephesians): but it is worthy of admiration, how finding himself under a necessity of saying certain great things about himself, he tries to make the least he can of it (πειρἅτα μετριάζειν). “Ye know.” For just as Samuel, when about to deliver up the government to Saul says in their presence, “Have I taken aught of your hands? Ye are witnesses, and God also” (1 Sam. 12:3; 1 Sam. 12:5); (so Paul here). David also, when disbelieved, says, “I was with the flock keeping my father’s sheep: and when the bear came, I scared her away with my hands” (1 Sam. 17:34–35): and Paul himself too says to the Corinthians, “I am become a fool; ye have compelled me.” (2 Cor. 12:11.) Nay, God Himself also does the same, not speaking of himself upon any and every occasion, but only when He is disbelieved, then He brings up His benefits. Accordingly, see what Paul does here: first he adduces their own testimony: that you may not imagine his words to be mere boasting, he calls the hearers themselves as witnesses of the things he says, since he was not likely to speak lies in their presence. This is the excellence of a teacher, to have for witnesses of his merits those who are his disciples. And what is wonderful, Not for one day nor for two, says he, have I continued doing this. He wishes to cheer them for the future, that they may bravely bear all things, both the parting from him, and the trials about to take place—just as it was in the case of Moses and Joshua. And see how he begins: “How I have been with you the whole time, serving the Lord with all humility of mind.” Observe, what most becomes rulers: “hating pride” (Exod. 18:21, LXX.), says (Moses): which (qualification) is especially in point for rulers, because to them there is (almost) a necessity of becoming arrogant. This (humility) is the groundwork of all that is good, as in fact Christ saith,[67] “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” (Matt. 5:3.) And (here) not simply, “with humility of mind,” but, “with all humility.” For there are many kinds of humility, in word and in action, towards rulers, and toward the ruled. Will you that I mention to you some kinds of humility? There are some who are lowly towards those who are lowly, and high towards the high: this is not the character of humility.[68] Some then are such. Then, that he may not seem to be arrogant, he lays a foundation beforehand, removing that suspicion: For, “if, says he, I have acted ‘with all humility of mind,’ it is not from arrogance that I say the things I say.” Then for his gentleness, ever with much condescension making them his fellows. “With you,” he says, “have I been, serving the Lord;” he makes the good works common to them with himself: none of it his own peculiar. “What?” (you will say) “why, against God could he possibly bear himself arrogantly?” And yet there are many who do bear themselves arrogantly against God: but this man not even against his own disciples. This is the merit of a teacher, by his own achievements of virtue to form the character of his disciples. Then for his fortitude, upon which also he is very concise. “With many tears,” he says, “and temptations which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews.” Do you see that he grieves at their doings? But here too he seems to show how sympathizing he was: for he suffered for those who were going to perdition, for the doers themselves: what was done to himself, he even rejoiced at it; for he belonged to that band which “rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for that Name” (Acts 5:41): and again he says, “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you” (Col. 1:24): and again, “For our light affliction, which is but for the moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” (2 Cor. 4:17). These things, however, he says, by way of making the least of his merits (μετριάζων). But there he show his fortitude, not so much of daring, as of enduring: “I,” says he, “have been evil entreated, but it was with you: and what is indeed the grievous part of the business, at the hands of Jews.” Observe, he puts here both love and fortitude. Mark, here, I pray you, a character of teaching: “I kept back nothing,” he says, ungrudging fulness, unshrinking promptness—“of what was profitable unto you:” because there were things which they did not need to learn. For as the hiding some things would have been like grudging, so the saying all things would be folly. This is why he adds, “that was profitable unto you. But have showed you, and have taught you:” have not only said, but also taught: not doing this either as a mere matter of form. For that this is what he means, observe what he says: “publicly, and from house to house:” thereby representing the exceeding toil, the great earnestness and endurance. “Both Jews, and Greeks.” Not (addressing myself) to you alone. “Testifying:” here, the boldness of speech: and that, even though we do no good, yet we must speak: for[69] this is the meaning of “testifying,” when we speak to those who do not pay attention: and so the word διαμαρτύρασθαι is for the most part used. “I call heaven and earth to witness” (Deut. 4:26), διαμαρτύρομαι, Moses says: and now Paul himself, Διαμαρτυρόμενος “both to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God.” What testifiest thou? That they should be careful about their manner of life: that they should repent, and draw near to God. “Both to Jews and Greeks”—for neither did the Jews know Him—both[70] by reason of their works, he says, “repentance towards God,” and, by reason that they knew not the Son, he adds, “and faith in the Lord Jesus.” To what end, then, sayest thou these things? to what end dost thou put them in mind of them? What has come of it? hast thou anything to lay to their charge? Having first alarmed their feeling, then he adds, “And now, behold, I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there: save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God.” (Acts 20:22–24). Wherefore says he this? By way of preparing them to be always ready to meet dangers, whether seen or unseen, and in all things to obey the Spirit.[71] He shows that it is for great objects that he is led away from them. “Save that the Holy Ghost,” he says, “in every city witnesseth to me saying”—to show that he departs willingly; that (see Hom. xlv. p. 273) you may not imagine it any bond or necessity, when he says, “bound in the Spirit—that in every city bonds and afflictions await me.” Then also he adds this, “I count not my life dear, until I shall have fulfilled my course and the ministry, which I received of the Lord Jesus.” Until I shall have finished my course, says he, with joy. Do you mark how (clearly) these were the words not of one lamenting, but of one who forbore to make the most (of his troubles) (μετριάζοντος), of one who would instruct those (whom he addressed), and sympathize with them in the things which were befalling He says not, “I grieve indeed,[72] but one must needs bear it:” “but,” says he, “of none of those things do I make account, neither do I have,” i.e. account “my life dear to me.” Why this again? not to extol himself, but to teach them, as by the former words, humility, so by these, fortitude and boldness: “I have it not precious,” i.e. “I love it not before this: I account it more precious to finish my course, to testify.” And he says not, “to preach,” “to teach”—but what says he? “to testify (διαμαρτύρασθαι)—the Gospel of the grace of God.” He is about to say something more uncomfortable (φορτικώτερον), namely, “I am pure from the blood of all men (because on my part) there is nothing lacking:” he is about to lay upon them the whole weight and burden: so he first mollifies their feelings by saying, “And now behold I know that ye shall see my face no more.” The consolation[73] is twofold: both that “my face ye shall see no more,” for in heart I am with you: and that it was not they alone (who should see him no more): for, “ye shall see my face no more, ye all, among whom I have gone about preaching the Kingdom.”[74] So that he may well (say), "Wherefore I take you to record (read διὸ μαρτ. for διαμαρτ.),—seeing I shall be with you no more—“that I am pure from the blood of all men.” (Acts 20:26.) Do you mark how he terrifies them, and troubled and afflicted as their souls are, how hard he rubs them (ἐπιτρίβει)? But it was necessary. “For I have not shunned,” he says, “to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27.) Why then, he who does not speak, has blood to answer for: that is, murder! Nothing could be more terrifying than this. He shows that they also, if they do it not, have blood to answer for. So, whereas he seems to be justifying himself, in fact he is terrifying them. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers (or, bishops) to feed the Church of God (see note 3), which He hath purchased with His own blood.” (Acts 20:28.) Do you mark? he enjoins them two things. Neither success in bringing others right of itself is any gain—for, I fear, he says, “lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast-away” (1 Cor. 9:27); nor the being diligent for one’s self alone. For such an one is selfish, and seeks his own good only, and is like to him who buried his talent. “Take heed to yourselves:” this he says, not because our own salvation is more precious than that of the flock, but because, when we take heed to ourselves, then the flock also is a gainer. “In which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God.” See, it is from the Spirit ye have your ordination. This is one constraint: then he says, “To feed the Church of the Lord.”[75] Lo! another obligation: the Church is the Lord’s.[76] And a third: “which He hath purchased with His own blood.” It shows[77] how precious the concern is; that the peril is about no small matters, seeing that even His own blood He spared not. He indeed, that he might reconcile those who were enemies, poured out even His blood: but thou, even when they are become thy friends, art not able to retain them. “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.” (Acts 20:29.) Again he engages (ἐπιστρέφει) them from another quarter, from the things which should come after: as when he says, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood. After my departing,” he says, “grievous wolves shall enter in among you” (Eph. 6:12); twofold the evil, both that he himself would not be present, and that others would assail them. “Then why depart, if thou knowest this beforehand?” The Spirit draws me, he says. Both “wolves,” and “grievous, not sparing the flock;” and what is worse, even “from among your own selves:” the grievous thing (this), when the war is moreover an intestine war. The matter is exceeding serious, for it is “the Church of the Lord:” great the peril for with blood He redeemed it: mighty the war, and twofold. “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30.) “How then? what comfort shall there be?” “Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.” (Acts 20:31.) See how many strong expressions are here: “with tears,” and “night and day,” and “every one.” For it was not that if he saw many,[78] then he came in (to the work), but even were it for a single soul, he was capable of doing everything (for that one soul). So it was, in fact, that he compacted them together (συνεκρότησεν) (so firmly as he did). “Enough done on my part: three years have I remained:” they had establishing enough, he says; enough of roofing. “With tears,” he says. Seest thou that the tears were on this account? The bad man grieves not: grieve thou: perhaps he will grieve also. As, when the sick man sees his physician partaking of food, he also is incited to do the same: so likewise here, when he sees thee weeping, he is softened: he will be a good and great man.[79]

(Recapitulation.) “Not knowing,” he says, “the things that shall befall me.” (Acts 20:22–23.) Then is this why thou departest? By no means; on the contrary (I know that), “bonds and afflictions await me.” That (there are) trials, I know, but of what kind I know not: which was more grievous. “But none of these things move me” (Acts 20:24): for do not suppose that I say these things as lamenting them: for “I hold not my own life dear.” It is to raise up their minds that he says all this, and to persuade them not only not to flee, but also to bear nobly. Therefore it is that he calls it a “course” and a “ministry,” on the one hand, showing it to be glorious from its being a race, on the other, showing what was due from it, as being a ministry. I am a minister: nothing more. Having comforted them, that they might not grieve that he was so evil entreated, and having told them that he endured those things “with joy,” and having shown the fruits of them, then (and not before) he brings in that which would give them pain, that he may not overwhelm their minds. “And[80] now behold,” etc. “Wherefore I take you to record, that I am pure from the blood of all men, because I have not shrunk from declaring unto you the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:25–27): * * * that (counsel) which concerns the present matter. “For I know this,” etc. (Acts 20:29.) “What then,” someone might say, “thinkest thou thyself so great? if thou shouldest depart, are we to die?” I say not this, he replies, that my absence causeth this: but what? That there should rise up against you certain of another sort: he says not, “because of my departing,” but “after my departing:” that is, after his going on his journey.—And yet this thing has happened already: much more (then will it happen) hereafter. Then we have the cause, “to draw away disciples after them.” (Acts 20:30). That there are heresies, this is the cause, and no other than this. Then comes also consolation. But if He “purchased” it “with His own blood,” He will assuredly stand forward in its defence. “Night and day,” he says, “I cease not to warn with tears.” (Acts 20:31.) This might well be said in our case also: and though the speech seems to refer peculiarly to the teachers, it is common also to the disciples. For what, though I speak and exhort and weep night and day, while the disciple obeys not? Therefore[81] it is that he says, “I take you to record:” since also himself says, “I am pure from the blood of all men: for I have not shunned to declare unto you.” (Acts 20:26–27.) Why then, this only is to be a teacher, to declare, to preach, to instruct, shrink from nothing, to exhort night and day: but if, while one is doing all this, nothing comes of it, ye know what remains. Then ye have another justification: “I am pure from the blood of all men.” Think not that these words are spoken to us only: for indeed this speech is addressed to you also, that ye should attend to the things spoken, that ye should not start away from the hearing. What can I do? Lo! each day I rend myself with crying out, “Depart from the theatres:” and many laugh at us: “Desist from swearing, from covetousness:” numberless are our exhortations, and there is none to hear us. But I do not discourse during night? Fain would I do this also in the night time, and at your tables, if it were possible that one could be divided into ten thousand pieces, so as to be present with you and discourse. But if once in the week we call to you, and ye shrink back, and some of you do not even come here, and you that do come, depart having received no profit,—what shall we do? Many I know even sneer at us, that we are forever discoursing about the same things: so wearisome are we become to you by very satiety. But for this not we are to blame, but the hearers may thank themselves. For he indeed who is making good progress, rejoices to hear the same things always; it seems to be his praises that he hears spoken: but he who does not wish to get on, seems even to be annoyed, and though he hear the same thing but twice, it seems to him that he is hearing it often.

“I am pure,” he says, “from the blood of all men.” (Acts 20:26.) This was fit and proper for Paul to say, but we dare not say it, conscious as we are of numberless faults. Wherefore for him the ever vigilant, ever at hand, the man enduring all things for the sake of the salvation of his disciples, it was fit and proper to say this: but we must say that of Moses, “The Lord was wroth with me for your sakes” (Deut. 3:26), because ye lead us also into many sins. For when we are dispirited at seeing you make no progress, is not the greater part of our strength struck down? For what, I ask you has been done? Lo! by the grace of God we also have now passed the space of three years,[82] not indeed night and day exhorting you, but doing this, often every third day, or every seventh. What more has come of it? We accuse, we rebuke, we weep, we are in anguish, although not openly, yet in heart. But those (inward) tears are far more bitter than these (outward ones): for these indeed bring a kind of relief to the feelings of the sorrowful, whereas those aggravate it, and bind it fast. Since when there is any cause of grief, and one cannot give vent to the sorrow, lest he should seem to be vainglorious, think what he suffers! Were it not that people would tax me with excessive love of display, you would see me each day shedding fountains of tears: but to those my chamber is witness, and my hours of solitude. For believe me I have (at times) despaired of my own salvation, but from my mourning on your account, I have not even leisure to bemoan my own evils: so entirely are ye all in all to me. And whether I perceive you to be advancing, then, for very delight, I am not sensible of my own evils: or whether I see you not advancing, such is my grief, I again dismiss my own cares from my thoughts: brightening up on account of your good things, though I myself have evils without number, and saddened on account of your painful things, though my own successes are without number. For what hope is there for the teacher, when his flock is destroyed? What kind of life, what kind of expectation is there for him? With what sort of confidence will he stand up before God? what will he say? For grant that he has nothing laid to his charge, has no punishment to suffer, but is “pure from the blood of all men:” yet even so will he suffer a grief incurable: since fathers also though they be not liable to be called to account for their children’s sins, nevertheless have grief and vexation. And this profits them nothing,[83] nor shields them (προίσταται). “For it is they that watch for our souls, as those that must give account.” (Heb. 13:17.) This seems to be a fearful thing: to me this gives no concern after your destruction. For whether I give account, or not, it is no profit to me. Might it be, that ye were saved, and I to give account because of you: ye saved, and I charged with not having fulfiled my part! For my anxiety is not that you should be saved through me as the means, but only that you should be saved, no matter by what person as the instrument. Ye know not the pangs of spiritual childbirth, how overpowering they are; how he who is in travail with this birth, would rather be cut into ten thousand pieces, than see one of those to whom he has given birth perishing and undone. Whence shall we persuade you? By no other argument indeed, but by what has been done, in all that regards you we shall clear ourselves.[84] We too shall be able to say, that in nothing have we “shrunk from declaring” to you the whole truth: nevertheless we grieve: and that we do grieve, is manifest from the numberless plans we lay and contrivances we devise. And yet we might say to ourselves, What matters it to me? I have done my part, “I am pure from” (their) “blood:” but this is not enough for comfort. If we could tear open our heart, and show it to you, ye would see with what largeness it holds (you) within it, both women and children and men; for such is the power of love, that it makes the soul more spacious than the heaven. “Receive us,” says (Paul): “we have wronged no man, ye are not straitened in us.” (2 Cor. 7:2; 2 Cor. 6:12.) He had all Corinth in his heart, and says, “Ye are not straitened: be ye also enlarged” (2 Cor. 6:13); but I myself could not say this, for I well know, that ye both love me and receive me. But what is the profit either from my love or from yours, when the things pertaining to God thrive not in us? It is a ground for greater sorrow, an occasion of worse mischief (λύμης, al. λύπης). I have nothing to lay to your charge: “for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.” (Gal. 4:15.) “We yearn not only to give you the Gospel, but also our own souls.” (1 Thess. 2:8.) We are loved and we love (you): but this is not the question. But let us love Christ, “for the first commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God: and the second is like unto it, And thy neighbor as thyself.” (Matt. 22:37–39.) We have the second, we need the first: need the first, exceedingly, both I and you. We have it, but not as we ought. Let us love Him: ye know how great a reward is laid up for them that love Christ: let us love Him with fervor of soul, that, enjoying his goodwill, we may escape the stormy waves of this present life, and be found worthy to obtain the good things promised to them that love Him, through the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Ghost, be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily XLV on Acts xx. 32.

Homily XLV.

Acts 20:32

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

What he does when writing in an Epistle, this he does also when speaking in council: from exhorting, he ends with prayer: for since he had much alarmed them by saying, “Grievous wolves shall enter in among you” (Acts 20:29), therefore, not to overpower them, and make them lose all self-possession, observe the consolation (he gives). “And now,” he says, as always, “I commend you, brethren, to God, and to the word of His grace:” that is, to His grace: it is grace that saveth. He constantly puts them in mind of grace, to make them more earnest as being debtors, and to persuade them to have confidence. “Which is able to build you up.”[85] He does not say, to build, but, “to build up,” showing that they had (already) been built. Then he puts them in mind of the hope to come; “to give you an inheritance,” he says, “among all them which are sanctified.” Then exhortation again: “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel.” (Acts 20:33.) He takes away that which is the root of evils, the love of money. “Silver, or gold,” he says. He says not, I have not taken, but, not even “coveted.” No great thing this, but what follows after is great. “Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have showed you all things, how that so laboring, ye ought to support the weak.” (Acts 20:34–35.) Observe him employed in work and not simply that, but toiling. “These hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me:” so as to put them to shame. And see how worthily of them. For he says not, Ye ought to show yourselves superior to money, but what? “to support the weak”—not all indiscriminately—“and to hear the word of the Lord which He spake, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”[86] For lest any one should think that it was spoken with reference to them, and that he gave himself for an ensample, as he elsewhere says, “giving an ensample to you” (Phil. 3:17), he added the declaration of Christ, Who said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” He prayed over them while exhorting them: he shows it both by action,—“And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all,” (Acts 20:36)—he did not simply pray, but with much feeling: (κατανύξεως): great was the consolation—and by his saying, “I commend you to the Lord. And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul’s neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more.” (Acts 20:37–38.) He had said, that “grievous wolves should enter in;” had said, “I am pure from the blood of all men:” and yet the thing that grieved them most of all was this, “that they should see him no more:” since indeed it was this that made the war grievous. “And they accompanied them,” it says, “unto the ship. And it came to pass, that after we had torn ourselves from them”—so much did they love him, such was their affection towards him—“and had launched, we came with a straight course unto Coos, and the day following unto Rhodes, and from thence unto Patara: and finding a ship sailing over unto Phenicia, we went aboard, and set forth. Now when we had discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and sailed into Syria, and landed at Tyre” (Acts 21:1–3): he came to Lycia, and having left Cyprus, he sailed down to Tyre—“for there the ship was to unlade her burden. And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days: who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.” (Acts 21:4.) They too prophesy of the afflictions. It is so ordered that they should be spoken by them also, that none might imagine that Paul said those things without cause, and only by way of boasting. And there again they part from each other with prayer. “And when we had accomplished those days, we departed, and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed. And when we had taken our leave one of another, we took ship; and they returned home again. And when we had finished our course from Tyre, we came to Ptolemais, and saluted the brethren, and abode with them one day. And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.” (Acts 21:5–8.) Having come to Cæsarea, it says, we abode with Philip, which was one of the seven. “And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.” (Acts 21:9.) But it is not these that foretell to Paul, though they were prophetesses; it is Agabus. “And as we tarried there many days, there came down from Judea a certain prophet, named Agabus. And when he was come unto us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” (Acts 21:10–11.) He who formerly had declared about the famine, the same says, This “man, who owneth this girdle, thus shall they bind.” (Acts 11:28.) The same that the prophets used to do, representing events to the sight, when they spoke about the captivity—as did Ezekiel—the same did this (Agabus). “And,” what is the grievous part of the business, “deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem.” (Acts 21:12.) Many even besought him not to depart, and still he would not comply. “Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart?”[87] (Acts 21:13.) Do you mark? Lest, having heard that saying, “I go bound in the Spirit” (Acts 20:22), you should imagine it a matter of necessity, or that he fell into it ignorantly, therefore these things are foretold. But they wept, and he comforted them, grieving at their tears. For, “what mean ye,” he says, “to weep and to break my heart?” Nothing could be more affectionate: because he saw them weeping, he grieved, he that felt no pain at his own trials. “For I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. And when he would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.” (Acts 21:13–14.) Ye do me wrong in doing this: for do I grieve? Then they ceased, when he said, “to break my heart.” I weep, he says, for you, not on account of my own sufferings: as for those (men), I am willing even to die for them. But let us look over again what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “Silver, or gold, or apparel,” etc. (Acts 20:33–34; 1 Cor. 9; 2 Cor. 11.) So then, it was not in Corinth only that they did this[88]—they that corrupted the disciples, but in Asia as well. But he nowhere casts this up as a reproach to the Ephesians, when writing to them. And why? Because he did not fall upon any subject that obliged him to speak of this. But to the Corinthians he says, “My boasting has not been stopped in the regions of Achaia.” (2 Cor. 11:10.) And he does not say, Ye did not give to me; but, “Silver, or gold, or apparel, I coveted not,” that it might not seem to be their doing, that they had not given. And he does not say, From no man have I coveted the necessaries of life, that again it might not look like accusing them: but he covertly hints as much, seeing that he provided subsistence for others as well as himself. See how he worked with earnestness, “night and day” discoursing (to others), “with tears warning each one of them.” (Acts 20:31.) (Here) again he puts them in fear: “I have showed you all things,” he says: ye cannot take refuge in the plea of ignorance: “have shown you” by works “how that so laboring ye ought to work.” And he does not say, that to receive is bad, but that not to receive is better. For, “remember,” he says, “the words of the Lord which he spake: It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:35.) And where said He this? Perhaps the Apostles delivered it by unwritten tradition; or else it is plain from (recorded sayings, from) which one could infer it.[89] For in fact here he has shown both boldness in meeting dangers, sympathy with those over whom he ruled, teaching with (unshrinking) boldness, humility, (voluntary) poverty: but, what we have here is even more than that poverty. For if He says there (in the Gospel), “If thou wilt be perfect, sell what thou hast and give to the poor” (Matt. 19:21), when, besides receiving nothing himself, he provides sustenance for others also, what could equal this? It is one degree to fling away one’s possessions; a second, to be sufficient for the supply of one’s own necessities: a third, to provide for others also; a fourth, for one (to do all this) who preaches and has a right to receive. So that here is a man far better than those who merely forego possessions. “Thus it is right to support the weak:” this is (indeed) sympathy with the weak; for to give from the labors of others, is easy. “And they fell on his neck,” it says, “and wept.” (Acts 20:37.) He shows their affection also by saying, “Upon his neck,” as taking a last and yet a last embrace, such was the love they conceived from his discourse, such the spell of love that bound them. For if we groan when simply parting from each other, although we know that we shall receive one another back again, what a tearing away of themselves it must have been to them! Methinks Paul also wept. “Having torn ourselves away,” he says: he shows the violence of it by saying, “having torn ourselves away from them.” And with reason: otherwise they could never have got to sea. What means, “We came with a straight course unto Coos?” Instead of saying, “we did not go round nor make stay in other places.” Then “unto Rhodes.” (Acts 21:1.) See how he hastes on. And finding a ship sailing over unto Phenicia. (Acts 21:2.) Possibly that ship (in which they had come) was making a stay there: wherefore they shifted to another, and not having found one going to Cæsarea, but (finding this) for Phenice, they embarked in it (and pursued their voyage), having left Cyprus also and Syria: but the expression, “having left it on the left hand,” is not said simply (in that meaning), but that they made speed not to get to Syria either.[90] “We landed at Tyre.” (Acts 21:3.) Then they tarry with the brethren seven days. Now that they were come near to Jerusalem, they no longer run. (b) “Who said to Paul through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem.” (Acts 21:4.) Observe how, when the Spirit does not forbid, he complies. They said, “Adventure not thyself into the theatre, and he did not adventure” (Acts 19:31): often they bore him off (from dangers), and he complied: again he escaped by a window: and now, though numberless persons, so to say, beseech him, both those at Tyre and those at Cæsarea, weeping also and predicting numberless dangers, he refuses to comply. And yet it is not (merely), they predicted the dangers, but “said by the Spirit.” If then the Spirit bade, why did he gainsay? “By the Spirit,” that is, they knowing “by the Spirit” (what would be the consequences, said to him): for of course it does not mean that the exhortation they made was by the Spirit. For they did not simply foretell to him the dangers (through the Spirit), but (added of themselves) that it behooved him not to go up—sparing him. But “after we had accomplished the days,” i.e. had fulfilled the appointed days, “we separated, and went on our way: they all bringing us on our way with wives and children.” (Acts 21:5.)—See how great was the entreaty. And again they part with prayer. Also in Ptolemais they stay one day, but in Cæsarea many. (Acts 21:6–8.) (a) Now that they are near to Jerusalem, they no longer hurry. For observe, I pray you, all the days. “After the day of unleavened bread” they came “to Troas in five days” (Acts 20:6); then they there spent “seven;” in all, twelve: then to “Thasos,” to “Mytilene,” to “Trogylium” and “over against Chios,” and to “Samos” and “Miletus” (Acts 20:13–17); eighteen in all. Then to “Cos,” to “Rhodes,” to “Patara,” twenty-one: then say[91] five to “Tyre;” twenty-six: there “seven;” thirty-three; “Ptolemais,” thirty-four; then to “Cæsarea, many days” (Acts 21:1–10); and then, thereafter, the prophet puts them up thence. (c) When Paul has heard that he has to suffer numberless perils, then he is in haste, not flinging himself upon the dangers but accounting it to be the command of the Spirit. (e) And Agabus does not say, “They shall bind” Paul, that he may not seem to speak upon agreement (with Paul), but “the man that owneth this girdle” (Acts 21:11)—so then he had a girdle also.[92] But when they could not persuade him—this was why they wept—then they “held their peace.” Do you mark the resignation? do you mark the affection? “They held their peace,” it says, “saying, The will of the Lord be done.” (Acts 21:12–14.) (g) The Lord, say they, Himself will do that which is pleasing in his sight. For they perceived that it was the will of God. Else Paul would not be so bent (upon going)—he that on all (other occasions delivers himself out of dangers. (d) “And after these, days,” it says, “having taken up our baggage”—i.e. having received the (supplies) necessary for the journey—“we went up to Jerusalem.” (Acts 21:15.) “And there went with us also certain of the disciples from Cæsarea, bringing us to one with whom we should lodge, one Mnason, an ancient disciple of Cyprus.”[93] (Acts 21:16.) “And when we were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.” (Acts 21:17.) (f) “Bringing us,” it says, “(to him) with whom we should lodge”—not to the church: for on the former occasion (Acts 15:4), when they went up concerning the decrees, they lodged with the Church, but now with a certain “ancient disciple.” (The expression) shows that the preaching had been going on a long time: whence it seems to me that this writer in the Acts epitomizes the events of many years, relating (only) the matters of chief importance. (h) So unwilling were they to burthen the Church, when there was another to lodge them; and so little did they stand upon their dignity. “The brethren,” it says, “received us gladly.” Affairs among the Jews were now full of peace: there was not much warfare (among them). “Bringing us,” it says, “to one with whom we should lodge.” Paul was the guest he entertained. Perchance some one of you says: Aye, if it were given me to entertain Paul as a guest, I readily and with much eagerness would do this. Lo! it is in thy power to entertain Paul’s Master for thy guest, and thou wilt not: for “he that receiveth one of these least,” he saith, “receiveth Me.” (Matt. 18:5; Luke 9:48.) By how much the brother may be least, so much the more does Christ come to thee through him. For he that receives the great, often does it from vainglory also; but he that receives the small, does it purely for Christ’s sake. It is in thy power to entertain even the Father of Christ as thy guest, and thou will not: for,[94] “I was a stranger,” He says, “and ye took me in” (Matt. 25:35): and again, “Unto one of the least of these the brethren that believe on Me, ye have done it unto Me.” (Matt. 25:40.) Though it be not Paul, yet if it be a believer and a brother, although the least, Christ cometh to thee through him. Open thine house, take Him in. “He that receiveth a prophet,” He saith, “shall receive a prophet’s reward.” (Matt. 10:41.) Therefore too he that receives Christ, shall receive the reward of him who has Christ for his guest.[95] Do not thou disbelieve His words, but be believing. Himself hath said, Through them I come to thee: and that thou mayest not disbelieve, He lays down both punishments for those who do not receive, and honors for those who do receive; since He would not have done this, unless both the person honored and the person insulted were Himself. “Thou receivedst Me,” He saith, “into thy lodging, I will receive thee into the Kingdom of My Father; thou tookest away My hunger, I take away thy sins; thou sawest Me bound, I see thee loosed; thou sawest Me a stranger, I make thee a citizen of heaven; thou gavest Me bread, I give thee an entire Kingdom, that thou mayest inherit and possess it.” He saith not, “Receive,” but, “Inherit,” the word which is spoken of those who have possession by right of ownership; as when we say, “This have I inherited.” Thou didst it to Me in secret, I will proclaim it openly: and of thine acts indeed I say, that they were of free gift, but Mine are of debt. “For since thou,” He saith, “didst begin, I follow and come after: I am not ashamed to confess the benefits conferred on Me, nor from what things thou didst free Me, hunger and nakedness and wandering. Thou sawest Me bound, thou shalt not behold the fire of hell; thou sawest Me sick, thou shalt not behold the torments nor the punishments.” O hands, truly blessed, which minister in such services as these, which are accounted worthy to serve Christ! Feet which go into prisons for Christ’s sake, with ease defy the fire: no trial of bonds have they, (the hands)[96] which saw Him bound! Thou clothedst Him with a garment, and thou puttest on a garment of salvation: thou wast in prison with Him, and with Him thou findest thyself in the Kingdom, not ashamed, knowing that thou visitedst Him. The Patriarch knew not that he was entertaining Angels, and he did entertain them. (Gen. 18:3.) Let us take shame to ourselves, I beseech you: he was sitting in mid-day, being in a foreign land, where he had none inheritance, “not so much as to set his foot on” (Acts 7:5): he was a stranger, and the stranger entertained strangers: for he was a citizen of heaven. Therefore, not even while he was on earth was he a stranger (to Him). We are rather strangers than that stranger, if we receive not strangers. He had no home, and his tent was his place of reception. And mark his liberality—he killed a calf, and kneaded fine meal: mark his ready mind—by himself and his wife: mark the unassuming manner—he worships and beseeches them. For all these qualities ought to be in that man who entertains strangers—readiness, cheerfulness, liberality. For the soul of the stranger is abashed, and feels ashamed; and unless (his host) show excessive joy, he is as (if) slighted, and goes away, and it becomes worse than not to have received him, his being received in this way. Therefore he worships them, therefore he welcomes them with speech, therefore with a seat. For who would have hesitated, knowing that this work was done unto Him? “But we are not in a foreign land.” If we will, we shall be able to imitate him. How many of the brethren are strangers? There is a common apartment, the Church, which we call the “Xenon.” Be inquisitive (περιεργάζεσθε), sit before the doors, receive those who come yourselves; though you may not wish to take them into your houses, at any rate in some other way (receive them), by supplying them with necessaries. “Why, has not the Church means” you will say? She has: but what is that to you? that they should be fed from the common funds of the Church, can that benefit you? If another man prays, does it follow that you are not bound to pray? Wherefore do you not say, “Do not the priests pray? then why should I pray?” “But I,” you will say, “give to him who cannot be received there.” Give, though it be to that one: for what we are anxious for is this, that you should give at any rate. Hear what Paul says: “That it may relieve them that are widows indeed, and that the Church be not burdened.” (1 Tim. 5:16.) Be it how you will, only do it. But I put it, not, “that the Church be not burdened,” but, “that thou be not burdened;” for at this rate thou wilt do nothing, leaving all to the Church. This is why there is a common room set apart by the Church, that you may not say these things. “The Church,” say you, “has lands,[97] has money, and revenues.” And has she not charges? I ask; and has she not a daily expenditure? “No doubt,” you will say. Why then do you not lend aid to her moderate means? I am ashamed indeed to say these things: however, I compel no man, if any one imagines what I am saying to be for gain. Make for yourself a guest-chamber in your own house: set up a bed there, set up a table there and a candlestick. (comp. 2 Kgs. 4:10.) For is it not absurd, that whereas, if soldiers should come, you have rooms set apart for them, and show much care for them, and furnish them with everything, because they keep off from you the visible war of this world, yet strangers have no place where they might abide? Gain a victory over the Church. Would you put us to shame? This do: surpass us in liberality: have a room, to which Christ may come; say, “This is Christ’s cell; this building is set apart for Him.” Be it but an underground[98] chamber, and mean, He disdains it not. “Naked and a stranger,” Christ goes about, it is but a shelter He wants: afford it, though but this. Be not uncompassionate, nor inhuman; be not so earnest in worldly matters, so cold in spiritual. Let also the most faithful of thy servants be the one entrusted with this office, and let him bring in the maimed, the beggars, and the homeless. These things I say to shame you. For ye ought indeed to receive them in the upper part of your house; but if ye will not do this, then though it be below, though but where thy mules are housed, and thy servants, there receive Christ. Perchance ye shudder at hearing this. What then, when ye do not even this? Behold, I exhort, behold, I bid you; let this be a matter to be taken up in earnest. But ye do not wish it thus, perhaps? Do it some other way. There are many poor men and poor women: set apart some one (of these) constantly to remain there: let the poor man be (thine inmate) though but as a guard to thy house: let him be to thee wall and fence, shield and spear. Where alms are, the devil dares not approach, nor any other evil thing. Let us not overlook so great a gain. But now a place is set apart for a chariot, and for litters (βαστερνίοις) another; but for Christ Who is wandering, not even one! Abraham received the strangers in the place where he abode himself; his wife stood in the place of a servant, the guests in the place of masters. He knew not that he was receiving Christ; knew not that he was receiving Angels; so that had he known it, he would have lavished his whole substance. But we, who know that we receive Christ, show not even so much zeal as he did who thought that he was receiving men. “But they are impostors,” you will say, “many of them, and unthankful.” And for this the greater thy reward, when thou receivest for the sake of Christ’s name. For if thou knowest indeed that they are impostors, receive them not into thy house: but if thou dost not know this, why dost thou accuse them lightly? “Therefore I tell them to go to the receiving house.” But what kind of excuse is there for us, when we do not even receive those whom we know, but shut our doors against all? Let our house be Christ’s general receptacle: let us demand of them as a reward, not money, but that they make our house the receptacle for Christ; let us run about everywhere, let us drag them in, let us seize our booty: greater are the benefits we receive than what we confer. He does not bid thee kill a calf: give thou bread to the hungry, raiment to the naked, shelter to the stranger. But that thou mayest not make this thy pretext, there is a common apartment, that of the Church; throw thy money into that, and then thou hast received them: since (Abraham) there had the reward of those things also which were done by his servants. “He gave the calf to a young man, and he hasted to dress it.” (Gen. 18:7.) So well trained were his servants also! They ran, and murmured not as ours do: for he had made them pious. He drew them out to war, and they murmured not: so well disciplined were they. (Gen. 14:14.) For he had equal care for all as for himself: he all but said as Job did, “We were alike formed in the same womb.” (Job 33:6.) Therefore let us also take thought for their salvation, and let us make it our duty to care for our servants, that they may be good; and let our servants also be instructed in the things pertaining to God. Then will virtue not be difficult to us, if we train them orderly. Just as in war, when the soldiers are well-disciplined, the general carries on war easily, but the contrary happens, when this is not so; and when the sailors too are of one mind, the pilot easily handles the rudder-strings; so here likewise. For say now, if thy servants have been so schooled, thou wilt not be easily exasperated, thou wilt not have to find fault, wilt not be made angry, wilt not need to abuse them. It may be, thou wilt even stand in awe of thy servants, if they are worthy of admiration, and they will be helpers with thee, and will give thee good counsel. But from all these shall all things proceed that are pleasing to God, and thus shall the whole house be filled with blessing, and we, performing things pleasing to God, shall enjoy abundant succor from above, unto which may we all attain, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost, together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily XLVI on Acts xxi. 18, 19.

Homily XLVI.

Acts 21:18–19

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

This was the Bishop of Jerusalem; and to him (Paul) is sent on an earlier occasion. This (James) was brother of the Lord; a great and admirable man. (To him, it says,) “Paul entered in with us.” Mark the (Bishop’s) unassuming behavior: “and the elders” (were present). Again Paul relates to them the things relating to the Gentiles, not indulging in vainglory, God forbid, but wishing to show forth the mercy of God, and to fill them with great joy. (Acts 15.) See accordingly: “when they heard it,” it says, “they glorified God,”—not praised nor admired Paul: for in such wise had he narrated, as referring all to Him—“and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believed.” Observe with what modest deference they too speak: “they said to him:” not (James) as Bishop discourses authoritatively, but they take Paul as partner with them in their view; “Thou seest, brother:” as though immediately and at the outset apologizing for themselves, and saying, “We did not wish this. Seest thou the necessity of the thing? ‘how many thousands,’ say they, ‘of Jews there are which’ have come together.” And they say not, “how many thousands we have made catechumens,” but, “there are. And these,” say they, “are all zealous for the law.” (Acts 21:20.) Two reasons—the number of them, and their views. For neither had they been few, would it have been right to despise them: nor, if they were many and did not all cling to the law, would there have been need to make much account of them. Then also a third cause is given: “And they all,” it says, “have been informed of thee”—they say not,“have heard,” but κατηχήθησαν, that is, so they have believed, and have been taught, “that thou teachest apostasy from Moses to all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, by telling them not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.” (Acts 21:21.) “What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together: for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say to thee” (Acts 21:22–23): they say these things as advising, not as commanding. “We have four men which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them.” Make thy defence in act, not in word—“that they may shave themselves,” it says, “and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law” (Acts 21:23–24): they say not, “teachest,” but, of superabundance, “that thou thyself also keepest the law.” For of course not this was the matter of chief interest, whether he did not teach others, but, that he did himself observe the law. “What then” (he might say), “if the Gentiles should learn it? I shall injure them.” How so? say they, seeing that even we, the teachers of the Jews, have sent unto them. “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.” (Acts 21:25.) Here with a kind of remonstrance (ἐντρεπτικὥς), As “we,” say they, commanded them, although we are preachers to the Jews, so do thou, although a preacher to the Gentiles, cooperate with us. Observe Paul: he does not say, “Well, but I can bring forward Timothy, whom I circumcised: well, but I can satisfy them by what I have to say (of myself):” but he complied, and did all: for in fact thus was it expedient (to do).[99] For it was one thing to take (effectual) measures for clearing himself, and another to have done these things without the knowledge of any (of the parties). It was a step open to no suspicion, the fact of his even bearing the expenses. “Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, signifying the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.” (Acts 21:26.) “Signifying,” διαγγέλλων, i.e. καταγγέλλων, publicly notifying: so that it was he who made himself conspicuous. “And when the seven days were about to be completed, the Jews from Asia”—for (his arrival) most keeps times with theirs[100]—“when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him, crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men everywhere against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.” (Acts 21:27–28.) Mark their habitual conduct, how turbulent we everywhere find it, how men who with or without reason make a clamor in the midst.[101] “For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple. And all the city was moved, and the people ran together: and they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple and forthwith the doors were shut.” (Acts 21:29–30.) “Men of Israel,” it says, “help: this is the man that (teaches) against the people, and the law, and this place.”—the things which most trouble them, the Temple and the Law. And Paul does not tax the Apostles with being the cause of these things to him. “And they drew him,” it says, “out of the Temple: and the doors were shut.” For they wished to kill him; and therefore were dragging him out, to do this with greater security. “And as they went about to kill him, tidings came unto the tribune of the cohort, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. Who immediately took soldiers and centurions, and ran down unto them: and when they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they left beating of Paul. Then the tribune came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and demanded who he was, and what he had done. And some cried one thing, some another, among the multitude.” (Acts 21:31–34.) But the tribune having come down delivered him, and “commanded him to be bound with two chains:” (hereby) appeasing the anger of the people. “And when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. And when he came upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the violence of the people. For the multitude of the people followed after, crying, Away with him!” (Acts 21:34–36.) What means, “Away with him?” that is, what they say with us according to the Roman custom, To the standards with him![102] “And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the tribune, May I speak unto thee?” (Acts 21:37.) In the act of being borne along up the stairs, he requests to say something to the tribune: and observe how quietly he does it. “May I speak unto thee?” he says. “Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? Art thou not then that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?” (Acts 21:38.) For (this Egyptian) was a revolutionary and seditious person. With regard to this then Paul clears himself, and * * [103]

(Recapitulation.) “Do therefore this that we say unto thee,” etc. (Acts 21:23–24.) He shows that it was not necessary to do this upon principle (προηγουμένως)—whence also they obtain his compliance—but that it was economy and condescension.[104] “As touching the Gentiles,” etc. (Acts 21:25.) Why, then, this was no hindrance to the preaching, seeing they themselves legislated for them to this effect. Why, then,[105] in his taking Peter to task he does not absolutely (ἁπλὥς) charge him with doing wrong: for precisely what he does on this occasion himself, the same does Peter on that occasion, (merely) holding his peace, and establishing his doctrine. (Gal. 2:11.) And he says not, For why? it is not right to teach those among the Gentiles. “It is not enough to have not (so) preached there, but there was need also to do something more, that those may be persuaded that thou observest the law. The affair is one of condescension, be not alarmed.” They do not advise him (to this course) sooner, until they have first spoken of the economy and the gain. “And besides, the doing this in Jerusalem, is a thing to be borne. ‘Do thou this thing therefore’ here, that it may be in thy power abroad to do the other.” (b) “The next day,” it says, “he took them” (Acts 21:26): he deferred it not; for when there is economy in the case, this is the way of it. (a) “Jews from Asia having seen him,” for it was natural that they were spending some days there, “in the Temple.” (Acts 21:27.) (c) Mark the economy (of Providence) that appeared (in this). (p. 279, note 1) After the (believing) Jews had been persuaded (concerning him), then it is that those (Jews of Asia) set upon him in order that those (believing Jews) may not also set upon him. Help, say they, “ye men of Israel!” as though it were some (monster) difficult to be caught, and hard to be overcome, that has fallen into their hands. “All men,” they say, “everywhere, he ceaseth not to teach;” not here only. And then the accusation (is) more aggravated by the present circumstances. “And yet more,” say they, “he has polluted the temple, having brought into it men who are Greeks.” (Acts 21:28.) And yet in Christ’s time there “came up (Greeks) to worship” (John 12:20): true, but here it speaks of Greeks who had no mind to worship. “And they seized Paul,” etc. (Acts 21:30–35.) They no longer wanted laws nor courts of justice: they also beat him. But he forbore to make his defence then; he made it afterward: with reason; for they would not even have heard him then. Pray, why did they cry, “Away with him?” (Acts 21:36.) They feared he might escape them. Observe how submissively Paul speaks to the tribune. “May I speak unto thee? Then art not thou that Egyptian?” (Acts 21:37–38.) This Egyptian, namely, was a cheat and impostor, and the devil expected to cast a cloud over (the Gospel) through him, and implicate both Christ and His Apostles in the charges pertaining to those (imposters): but he prevailed nothing, nay the truth became even more brilliant, being nothing defeated by the machinations of the devil, nay rather shining forth all the more. Since if there had not been impostors, and then these (Christ and His Apostles) had prevailed, perhaps some one might have laid hold upon this: but when those impostors did actually appear, this is the wonder. “In order,” says (the Apostle), “that they which are approved may be made manifest.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) And Gamaliel says, “Before these days stood up Theudas.”[106] Then let us not grieve that heresies exist, seeing that false Christs wished to attack even Christ both before this and after; with a view to throw Him into the shade, but on every occasion we find the truth shining out transparent. So it was with the Prophets: there were false prophets, and by contrast with these they shone the more: just as disease enhances health, and darkness light, and tempest calm. There is no room left for the Greeks to say that (our teachers) were impostors and mountebanks: for those (that were such) were exposed. It was the same in the case of Moses: God suffered the magicians, on purpose that Moses might not be suspected to be a magician: He let them teach all men to what length magic can go in making a fantastic show: beyond this point they deceived not, but themselves confessed their defeat. Impostors do us no harm, rather do us good, if we will apply our mind to the matter. What then, you will say, if we are partners with them in common estimation? The estimation is not among us, but with those who have no judgment. Let not us greatly care for the estimation of the many, nor mind it more than needs. To God we live, not to men: in heaven we have our conversation, not on earth: there lie the awards and the prizes of our labors, thence we look for our praises, thence for our crowns. Thus far let us trouble ourselves about men—that we do not give and afford them a handle against us. But if, though we afford none, those choose to accuse us thoughtlessly and without discrimination, let us laugh, not[107] weep. “Provide” thou “things honest before the Lord and before men” (2 Cor. 8:21): if, though thou provide things honest, that man derides, give thyself no more concern (for that). Thou hast thy patterns in the Scriptures. For, saith he, “do I now persuade men or God?” (Gal. 1:10) and again, “We persuade men, but we are made manifest unto God.” (2 Cor. 5:11.) And Christ (spoke) thus of them that take offence: “Let them alone, they be blind guides of the blind” (Matt. 15:14); and again, “Woe unto you, when all men speak well of you” (Luke 6:26): and again, “Let your works shine, that men may see, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:16.) And, “Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6.)

These sayings are not contrary, nay, they are exceedingly in accord. For when the offence is with us, then woe unto us, but when not with us, not so. And again, Woe to (that man) through whom “the name of God is blasphemed.” (Rom. 2:24.) How then if I do what is right in anything, but another blasphemes? That is nothing to me, but only to him: for through him (God) was blasphemed. “And how is it possible to do what is right in anything, and yet give a handle to the rest?” Whence will ye that I bring examples—from present, or from old times? Not to be easily scared (ψοφοδεεἵς), shall we speak to the very point now in hand? Paul judaized in Jerusalem, but in Antioch not so: he judaized, and they were offended (p. 282, note 3), but those had no right to be offended. He is said to have saluted both Nero’s cupbearer and his concubine:[108] what, think ye, must they have said against him because of this? But they had no right to do so. Since, if he drew them to him for[109] loose living or any wicked acts, one might well be offended: but if in order to right living, what is there to be offended at? Let me mention something that happened to one of my acquaintance. The wrath of God once fell upon (a city), and he being very young (was) in the order of deacon. The bishop was absent at the time, and of the presbyters none took thought for the matter, but indiscriminately they caused in one night immense numbers[110] of people to be baptized all at once, and they did indiscriminately receive baptism, all of them ignorant of everything: these he took apart by a hundred or two hundred together, and discoursed to them, not upon any other subject, but only on the sacraments, so that the unbaptized also were not allowed to be present. Many thought he did this because he coveted rule. But he cared not for that: neither however did he continue the thing for a (longer) time, but immediately desisted. When then? Was he the cause of the scandal? I think not. For if indeed he had done this without cause, they might with reason have ascribed it to him: and so again, if he had continued to do so. For when aught of what is pleasing to God is hindered by another’s taking offence, it is right to take no notice: but then is the time to mind it, when we are not forced because of him to offend God. For, say, if, while we are discoursing and putting drunkards to shame (σκωπτόντων), any one take offence—am I to give over speaking? Hear Christ say, “Will ye also go away?” (John 6:67.) So then, the right thing is, neither to take no notice, nor to take too much, of the weakness of the many. Do we not see the physicians acting thus: how, when it may be done, they humor the whims of their patients, but when the gratification does harm, then they will not spare? Always it is good to know the right mean. Many reviled, because a certain beautiful virgin stayed, and they railed upon those who catechised (her). What then? Was it their duty to desist for that? By no means. For let us not look to this only, whether some be offended, but whether they are justly offended, and[111] so that it is no hurt to ourselves (to give way). “If meat,” saith (Paul), “offend my brother, I will eat no meat as long as the world lasts.” (1 Cor. 8:13.) With reason: for the not eating did (him) no harm. If however it offend him, that I wish to renounce (ἀποτάξασθαι) (the world), it is not right to mind him. And whom, you will ask, does this offend? Many, to my knowledge. When therefore the hindrance is a thing indifferent, let (the thing) be done[112]. Else, if we were to look only to this, many are the things we have to desist from: just as, on the other hand, if we should despise (all objections), we have to destroy many (brethren). As in fact Paul also took thought beforehand concerning offence: “Lest,” he says, “in this liberality which is administered by us:” for it was attended with no loss (to him) to obviate an ill surmise. But when we fall into such a necessity as that great evils should ensue through the other’s taking offence[113] let us pay no heed to that person. He has to thank himself for it, and we are not now accountable, for it was not possible to spare him without hurt (to ourselves). Some were offended, because certain believers sat down to meat in (heathen) temples. It was not right to sit down: for no harm came of this (their not doing it). They were offended, because Peter ate with the Gentiles. But he indeed spared them, but (Paul)[114] not so. On all occasions it behooves us in following the laws of God to take great pains that we give no matter of offence; that both ourselves may not have to answer for it, and may have mercy vouchsafed us from God, by the grace and loving-kindness 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.

Homily XLVII on Acts xxi. 39, 40.

Homily XLVII.

Acts 21:39–40

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

Observe how, when he discourses to those that are without, he does not decline availing himself of the aids afforded by the laws. Here he awes the tribune by the name of his city. And again, elsewhere he said, “Openly, uncondemned, Romans as we are, they have cast us into prison.” (Acts 19:37.) For since the tribune said, “Art thou that Egyptian?” he immediately drew him off from that surmise: then, that he may not be thought to deny his nation, he says at once, “I am a Jew:” he means his religion.[115] (b) What then? he did not deny (that he was a Christian): God forbid: for he was both a Jew and a Christian, observing what things he ought: since indeed he, most of all men, did obey the law: (a) as in fact he elsewhere calls himself, “Under the law to Christ.” (1 Cor. 9:21.) What is this, I pray? (c) The man[116] that believes in Christ. And when discoursing with Peter, he says: “We, Jews by nature.—But I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.” (Gal. 2:15.) And this is a proof, that he does not speak lies, seeing he takes all as his witnesses. Observe again how mildly he speaks. This again is a very strong argument that he is chargeable with no crime, his being so ready to make his defence, and his wishing to come to discourse with the people of the Jews. See a man well-prepared (τεταγμένον ἄνδρα)!—Mark the providential ordering of the thing: unless the tribune had come, unless he had bound him, he would not have desired to speak for his defence, he would not have obtained the silence he did. “Standing on the stairs.” Then there was the additional facility afforded by the locality, that he should have a high place to harangue them from—in chains too! What spectacle could be equal to this, to see Paul, bound with two chains, and haranguing the people! (To see him,) how he was not a whit perturbed, not a whit confused; how, seeing as he did so great a multitude all hostility against him, the ruler standing by, he first of all made them desist from their anger: then, how prudently (he does this). Just what he does in his Epistle to the Hebrews, the same he does here: first he attracts them by the sound of their common mother tongue: then by his mildness itself. “He spake unto them,” it says, “in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.” (Acts 22:1.) Mark his address, at once so free from all flattery, and so expressive of meekness. For he says not, “Masters,” nor “Lords,” but, “Brethren,” just the word they most liked: “I am no alien from. you,” he says, nor “against you.” “Men,” he says, “brethren, and fathers:” this, a term of honor, that of kindred. “Hear ye,” says he, “my”—he says not, “teaching,” nor “harangue,” but, “my defence which I now make unto you.” He puts himself in the posture of a suppliant. “And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence.” (Acts 22:2.) Do you observe how the using the same tongue subdued them? In fact, they had a sort of awe for that language. Observe also how he prepares the way for his discourse, beginning thus: “I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.” (Acts 22:3.) “I am a man,” he says, “which am a Jew:” which thing they liked most of all to hear; “born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia.” That they may not again think him to be of another nation, he adds his religion: “but brought up in this city.” (p. 282, note 4.) He shows how great was his zeal for the worship, inasmuch as having left his native city, which was so great and so remote too, he chose to be brought up here for the Law’s sake. See how from the beginning he attached himself to the law.[117] But this he says, not only to defend himself to them, but to show that not by human intent was he led to the preaching of the Gospel, but by a Divine power: else, having been so educated, he would not have suddenly changed. For if indeed he had been one of the common order of men, it might have been reasonable to suspect this: but if he was of the number of those who were most of all bound by the law, it was not likely that he should change lightly, and without strong necessity. But perhaps some one may say: “To have been brought up here proves nothing: for what if thou camest here for the purpose of trading, or for some other cause?” Therefore he says, “at the feet of Gamaliel:” and not simply, “by Gamaliel,” but “at his feet,” showing his perseverance, his assiduity, his zeal for the hearing, and his great reverence for the man. “Taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers.” Not simply, “the law,” but “the law of the fathers;” showing that he was such from the beginning, and not merely one that knew the Law. All this seems indeed to be spoken on their side, but in fact it told against them, since he, knowing the law, forsook it. “Yes: but what if thou didst indeed know the law accurately, but dost not vindicate it, no, nor love it?” “Being a zealot,” he adds: not simply (one that knew it). Then, since it was a high encomium he had passed upon himself, he makes it theirs as well as his, adding, “As ye all are this day.” For he shows that they act not from any human object, but from zeal for God; gratifying them, and preoccupying their minds, and getting a hold upon them in a way that did no harm. Then he brings forward proofs also, saying, “and I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders” (Acts 22:4–5): “How does this appear.” As witnesses he brings forward the high-priest himself and the elders. He says indeed, “Being a zealot, as ye” (Hom. xix. p. 123): but he shows by his actions, that he went beyond them. “For I did not wait for an opportunity of seizing them: I both stirred up the priests, and undertook journeys: I did not confine my attacks, as ye did, to men, I extended them to women also: “both binding, and casting into prisons both men and women.”

This testimony is incontrovertible; the (unbelief) of the Jews (is left) without excuse. See how many witnesses he brings forward, the elders, the high-priest, and those in the city. Observe his defence, how it is not of cowardly fear (for himself, that he pleads), no, but for teaching and indoctrination. For had not the hearers been stones, they would have felt the force of what he was saying. For up to this point he had themselves as witnesses: the rest, however, was without witnesses: “From whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me? And I answered, Who are Thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, Whom thou persecutest.” (Acts 22:6–8.) Why then, these very things ought to have been held worthy of credit, from those that went before: otherwise he would not have undergone such a revolution. How if he is only making a fine story of it, say you? Answer me, Why did he suddenly fling away all this zeal? Because he looked for honor? And yet he got just the contrary. But an easy life, perhaps? No, nor that either. Well but something else? Why it is not in the power of thought to invent any other object. So then, leaving it to themselves to draw the inference, he narrates the facts. “As I came nigh,” he says, “unto Damascus, about noonday.” See how great was the excess of the light. What if he is only making a fine story, say you? Those who were with him are witnesses, who led him by the hand, who saw the light. “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.” (Acts 22:9.) But in another place he says, “Hearing the voice, but seeing no man.” (Acts 9:7.) It is not at variance: no, there were two voices, that of Paul and the Lord’s voice: in that place, the writer means Paul’s voice (Hom. xix. p. 124, note 2); as in fact (Paul) here adds, “The voice of Him that spake unto me. Seeing no man:” he does not say, that they did not see the light: but, “no man,” that is, “none speaking.” And good reason that it should be so, since it behooved him alone to have that voice vouchsafed unto him. For if indeed they also had heard it, (the miracle) would not have been so great. Since persons of grosser minds are persuaded more by sight, those saw the light, and were afraid. In fact, neither did the light take so much effect on them, as it did on him: for it even blinded his eyes: by that which befel him, (God) gave them also an opportunity of recovering their sight, if they had the mind. It seems to me at least, that their not believing was providentially ordered, that they might be unexceptionable witnesses. “And he said unto me” it says, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, Whom thou persecutest.” (comp. Acts 9:5.) Well is the name of the city (Nazareth) also added, that they might recognize (the Person): moreover, the Apostles also spoke thus. (Acts 2:22; Acts 4:10; Acts 10:38.) And Himself bore witness, that they were persecuting Him. “And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus. And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him. Enter into the city,” it says, “and there it shall be spoken to thee of all that is appointed for thee to do.” (Acts 22:10–13.) Lo! again another witness. And see how unexceptionable he makes him also. “And one Ananias,” he says, “a devout man according to the law,”—so far is it from being anything alien!—“having a good report of all the Jews that dwelt” (there). “And I in the same hour received sight.” Then follows the testimony borne by the facts. Observe how it is interwoven, of persons and facts; and the persons, both of their own and of aliens: the priests, the elders, and his fellow-travellers: the facts, what he did and what was done to him: and facts bear witness to facts, not persons only. Then Ananias, an alien;[118] then the fact itself, the recovery of sight; then a great prophecy. “And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see That Just One.” (Acts 22:14.) It is well said, “Of the fathers,” to show that they were not Jews, but aliens from the law, and that it was not from zeal (for the law) that they were acting. “That thou shouldest know His will.” Why then His will is this. See how in the form of narrative it is teaching. “And see That Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. For thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And see,” he says, “that Just One.” (Acts 22:15.) For the present he says no more than this: if He is Just, they are guilty. “And hear the voice of His mouth.” See how high he raises the fact! “For thou shalt be His witness—for this, because thou wilt not betray the sight and hearing (i.e. “prove false to”)—“both of what thou hast seen, and of what thou hast heard:” by means of both the senses he claims his faith, fulness—“to all men. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on His name.” (Acts 22:16.) Here it is a great thing he has uttered. For he said not, “Be baptized in His name:” but, “calling on the name of Christ.” It shows that He is God: since it is not lawful to “call upon” any other, save God. Then he shows also, that he himself was not compelled: for, “I said,” says he, “What must I do?” Nothing is (left) without witness: no; he brings forward the witness of a whole city, seeing they had beheld him led by the hand. But see the prophecy fulfilled. “To all men,” it is said. For he did become a witness to Him, and a witness as it ought to be; by what he suffered, by what he did, and by what he said. Such witnesses ought we also to be, and not to betray the things we have been entrusted withal: I speak not only of doctrines, but also of the manner of life.

For observe: because he had seen, because he had heard, he bears witness to all men, and nothing hindered him. We too bear witness (Mod. text “have heard”) that there is a Resurrection and numberless good things: we are bound to bear witness of this to all men. “Yes, and we do bear witness,” you will say, “and do believe.” How; when ye act the contrary? Say now: if any one should call himself a Christian, and then having apostatized should hold with the Jews, would this testimony suffice? By no means: for men would desire the testimony which is borne by the actions. Just so, if we say that there is a Resurrection and numberless good things, and then despise those things and prefer the things here, who will believe us? Not what we say, but what we do, is what all men look to. “Thou shalt be a witness,” it says, “unto all men:” not only to the friendly, but also to the unbelievers: for this is what witnesses are for; not to persuade those who know, but those who know not. Let us be trustworthy witnesses. But how shall we be trustworthy? By the life we lead. The Jews assaulted him: our passions assault us, bidding us abjure our testimony. But let us not obey them: we are witnesses from God. (Christ) is judged that He is not God:[119] He has sent us to bear witness to Him. Let us bear witness and persuade those who have to decide the point: if we do not bear witness, we have to answer for their error also. But if in a court of justice, where worldly matters come in question, nobody would receive a witness full of numberless vices, much less here, where such (and so great) are the matters to be considered. We say, that we have heard Christ, and that we believe the things which He has promised: Show it, say they, by your works: for your life bears witness of the contrary—that ye do not believe. Say, shall we look at the money-getting people, the rapacious, the covetous? the people that mourn and wail, that build and busy themselves in all sorts of things, as though they were never to die? “Ye do not believe that ye shall die, a thing so plain and evident: and how shall we believe you when ye bear witness?” For there are, there are many men, whose state of mind is just as if they were not to die. For when in a lengthened old age they set about building and planting, when will they take death into their calculations? It will be no small punishment to us that we were called to bear witness, but were not able to bear witness of the things that we have seen. We have seen Angels with our eyes, yea, more clearly than those who have (visibly) beheld them. We shall be (Mod. text “Then let us be”) witnesses to Christ: for not those only are “martyrs,” (or witnesses, whom we so call), but ourselves also. This is why they are called martyrs, because when bidden to abjure (the faith), they endure all things, that they may speak the truth: and we, when we are bidden by our passions to abjure, let us not be overcome. Gold saith: Say that Christ is not Christ. Then listen not to it as to God, but despise its biddings. The evil lusts[120] “profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Titus 1:16.) For this is not to witness, but the contrary. And indeed that others should deny (Him) is nothing wonderful: but that we who have been called to bear witness should deny Him, is a grievous and a heinous thing: this of all things does the greatest hurt to our cause. “It shall be to (your)selves for a testimony.” (Luke 21:13), He saith: but (this is) when we ourselves stand to it firmly. If we would all bear witness to Christ, we should quickly persuade the greater number of the heathen. It is a great thing, my beloved, the life (one leads). Let a man be savage as a beast, let him openly condemn thee on account of thy doctrine,[121] yet he secretly approves, yet he will praise, yet he will admire. For say, whence can an excellent life proceed? From no source, except from a Divine Power working in us. “What if there be heathen also of such a character?” If anywhere any of them be such, it is partly from nature, partly from vainglory. Wilt thou learn what a brilliancy there is in a good life, what a force of persuasion it has? Many of the heretics have thus prevailed, and while their doctrines are corrupt, yet the greater part of men out of reverence for their (virtuous) life did not go on to examine their doctrine: and many even condemning them on account of their doctrine, reverence them on account of their life: not rightly indeed, but still so it is, that they do thus feel (towards them). This has brought slanders on the awful articles of our creed, this has turned everything upside down, that no one takes any account of good living: this is a mischief to the faith. We say that Christ is God; numberless other arguments we bring forward, and this one among the rest, that He has persuaded all men to live rightly: but this is the case with few. The badness of the life is a mischief to the doctrine of the Resurrection, to that of the immortality of the soul, to that of the Judgment: many other (false doctrines) too it draws on with itself, fate, necessity, denial of a Providence. For the soul being immersed in numberless vices, by way of consolations to itself tries to devise these, that it may not be pained in having to reflect that there is a Judgment, and that virtue and vice lie in our own power. (Such a) life works numberless evils, it makes men beasts, and more irrational than beasts: for what things are in each several nature of the beasts, these it has often collected together in one man, and turned everything upside down. This is why the devil has brought in the doctrine of Fate: this is why he has said that the world is without a Providence (Hom. ii. p. 15): this is why he advances his hypothesis of good natures, and evil natures, and his hypothesis of evil (uncreated and) without beginning, and material (in its essence): and, in short, all the rest of it, that he may ruin our life. For it is not possible for a man who is of such a life either to recover himself from corrupt doctrines, or to remain in a sound faith: but of inevitable necessity he must receive all this. For I do not think, for my part, that of those who do not live aright, there could be easily found any who do not hold numberless satanical devices—as, that there is a nativity (or birth-fate) (γένεσις), that things happen at random, that all is hap-hazard and chance-medley. Wherefore I beseech you let us have a care for good living, that we may not receive evil doctrines. Cain received for punishment that he should be (ever) groaning and trembling. (Gen. 4:14.) Such are the wicked, and being conscious within themselves of numberless bad things, often they start out of their sleep, their thoughts are full of tumult, their eyes full of perturbation; everything is fraught for them with misgivings, everything alarms them, their soul is replete with grievous expectation and cowardly apprehension, contracted with impotent fear and trembling. Nothing can be more effeminate than such a soul, nothing more inane.[122] Like madmen, it has no self-possession. For it were well for it that in the enjoyment of calm and quiet it were enabled to take knowledge of its proper nobility. But when all things terrify and throw it into perturbation, dreams, and words, and gestures, and forebodings, indiscriminately, when will it be able to look into itself, being thus troubled and amazed? Let us therefore do away with its fear, let us break asunder its bonds. For were there no other punishment, what punishment could exceed this—to be living always in fear, never to have confidence, never to be at ease? Therefore knowing these things assuredly, let us keep ourselves in a state of calm and be careful to practise virtue, that maintaining both sound doctrines and an upright life, we may without offence pass through this life present, and be enabled to attain unto the good things which God hath promised to them that love Him, through the grace and mercy of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily XLVIII on Acts xxii. 17-20.

Homily XLVIII.

Acts 22:17–20

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

See how he thrusts himself (into danger), I came, he says, after that vision, “to Jerusalem. I was in a trance,” etc. Again, this is without witness: but observe, the witness follows from the result. He said, “They will not receive thy testimony:” they did not receive it. And yet from calculations of reason the surmise should have been this, that they would assuredly receive him. For I was the man that made war upon the Christians: so that they ought to have received him. Here he establishes two things: both that they are without excuse, since they persecuted him contrary to all likelihood or calculation of reason; and, that Christ was God, as prophesying things contrary to expectation, and as not looking to past things, but fore-knowing the things to come. How then does He say, “He shall bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and children of Israel?” (Acts 9:15.) Not, certainly persuade. Besides which, on other occasions we find the Jews were persuaded, but here they were not. Where most of all they ought to have been persuaded, as knowing his former zeal (in their cause), here they were not persuaded. “And when the blood of Thy martyr Stephen,” etc. See where again his discourse terminates, namely, in the forcible main point (εἰς τὸ ἱσχυρὸν κεφάλαιον): that it was he that persecuted, and not only persecuted but killed, nay, had he ten thousand hands (μυρίαις χερσὶν ἀναιρὥν) would have used them all to kill Stephen. He reminded them of the murderous spirit heinously indulged (by him and them). Then of course above all they would not endure him, since this convicted them; and truly the prophecy was having its fulfilment: great the zeal, vehement the accusation, and the Jews themselves witnesses of the truth of Christ! “And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And they gave him audience unto this word, and then lifted up their voices, and said, Away with such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit that he should live.” (Acts 22:21–22.) The Jews[123] would not endure to hear out all his harangue,[124] but excessively fired by their wrath, they shouted, it says, “Away with him; for it is not fit that he should live. And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air, the tribune commanded him to be brought into the castle, and bade that he should be examined by scourging; that he might know wherefore they cried so against him.” (Acts 22:23–24.) Whereas both the tribune ought to have examined whether these things were so—yes, and the Jews themselves too—or, if they were not so, to have ordered him to be scourged, he “bade examine him by scourging, that he might know for what cause they so clamored against him.” And yet he ought to have learnt from those clamorers, and to have asked whether they laid hold upon aught of the things spoken: instead of that, without more ado he indulges his arbitrary will and pleasure, and acts with a view to gratify them: for he did not look to this, how he should do a righteous thing, but only how he might stop their rage unrighteous as it was. “And as they bound him with thongs,[125] Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned?” (Acts 22:25.) Paul lied not, God forbid: for he was a Roman:[126] if there was nothing else, he would have been afraid (to pretend this), lest he should be found out, and suffer a worse punishment. (See Sueton. Vit. Claud. §25.) And observe he does not say it peremptorily (ἁπλὥς), but, “Is it lawful for you?” The charges brought are two, both its being without examination, and his being a Roman. They held this as a great privilege, at that time: for they say that (it was only) from the time of Hadrian that all[127] were named Romans, but of old it was not so. He would have been contemptible had he been scourged: but as it is, he puts them into greater fear (than they him). Had they scourged him, they would also have dismissed[128] the whole matter, or even have killed him; but as it is, the result is not so. See how God permits many (good results) to be brought about quite in a human way, both in the case of the Apostles and of the rest (of mankind). Mark how they suspected the thing to be a pretext,[129] and that in calling himself a Roman, Paul lied: perhaps surmising this from his poverty. “When the centurion heard that, he went and told the tribune, saying, Take heed what thou doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the tribune came, and said unto him, Tell me, art thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the tribune answered, With a great sum obtained I this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free born. Then straightway they departed from him which should have examined him: and the tribune also was afraid, after he knew that he was a Roman, and because he had bound him.” (Acts 22:26–29.)—“But I,” he says, “was free born.” So then his father also was a Roman. What then comes of this? He bound him, and brought him down to the Jews.[130] “On the morrow, because he would have known the certainty whereof he was accused of the Jews, he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear, and brought Paul down, and set him before them.” (Acts 22:30.) He discourses not now to the multitude, nor to the people. “And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” (Acts 23:1.) What he means is this: I am not conscious to myself of having wronged you at all, or of having done anything worthy of these bonds. What then said the high priest?[131] Right justly, and ruler-like, and mildly: “And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God’s high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”[132] (Acts 23:3–5.) Because “I knew not that he was high priest.” Some say, Why then does he defend himself as if it was matter of accusation, and adds, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people?” For if he were not the ruler, was it right for no better reason than that to abuse (him or any) other? He says himself, “Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it” (1 Cor. 4:12); but here he does the contrary, and not only reviles, but curses.[133] They are the words of boldness, rather than of anger; he did not choose to appear in a contemptible light to the tribune. For suppose the tribune himself had spared to scourge him, only as he was about to be delivered up to the Jews, his being beaten by their servants would have more emboldened him: this is why Paul does not attack the servant, but the person who gave the order. But that saying, “Thou whited wall, and dost thou sit to judge me after the law?” (is) instead of, Being (thyself) a culprit: as if he had said, And (thyself) worthy of stripes without number. See accordingly how greatly they were struck with his boldness; for whereas the point was to have overthrown the whole matter, they rather commend him.[134] (infra, v. 9.) “For it is written,” etc. He wishes to show that he thus speaks, not from fear, nor because (Ananias) did not deserve to be called this, but from obedience to the law in this point also. And indeed I am fully persuaded that he did not know that it was the high priest,[135] since he had returned now after a long interval, and was not in the habit of constant intercourse with the Jews; seeing him too in the midst among many others: for the high priest was no longer easy to be seen at a glance, there being many of them and diverse.[136] So, it seems to me, in this also he spoke with a view to his plea against them: by way of showing that he does obey the law; therefore he (thus) exculpates himself.

(Recapitulation.) (b) But let us review what has been said. (a) “And when I was came again to Jerusalem,” etc. (Acts 22:17.) How was it,[137] that being a Jew, and there brought up and taught, he did not stay there? Nor did he abide there, unless he had a mind to furnish numberless occasions against him: everywhere just like an exile, fleeing about from place to place. (c) “While I prayed in the temple,” he says, “it came to pass that I was in a trance.” (To show) that it was not simply a phantom of the imagination, therefore “while he prayed” (the Lord) stood by him. And he shows that it was not from fear of their dangers that he fled, but because they would “not receive” his “testimony.” (Acts 22:18.) But why said he “They know I imprisoned?” (Acts 22:19.) Not to gainsay Christ, but because he wished to learn this which was so contrary to all reasonable expectation. Christ, however, did not teach him (this),[138] but only bade him depart, and he obeys: so obedient is he. “And they lifted up their voices,” it says, “and said, Away with him: it is not fit that this fellow should live.” (Acts 22:22.) Nay, ye are the persons not fit to live; not he, who in everything obeys God. O villains and murderers! “And shaking out their clothes,” it says, “they threw dust into the air” (Acts 22:23), to make insurrection more fierce, because they wished to frighten the governor.[139] And observe; they do not say what the charge was, as in fact they had nothing to allege, but only think to strike terror by their shouting. “The tribune commanded,” etc. and yet he ought to have learnt from the accusers, “wherefore they cried so against him. And as they bound him, etc. And the chief captain was afraid, after he learnt that he was a Roman.” Why then it was no falsehood. “On the morrow, because he would know the certainty wherefore he was accused of the Jews, etc., he brought him down before the council.” (Acts 22:24–30.) This he should have done at the outset. He brought him in, loosed. This above all the Jews would not know what to make of.[140] “And Paul,” it says, “earnestly beholding them.” It shows his boldness, and how it awed them (τὸ ἐντρεπτικόν). “Then the high priest Ananias.” etc. (Acts 23:1–2.) Why, what has he said that was affronting? What is he beaten for? Why what hardihood, what shamelessness! Therefore (Paul) set him down (with a rebuke): “God shall smite thee thou whited wall.” (Acts 23:3.) Accordingly (Ananias) himself is put to a stand, and dares not say a word: only those about him could not bear Paul’s boldness. They saw a man ready to die[141] * * * for if this was the case, (Paul) had but to hold his peace, and the tribune would have taken him, and gone his way; he would have sacrificed him to them. He both shows that he suffers willingly what he suffers, and thus excuses himself before them, not that he wished to excuse himself to them—since as for those, he even strongly condemns them—but for the sake of the people.[142] “Violating the law, commandest thou me to be beaten?” Well may he say so: for to kill a man who had done (them) no injury, and that an innocent person, was a violating of the law. For neither was it abuse that was spoken by him, unless one would call Christ’s words abusive, when He says, “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, for ye are like unto whited walls.” (Matt. 23:27.) True, you will say: but if he had said it before he had been beaten, it would have betokened not anger, but boldness. But I have mentioned the reason of this.[143] And (at this rate) we often find Christ Himself “speaking abusively” to the Jews when abused by them; as when He says, “Do not think that I will accuse you.” (John 5:45.) But this is not abuse, God forbid. See, with what gentleness he addresses these men: “I wist not,” he says, “that he was God’s high priest” (Acts 23:4–5): and, (to show) that he was not dissembling (εἰρωνεύεται) he adds, “Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” He even confesses him to be still ruler. Let us also learn the gentleness also,[144] that in both the one and the other we may be perfect. For one must look narrowly into them, to learn what the one is and what the other: narrowly, because these virtues have their corresponding vices hard by them: mere forwardness passing itself off for boldness, mere cowardice for gentleness:[145] and need being to scan them, lest any person possessing the vice should seem to have the virtue: which would be just as if a person should fancy that he was cohabiting with the mistress, and not know that it was the servant-maid. What then is gentleness, and what mere cowardice? When others are wronged, and we do not take their part, but hold our peace, this is cowardice: when we are the persons ill-treated, and we bear it, this is gentleness. What is boldness? Again the same, when others are the persons for whom we contend. What forwardness? When it is in our own cause that we are willing to fight. So that magnanimity and boldness go together, as also (mere) forwardness and (mere) cowardice. For he that (does not) resent on his own behalf,[146] will hardly but resent on behalf of others: and he that does not stand up for his own cause, will hardly fail to stand up for others. For when our habitual disposition is pure from passion, it admits virtue also. Just as a body when free from fever admits strength, so the soul, unless it be corrupted by the passions, admits strength. It betokens great strength, this gentleness; it needs a generous and a gallant soul, and one of exceeding loftiness, this gentleness. Or, think you, is it a small thing to suffer ill, and not be exasperated? Indeed one would not err if in speaking of the disposition to stand up for our neighbors, one should call it the spirit of manly courage. For he that has had the strength to be able to overcome so strong a passion (as this of selfishness), will have the strength to dare the attack on another. For instance, these are two passions, cowardice and anger: if thou have overcome anger, it is very plain that thou overcomest cowardice also: but thou gettest the mastery over anger, by being gentle: therefore (do so) with cowardice also, and thou wilt be manly. Again, if thou hast not got the better of anger, thou art become forward (and pugnacious); but not having got the better of this, neither canst thou get the better of fear; consequently, thou wilt be a coward too: and the case is the same as with the body; if it be weak, it is quickly overcome both by cold and heat: for such is the ill temperament, but the good temperament is able to stand all (changes). Again, greatness of soul is a virtue, and hard by it stands prodigality: economy is a virtue, the being a good manager; hard by it stands parsimony and meanness. Come, let us again collate and compare the virtues (with their vices). Well, then, the prodigal person is not to be called great-minded. How should he? The man who is overcome by numberless passions, how should he be great of soul? For this is not despising money; it is only the being ordered about by other passions: for just as a man, if he were at the beck and bidding of robbers to obey their orders, could not be free (so it is here). His large spending does not come of his contempt of money, but simply from his not knowing how to dispose of it properly: else, were it possible both to keep it and to lay it out on his pleasure, this is what he would like. But he that spends his money on fit objects, this is the man of high soul: for it is truly a high soul, that which is not in slavery to passion, which accounts money to be nothing. Again, economy is a good thing: for thus that will be the best manager, who spends in a proper manner, and not at random without management. But parsimony is not the same thing with this. For the former[147] indeed, not even when an urgent necessity demands, touches the principal of his money: but the latter will be brother to the former. Well, then, we will put together the man of great soul, and the prudent economist, as also the prodigal and the mean man: for both of these are thus affected from littleness of soul, as those others are (from the opposite). Let us not then call him high-souled, who simply spends, but him who spends aright: nor let us call the economical manager mean and parsimonious, but him who is unseasonably sparing of his money.

What a quantity of wealth that rich man spent, “who was clothed in purple and fine linen?” (Luke 16:19.) But he was not high-souled: for his soul was possessed by an unmerciful disposition and by numberless lusts: how then should it be great? Abraham had a great soul, spending as he did for the reception of his guests, killing the calf, and, where need was, not only not sparing his property, but not even his life. If then we see a person having his sumptuous table, having his harlots and his parasites, let us not call him a man of a great mind, but a man of an exceedingly little mind. For see how many passions he is enslaved and subject to—gluttony, inordinate pleasure, flattery: but him who is possessed by so many, and cannot even escape one of them, how can any one call magnanimous? Nay, then most of all let us call him little-minded, when he spends the most: for the more he spends, the more does he show the tyranny of those passions: for had they not excessively got the mastery over him, he would not have spent to excess. Again, if we see a person, giving nothing to such people as these, but feeding the poor, and succoring those in need, himself keeping a mean table—him let us call an exceedingly high-souled man: for it is truly a mark of a great soul, to despise one’s own comfort, but to care for that of others. For tell me, if you should see a person despising all tyrants, and holding their commands of no account, but rescuing from their tyranny those who are oppressed and evil entreated; would you not think this a great man? So let us account of the man in this case also. The passions are the tyrant: if then we despise them, we shall be great: but if we rescue others also from them, we shall be far greater, as being sufficient not only for ourselves, but for others also. But if any one, at a tyrant’s bidding, beat some other of his subjects, is this greatness of soul? No, indeed: but the extreme of slavery, in proportion as he is great. And now also there is set before us (πρόκειται) a soul that is a noble one and a free: but this the prodigal has ordered to be beaten by his passions: the man then that beats himself, shall we call high-souled? By no means. Well then * *, but let us see what is greatness of soul, and what prodigality; what is economy, and what meanness; what is gentleness, and (what) dulness and cowardice; what boldness, and what forwardness: that having distinguished these things from each other, we may be enabled to pass (this life) well-pleasing to the Lord, and to attain unto the good things promised, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Homily XLIX on Acts xxiii. 6-8.

Homily XLIX.[148]

Acts 23:6–8

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

Again he discourses simply as man, and he does not on all occasions alike enjoy the benefit of supernatural aid. “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee:”[149] both in this, and in what comes after it, he wished to divide the multitude, which had an evil unanimity against him. And he does not speak a falsehood here either: for he was a Pharisee by descent from his ancestors. “Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” For since they would not say for what reason they arraigned him, he is compelled therefore to declare it himself. “But the Pharisees,” it says, “confess both.” And yet there are three things: how then does he say both? “Spirit and Angel” is put as one.[150] When he is on their side, then they plead for him. “And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but” (what) “if a spirit has spoken to him, or an angel?”[151] [152] (Acts 23:9.) Why did they not plead for him before this? Do you observe, how, when the passions give way, the truth is discovered? Where is the crime, say they, if an angel has spoken to him, or a spirit? Paul gives them no handle against him. “And when there arose a great dissension, the tribune, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them, and to bring him into the castle.” (Acts 23:10.) The tribune is afraid of his being pulled in pieces, now that he has said that he is a Roman: and the matter was not without danger. Do you observe that Paul had a right to profess himself a Roman? Else, neither would (the tribune) have been afraid now. So it remains that the soldiers must bear him off by force. But when the wretches saw all to be without avail, they take the whole matter into their own hands, as they would fain have done before, but were prevented: and their wickedness stops nowhere, though it received so many checks: and yet how many things were providentially ordered, on purpose that they might settle down from their rage, and learn those things through which they might possibly recover themselves! But none the less do they set upon him. Sufficient for proof of his innocence was even this, that the man was saved when at the point to be pulled in pieces, and that with these so great dangers about him, he escaped them all. “And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.” (Acts 23:11–13.) “They bound themselves under a curse,” it says. See how vehement and revengeful they are in their malice! What means, “bound under a curse?”[153] Why then those men are accused forever, seeing they did not kill Paul. And forty together. For such is the nature of that nation: when there needs concerting together for a good object, not even two concur with each other: but when it is for an evil object, the entire people does it. And they admit the rulers also as accomplices. “And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. Now therefore ye with the council signify to the tribune that he bring him down unto you to-morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him. And when Paul’s sister’s son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the tribune: For he hath a certain thing to tell him. So he took him, and brought him to the tribune, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee. Then the tribune took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me? And he said, the Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to-morrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly. But do not thou yield unto them for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee. So the tribune then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me.” (Acts 23:14–22). Again he is saved by man’s forethought. And observe: Paul lets no man learn this, not even the centurion, that the matter might not become known. And the centurion having come, reported to the tribune. And it is well done of the tribune also, that he bids him keep it secret, that it might not become known: moreover he gives his orders to the centurions only, at the time when the thing was to be done: and so Paul is sent into Cæsarea, that there too he might discourse in a greater theatre and before a more splendid audience: that so the Jews may not be able to say, “If we had seen Paul, we would have believed—if we had heard him teaching.” Therefore this excuse too is cut off from them. “And the Lord,” it said, “stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer: for as thou hast testified of Me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.” (Yet) even after He has appeared to him, He again suffers him to be saved by man’s means. And one may well be astonished at Paul;[154] he was not taken aback, neither said, “Why, what is this? Have I then been deceived by Christ?” but he believed: yet, because he believed, he did not therefore sleep: no; what was in his own power by means of human wisdom, he did not abandon. “Bound themselves by a curse:” it was a kind of necessity that those men fastened on themselves by the curse. “That they would neither eat nor drink.” Behold fasting the mother of murder! Just as Herod imposed on himself that necessity by his oath, so also do these. For such are the devil’s (ways): under the pretext forsooth of piety he sets his traps. “And they came to the chief priests,” etc. And yet they ought to have come (to the tribune), ought to have laid a charge, and assembled a court of justice: for these are not the doings for priests, but for captains of banditti, these are not the doings for rulers, but for ruffians. They endeavor also to corrupt the ruler: but it was providentially ordered, to the intent that he also should learn of their plot. For not (only) by their having nothing to say, but also by their secret attempt, they convicted themselves that they were naught. It is likely too that after (Paul was gone) the chief priests came to (the tribune) making their request, and were put to shame. For[155] of course he would not have liked either to deny or to grant their request. How came he to believe (the young man’s tale)? He did so in consequence of what had already taken place; because it was likely they would do this also. And observe their wickedness: they as good as laid a necessity on the chief priests also: for if they undertook so great a thing themselves, and engaged themselves in the whole risk, much more ought those to do thus much. Do you observe, how Paul is held innocent by those that are without, as was also Christ by Pilate? See their malice brought to naught: they delivered him up, to kill and condemn him: but the result is just the contrary; he is both saved, and held innocent. For had it not been so,[156] he would have been pulled in pieces: had it not been so, he would have perished, he would have been condemned. And not only does (the tribune) rescue him from the rush (made upon him), but also from much other[157] (violence): see how he becomes a minister to him, insomuch that without risk he is carried off safe with so large a force. “And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Cæsarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; and provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor. And he wrote a letter after this manner: Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix sendeth greeting. This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman. And when I would have known the cause wherefore they accused him, I brought him forth into their council: whom I perceived to be accused of questions of their law, but to have nothing laid to his charge worthy of death or of bonds. And when it was told me how that the Jews laid wait for the man, I sent straightway to thee, and gave commandment to his accusers also to say before thee what they had against him. Fare ye well.” (Acts 23:23–30). See how the letter speaks for him as a defence—for it says, “I found nothing worthy of death,” but as accusation against them (rather) than against him. “About to have been killed of them:” so set upon his death were they. First, “I came with the army, and rescued him:” then also “I brought him down unto them:” and not even so did they find anything to lay to his charge: and when they ought to have been stricken with fear and shame for the former act, they again attempt to kill him, insomuch that again his cause became all the more clear. “And his accusers,” he says, “I have sent unto thee:” that at the tribunal where these things are more strictly examined, he may be proved guiltless.

(Recapitulation.) Let us look then to what has been said above. “I,” he says, “am a Pharisee:” then, that he may not seem to pay court, he adds, “Of the hope and resurrection of the dead it is, that I am called in question.” (Acts 23:6.) From this charge and calumny he commends himself. “For the Sadducees indeed,” etc. The Sadducees have no knowledge of anything incorporeal, perhaps not even God; so gross (παχεἵς) are they: whence neither do they choose to believe that there is a Resurrection. “And the scribes,” etc. Look; the tribune also hears that the Pharisees have acquitted him of the charges, and have given sentence (mss. and Edd. ἐψηφίσατο, “he gave sentence”) in his favor, and with greater confidence carries him off by force. Moreover all that was spoken (by Paul) was full of right-mindedness (φιλοσοφίας). “And the night following the Lord stood by him,” etc. See what strong consolation! First he praises him, “As thou hast testified to My cause in Jerusalem;” then He does not leave him to be afraid for the uncertain issue of his journey to Rome: for thither also, He saith, thou shalt not depart alone (μόνος, Cat. and Edd. μόνον), but thou shalt also have all this boldness of speech. Hereby it was made manifest, not (only) that he should be saved, but that (he should be so) in order to great crowns in the great city. But why did He not appear to him before he fell into the danger? Because it is evermore in the afflictions that God comforts us; for He appears more wished-for, while even in the dangers He exercises and trains us. Besides, he was then at ease, when free from bonds; but now great perils were awaiting him. “We have bound ourselves,” they say, “under a curse, that we will not eat nor drink.” (Acts 23:14.) What is all this zeal? “That he may bring him down,” it says, “unto you, as though ye would enquire into his case more perfectly.” (Acts 23:15.) Has he not twice made a speech unto you? has he not said that he is a Pharisee? What (would ye have) over and above this? So reckless were they and afraid of nothing, not tribunals, not laws: such their hardihood which shrunk from nothing. They both declare their purpose, and announce the way of carrying it into effect. “Paul’s sister’s son heard of it.” (Acts 23:16.) This was of God’s providence, their not perceiving that it would be heard. What then did Paul? he was not alarmed, but perceived that this was God’s doing: and casting all upon Him, so he acquits himself (from further concern about it:) “having called one of the centurions,” etc. (Acts 23:17.) He told of the plot, he was believed; he is saved. If he was acquitted of the charge, why did (the tribune) send the accusers? That the enquiry might be more strict: that the man might be the more entirely cleared.

Such are God’s ways of ordering: the very things by which we are hurt, by these same are we benefited. Thus it was with Joseph: his mistress sought to ruin him: and she seemed indeed to be contriving his ruin, but by her contriving she placed him in a state of safety: for the house where that wild beast (of a woman) was kept was a den in comparison with which the prison was gentle. (Gen. 39:1–20.) For while he was there, although he was looked up to and courted, he was in constant fear, lest his mistress should set upon him, and worse than any prison was the fear that lay upon him: but after the accusation he was in security and peace, well rid of that beast, of her lewdness and her machinations for his destruction: for it was better for him to keep company with human creatures in miserable plight, than with a maddened mistress. Here he comforted himself, that for chastity’s sake he had fallen into it: there he had been in dread, lest he should receive a death-blow to his soul: for nothing in the world is more annoying than a woman in love can be to a young man who will not (meet her advances): nothing more detestable (than a woman in such case), nothing more fell: all the bonds in the world are light to this. So that the fact was not that he got into prison, but that he got out of prison. She made his master his foe, but she made God his friend: brought him into closer relation to Him Who is indeed the true Master; she cast him out of his stewardship in the family, but made him a familiar friend to that Master. Again, his brethren sold him (Gen. 37:18); but they freed him from having enemies dwelling in the same house with him, from envy and much ill will, and from daily machinations for his ruin: they placed him far aloof from them that hated him. For what can be worse than this, to be compelled to dwell in the same house with brethren that envy one; to be an object of suspicion, to be a mark for evil designs? So that while they and she were severally seeking to compass their own ends, far other were the mighty consequences working out by the Providence of God for that just man. When he was in honor, then was he in danger; when he was in dishonor, then was he in safety. The eunuchs did not remember him, and right well it was that they did not, that the occasion of his deliverance might be more glorious: that the whole might be ascribed, not to man’s favor, but to God’s Providence (Gen. 40:23): that at the right moment, Pharaoh, reduced to need, might bring him out; that not as conferring but as receiving a benefit, the king might release him from the prison. (Gen. 41:40.) It behooved to be no servile gift, but that the king should be reduced to a necessity of doing this: it behooved that it should be made manifest what wisdom was in him. Therefore it is that the eunuch forgets him, that Egypt might not forget him, that the king might not be ignorant of him. Had he been delivered at that time, it is likely he would have desired to depart to his own country: therefore he is kept back by numberless constraints, first by subjection to a master, secondly by being in prison, thirdly by being over the kingdom, to the end that all this might be brought about by the Providence of God. Like a spirited steed that is eager to bound off to his fellows, did God keep him back there, for causes full of glory. For that he longed to see his father, and free him from his distress, is evident from his calling him thither. (Gen. 45:9.)

Shall we look at other instances of evil designing, how they turn out to our good, not only by having their reward, but also by their working at the very time precisely what is for our good? This (Joseph’s) uncle (Esau) had ill designs against his father (Jacob), and drove him out of his native land: what then? (Gen. 27:41.) He too set him (thereby) aloof from the danger; for he too got (thereby) to be in safety. He made him a wiser and a better man (φιλοσοφώτερον); he was the means of his having that dream (Gen. 28:12.) But, you will say, he was a slave in a foreign land? Yes, but he arrives among his own kindred, and receives a bride, and appears worthy to his father-in-law. (Gen. 29:23.) But he too cheated him? Yes, but this also turned out to his good, that he might be the father of many children. But it was in his mind to design evil against him? True, but even this was for his good, that he might thereupon return to his own country; for if he had been in good circumstances, he would not have so longed for home. But he defrauded him of his hire? Aye, but he got more by the means. (Gen. 31:7.) Thus, in every point of these men’s history, the more people designed their hurt, the more their affairs flourished. If (Jacob) had not received the elder daughter, he would not soon have been the father of so many children; he would have dragged out a long period in childlessness, he would have mourned as his wife did. For she indeed had reason to mourn, as not having become a mother (Gen. 30:1–2.); but he had his consolation: whence also he gives her a repulse. Again, had not (Laban) defrauded him of his hire, he would not have longed to see his own country; the higher points (φιλοσοφία) of the man’s character would not have come to light, (his wives) would not have become more closely attached to him. For see what they say: “With devouring hath he devoured us and our money.” (Gen. 31:15.) So that this became the means of riveting their love to him. After this he had in them not merely wives, but (devoted) slaves; he was beloved by them: a thing that no possession can equal: for nothing, nothing whatever, is more precious than to be thus loved by a wife and to love her. “And a wife,” Scripture says, “that agrees with her husband.” (Sir. 25:1) “A man and a wife that agree together.” E.V.) One thing this, as the Wise Man puts it, of the things for which a man is to be counted happy; for where this is, there all wealth, all prosperity abounds: as also, where it is not, there all besides profits nothing, but all goes wrong, all is mere unpleasantness and confusion. Then let us seek this before all things. He that seeks money, seeks not this. Let us seek those things which can remain fixed. Let us not seek a wife from among the rich, lest the excess of wealth on her side produce arrogance, lest that arrogance be the means of marring all. See you not what God did? how He put the woman in subjection? (Gen. 3:16.) Why art thou ungrateful, why without perception? The very benefit God has given thee by nature, do not thou mar the help it was meant to be. So that it is not for her wealth that we ought to seek a wife: it is that we may receive a partner of our life, for the appointed order of the procreation of children. It was not that she should bring money, that God gave the woman; it was that she might be an helpmate. But she that brings money, becomes, instead of a wife, a setter up of her own will (ἐπίβουλος), a mistress—it may be a wild beast instead of a wife—while she thinks she has a right to give herself airs upon her wealth. Nothing more shameful than a man who lays himself out to get riches in this way. If wealth itself is full of temptations, what shall we say to wealth so gotten? For you must not look to this, that one or another as a rare and unusual case, and contrary to the reason of the thing, has succeeded: as neither ought we in other matters to fix our regards upon the good which people may enjoy, or their chance successes, out of the common course: but let us look to the reason of the thing as it is in itself, and see whether this thing be not fraught with endless annoyance. Not only you bring yourself into a disreputable position; you also disgrace your children by leaving them poor, if it chance that you depart this life before the wife: and you give her incomparably more occasions for connecting herself with a second bridegroom. Or do you not see that many women make this the excuse for a second marriage—that they may not be despised; that they want to have some man to take the management of their property? Then let us not bring about so great evils for the sake of money; but let us dismiss all (such aims), and seek a beautiful soul, that we may also succeed in obtaining love. This is the exceeding wealth, this the great treasure, this the endless good things: whereunto may we all attain by the grace and loving kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily L on Acts xxiii. 31-33.

Homily L.

Acts 23:31–33

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

Like some king whom his body-guards escort, so did these convey Paul; in such numbers too, and by night, for fear of the wrath of the people.[158] Now then you will say that they have got him out of the city, they desist from their violence? No indeed. But (the tribune) would not have sent him off with such care for his safety, but that while he himself had found nothing amiss in him, he knew the murderous disposition of his adversaries. “And when the governor had read the letter, he asked of what province he was. And when he understood that he was of Cilicia; I will hear thee, said he, when thine accusers are also come.” Already Lysias has spoken for his exculpation; (but the Jews seek to) gain the hearer beforehand. “And he ordered him to be kept in custody in Herod’s prætorium” (Acts 23:34–35): again Paul is put in bonds. “And after five days came down the high priest Ananias with the elders.” See how for all this they do not desist; hindered as they were by obstacles without number, nevertheless they come, only to be put to shame here also. “And with an orator, one Tertullus.”[159] And what need was there of “an orator? Which (persons) also informed the governor against Paul.” (Acts 24:1.) See how this man also from the very outset (b) with his praises seeks to gain the judge beforehand. “And when he was called forth, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying, Seeing that by thee we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness.” (Acts 24:2–3.) Then as having much to say, he passes by the rest: “Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray thee that thou wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words. For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world.” (a) As a revolutionary and seditious person he wishes to deliver him up. And yet, it might be answered, it is ye that have done this. (c) And see how he would put up the judge to a desire of punishing, seeing he had here an opportunity to coerce the man that turned the world upside down! As if they had achieved a meritorious action, they make much of it: “Having found this fellow,” etc., “a mover of sedition,” say they, “among all the Jews throughout the world.” (Had he been such), they would have proclaimed him as a benefactor and saviour of the nation![160] “And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:4–5.) They thought this likely to tell as a reproach—“of the Nazarenes:” and by this also they seek to damage him—for Nazareth was a mean place. And, “we have found him,” say they: see how maliciously they calumniate him: (found him), as if he had been always giving them the slip, and with difficulty they had succeeded in getting him: though he had been seven days in the Temple! “Who also hath gone about to profane the temple; whom we took, [and would have judged according to our law.”] (Acts 24:6.) See how they insult even the Law; it was so like the Law, forsooth, to beat, to kill, to lie in wait! And then the accusation against Lysias: though he had no right, say they, to interfere, in the excess of his confidence he snatched him from us: [“But the tribune Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee]:[161] by examining of whom thyself mayest take knowledge of all these things, where of we accuse him. And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.” (Acts 24:7–9). What then says Paul? “Then Paul; after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a just judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself.” (Acts 24:10.) This is not the language of flattery, his testifying to the judge’s justice:[162] no, the adulation was rather in that speech of the orator, “By thee we enjoy great quietness.” If so, then why are ye seditious? What Paul sought was justice. “Knowing thee to be a just judge, I cheerfully,” says he, “answer for myself.” Then also he enforces this by the length of time: that (he had been judge) “of many years. Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.” (Acts 24:11.) And what is this?[163] (It means), “that I could not immediately have raised a commotion.” Because the accuser had nothing to show (as done) in Jerusalem, observe what he said: “among all the Jews throughout the world.” Therefore it is that Paul here forcibly attracts him—“to worship,” he says, “I came up,” so far am I from raising sedition—and lays a stress upon this point of justices being the strong point. “And they neither found me in the Temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city” (Acts 24:12); which in fact was the truth. And the accusers indeed use the term “ringleader,” as if it were a case of fighting and insurrection; but see how mildly Paul here answers. “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy,[164] so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets: and have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.” (Acts 24:14–15.) The accusers were separating him (as an alien), but he identifies himself with the Law, as one of themselves. “And in this,” says he, “do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men. Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings. In which they found me purified in the temple, not with multitude, neither with tumult.” (Acts 24:16–18.) Why then camest thou up? What brought thee hither? To worship, says he; to do alms. This was not the act of a factious person. Then also he casts out their person:[165] “but,” says he, (they that found me, were) “certain Jews from Asia, who ought to have been here before thee, and object, if they had ought against me. Or else let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me while I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried, standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” (Acts 24:19–21.) For this is justification in superabundance, not to flee from his accusers, but to be ready to give account to all.[166] “Of the resurrection of the dead,” says he, “am I this day called in question.” And not a word said he of what he had to say, how they had conspired against him, had violently kept him, had laid wait for him—for these matters are course spoken of by the tribune[167]—but by Paul, though there was danger, not so: no, he is silent, and only defends himself, though he had very much to say. (b) “In which”[168] (alms), says he, “they found me in course of purifying in the Temple.” Then how did he profane it? For it was not the part of the same man both to purify himself and worship and come for this purpose, and then to profane it. This has with it a surmise of the justice of his cause, that he does not fall into a long discourse. And he gratifies the judge, I suppose, by that also (namely, by), making his defence compendious: (d) seeing that Tertullus before him did make a long harangue. (f) And this too is a proof of mildness, that when one has much to say, in order not to be troublesome one says but few words. (c) But let us look again at what has been said.

(Recapitulation.) “Then the soldiers,” etc. (Acts 23:31–33.) (a) This also made Paul famous in Cæsarea, his coming with so large a force.—“But,” says Tertullus, “that I be not further tedious,” (e) showing that (Felix) does find him tedious (ἐγκόπτεται): “I beseech thee,” he does not say, Hear the matter, but, “hear us of thy clemency.” (Acts 24:4.) Probably it is to pay court, that he thus lays out his speech. (g) “For having found this man, a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world” (Acts 24:5): how then, it might be said, if he did this elsewhere (and not here)? No, says he; among us also he has profaned the Temple; “attempted,” says he, “to profane it:” but the how, he leaves untold. “Whom also we took.” etc. “But the tribune,” etc. And while he thus exaggerates what relates to the tribune,[169] see how he extenuates the part of the accusers themselves. “We took him,” he says, “and would have judged him according to our Law.” (Acts 24:6.) He shows that it is a hardship to them that they have to come to foreign tribunals, and that they would not have troubled him had not the tribune compelled them, and that he, having no concern in the matter, had seized the man by force: for in fact the wrongs done were against us, and with us the tribunal ought to have been. For that this is the meaning, see what follows: “with great violence” (Acts 24:7), he says. For this conduct is violence. “From whom thou mayest know.” He neither dares to accuse him (the tribune)—for the man was indulgent (forsooth)—nor does he wholly pass it by. Then again, lest he should seem to be lying, he adduces Paul himself as his own accuser. “From whom, by examining him, thou mayest take knowledge of all these things.” (Acts 24:8.) Next, as witnesses also of the things spoken, the accusers, the same persons themselves both witnesses and accusers: “And the Jews also assented,” etc. (Acts 24:9.) But Paul, “Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a just judge.” (Acts 24:10.) Why then, he is no stranger or alien or revolutionary person, seeing he had known the judge for many years. And he does well to add the epithet “just,”[170] that he (Felix) might not look to the chief priest, nor to the people, nor the accuser. See, how he did not let himself be carried away into abuse, although there was strong provocation. “Believing,” he says, “that there will be a resurrection:” now a man who believed a resurrection, would never have done such things—“which” (resurrection) “they themselves also allow.” (Acts 24:15.) He does not say it of them, that they believe “all things written in the Prophets:” it was he that believed them all, not they: but how “all,” it would require a long discourse to show. And he nowhere makes mention of Christ. Here by saying, “Believing,” he does (virtually) introduce what relates to Christ; for the present he dwells on the subject of the resurrection, which doctrine was common to them also, and removed the suspicion of any sedition. And for the cause of his going up, “I came,” he says, “to bring alms to my nation and offerings.” (Acts 24:17.) How then should I have troubled those, for the bringing offerings to whom I had come so long a journey? “Neither with multitude, nor with tumult.” (Acts 24:18.) Everywhere he does away the charge of sedition. And he also does well to challenge his accusers who were from Asia, “Who ought to accuse before thee,” etc., but he does well also not to reject this either;[171] “or else,” says he, “let these same here say. Touching the resurrection of the dead,” etc. (Acts 24:19–21): for in fact it was on this account they were sore troubled from the first, because he preached the Resurrection. This being proved, the things relating to Christ also were easily introduced, that He was risen. “What evil doing,” he says, “they found in me. In the council” (Acts 4:2) he says: the examination not having taken place in private. That these things which I say are true, those witness who bring this charge against me. “Having,” he says, “a conscience void of offence both toward God, and toward men.” (Acts 24:16.) This is the perfection of virtue, when even to men we give no handle against us, and are careful to be void of offence with God. “That I cried,” he says, “in the council.” He also shows their violence.[172] They have it not to say, Thou didst these things under the pretext of alms: for (it was) “not with multitude, nor with tumult:” especially as upon enquiry made concerning this thing, nothing further was found. Do you observe his moderation, though there were dangers? do you observe how he keeps his tongue from evil-speaking, how he seeks only one thing, to free himself from the charges against himself, not that he may criminate them, except so far as he might be obliged to do so while defending himself? Just as Christ also said: “I have not a devil, but I honor My Father: but ye do dishonor Me.” (John 8:49.)

Let us imitate him, since he also was an imitator of Christ. If he, with enemies, who went even to the length of murder and slaughter, said nothing offensive to them, what pardon shall we deserve, who in reviling and abuse become infuriated, calling our enemies villains, detestable wretches? what pardon shall we deserve, for having enemies at all? Hear you not, that to honor (another) is to honor one’s self? So it is: but we disgrace ourselves. You accuse (some one) that he has abused you: then why do you bring yourself under the same accusation? Why inflict a blow on yourself? Keep free from passion, keep unwounded: do not, by wishing to smite another, bring the hurt upon yourself. What, is the other tumult of our soul not enough for us, the tumult that is stirred up, though there be none to stir it up—for example, its outrageous lusts, its griefs and sorrows, and such like—but we must needs heap up a pile of others also? And how, you will say, is it possible, when one is insulted and abused, to bear this? And how is it not possible, I ask? Is a wound got from words; or do words inflict bruises on our bodies? Then where is the hurt to us? So that, if we will, we can bear it. Let us lay down for ourselves a law not to grieve, and we shall bear it: let us say to ourselves, “It is not from enmity; it is from infirmity”—for it is indeed owing to an infirmity, since, for proof that it comes not from enmity nor from malignity of disposition, but from infirmity, the other also would fain have restrained (his anger), although he had suffered numberless wrongs. If we only have this thought in our minds, that it is from infirmity, we shall bear it, and while we forgive the offending person, we shall try not to fall into it ourselves. For I ask all you who are present: would ye have wished to be able to exercise such a philosophic temper, as to bear with those who insult you?[173] I think so. Well, then, he insulted unwillingly; he would rather not have done so, but he did it, forced by his passion: refrain thyself. Do you not see (how it is with) the demoniacs (in their fits)? Just then as it is with them, so with him: it is not so much from enmity, as from infirmity (that he behaves as he does): endure it. And as for us—it is not so much from the insults as they are in themselves that we are moved, as from our own selves: else how is it that when madmen offer us the same insults, we bear it? Again, if those who insult us be our friends, in that case too we bear it: or also our superiors, in that case also we bear it: how then is it not absurd, that in the case of these three, friends, madmen, and superiors, we bear it, but where they are of the same rank or our inferiors, we do not bear it? I have oftentimes said: It is but an impulse of the moment, something that hurries us away on the sudden: let us endure it for a little, and we shall bear the whole thing. The greater the insults, the more weak the offender. Do you know when it behooves us to grieve? When we have insulted another, and he keeps silence: for then he is strong, and we weak: but if the contrary be the case, you must even rejoice: you are crowned, you are proclaimed conqueror, without having even entered into the contest, without having borne the annoyance of sun, and heat, and dust, without having grappled with an antagonist and let him close with you; nothing but a mere wish on your part, sitting or standing, and you have got a mighty crown: a crown far greater than those (combatants earn): for to throw an enemy standing to the encounter, is nothing like so great as to overcome the darts of anger. You have conquered, without having even let him close with you, you have thrown down the passion that was in you, have slain the beast that was roused, have quelled the anger that was raging, like some excellent herdsman. The fight was like to have been an intestine one, the war a civil war. For, as those who sit down to besiege from without (endeavor to), embroil (the besieged) in civil discords, and then overcome them; so he that insults, unless he rouse the passion within us, will not be able to overcome us: unless we kindle the flame in ourselves, he has no power. Let the spark of anger be within us, so as to be ready for lighting at the right moment, not against ourselves, nor so as to involve us in numberless evils. See ye not how the fire in houses is kept apart, and not thrown about at random everywhere, neither among straw, nor among the linen, nor just where it may chance, that so there may not be danger, if a wind blow on it, of its kindling a flame: but whether a maid-servant have a lamp, or the cook light a fire, there is many an injunction given, not to do this in the draught of the wind, nor near a wooden panel, nor in the night-time: but when the night has come on, we extinguish the fire, fearing lest perchance while we are asleep and there is none to help, it set fire, and burn us all. Let this also be done with regard to anger; let it not be scattered everywhere up and down in our thoughts, but let it be in some deep recess of the mind, that the wind arising from the words of him who is opposing us may not easily reach to it, but that it receive the wind (which is to rouse it) from ourselves, who know how to rouse it in due measure and with safety. If it receive the wind from without, it knows no moderation; it will set everything on fire: oftentimes when we are asleep this wind will come upon it, and will burn up all. Let it therefore be with us (in safe keeping) in such sort as only to kindle a light: for anger does kindle a light when it is managed as it ought to be: and let us have torches against those who wrong others, against the devil. Let not the spark lie anywhere as it may chance, nor be thrown about; let us keep it safe under ashes: in lowly thoughts let us keep it slumbering. We do not want it at all times, but when there is need to subdue and to make tender, to mollify obduracy, and convict the soul. What evils have angry and wrathful passions wrought! And what makes it grievous indeed is, that when we have parted asunder, we have no longer the power to come together again, but we wait for others (to do this): each is ashamed, and blushes to come back himself and reconcile the other. See, he is not ashamed to part asunder and to be separated; no, he takes the lead as author of the evil: but to come forward and patch that which is rent, this he is ashamed to do: and the case is just the same, as if a man should not shrink from cutting off a limb, but should be ashamed to join it together again. What sayest thou, O man? Hast thou committed great injuries, and thyself been the cause of the quarrel? Why, then, thou wouldest justly be the first to go and be reconciled, as having thyself furnished the cause. But he did the wrong, he is the cause of the enmity? Why then, for this reason also thou must do it, that men may the more admire thee, that in addition to the former, thou mayest get the first prize in the latter also: as thou wast not the cause of the enmity, so neither of its being extended further. Perhaps also the other, as conscious within himself of numberless evils, is ashamed and blushes. But he is haughty? On this account above all, do not thou hesitate to run and meet him: for if the ailment in him be twofold, both haughtiness and anger, in this thou hast mentioned the very reason why thou oughtest to be the first to go to him, thou that art the one in sound health, the one who is able to see: as for him, he is in darkness: for such is anger and false pride. But do thou, who art free from these and in sound health, go to him—thou the physician, go to the sick. Does any of the physicians say, Because such an one is sick, I do not go to him? No, this is the very reason above all why they do go, when they see that he is not able to come to them. For of those who are able (to come) they think less, as of persons not extremely ill, but not so of those who lie at home sick. Or are not pride and anger, think you, worse than any illness? is not the one like a sharp fever, the other like a body swollen with inflammation? Think what a thing it is to have a fever and inflammation: go to him, extinguish the fire, for by the grace of God thou canst: go, assuage the heat as it were with water. “But,” you will say, “how if he is only the more set up by my doing this very thing?” This is nothing to thee: thou hast done thy part, let him take account for himself: let not our conscience condemn us, that this thing happens in consequence of any omission of what ought to have been done on our part. “In so doing,” says the Scripture, “thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.” (Rom. 12:20, cf. Hom. in l. xxii. §3.) And yet, for all that this is the consequence, it bids us go and be reconciled and do good offices—not that we may heap coals of fire, but that (our enemy) knowing that future consequence,[174] may be assuaged by the present kindness, that he may tremble, that he may fear our good offices rather than our hostilities, and our friendships rather than our ill designs. For one does not so hurt his hater by showing his resentment as an enemy, as by doing him good and showing kindness. For by his resentment, he has hurt both himself and perhaps the other also in some little degree: but by doing good offices, he has heaped coals of fire on his head. “Why then,” you will say, “for fear of thus heaping coals one ought not to do this (b) but to carry on the enmity to greater lengths.” By no means: it is not you that cause this, but he with his brutish disposition. For if, when you are doing him good, and honoring him, and offering to be reconciled, he persists in keeping up the enmity, it is he has kindled the fire for himself, he has set his own head on fire; you are guiltless. Do not want to be more merciful than God (b), or rather, if you wish it, you will not be able, not even in the least degree. How should you? “As far as the heaven is from the earth,” Scripture says, “so far are My counsels from your counsels” (Isa. 45:8): and again, “If ye,” He says, “being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more your heavenly Father” (Matt. 7:11)? But in fact this talk is mere pretext and subterfuge. Let us not prevaricate with God’s commandments. “And how do we prevaricate,” you will say? He has said, “In so doing, thou wilt heap coals of fire on his head:” and you say, I do not like to do this. (a) But are you willing to heap coals after another fashion, that is upon your own head? For in fact this is what resentment does: (c) since you shall suffer evils without number. (e) You say, “I am afraid for my enemy, because he has done me great injuries:” in reality is it this you say? But how came you to have an enemy? But how came you to hate your enemy? You fear for him that has injured you, but do you not fear yourself? Would that you had a care for yourself! Do not act (the kindness) with such an aim as this: or rather do it, though it be but with such an aim. But you do it not at all. I say not to you, “thou wilt heap coals of fire:” no, I say another and a greater thing: only do it. For Paul says this only by way of summoning thee (if only), in hope of the vengeance, to put an end to the enmity. Because we are savage as wild beasts in disposition, and would not otherwise endure to love our enemy, unless we expected some revenge, he offers this as a cake, so to say, to a wild beast. For to the Apostles (the Lord) says not this, but what says He? “That ye may be like to your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:45.) And besides, it is not possible that the benefactor and the benefited should remain in enmity. This is why Paul has put it in this way. Why, affecting a high and generous principle in thy words, why in thy deeds dost thou not even observe (common) moderation? (It sounds) well; thou dost not feed him, for fear of thereby heaping upon him coals of fire: well then, thou sparest him? well then, thou lovest him, thou actest with this object in view? God knows, whether thou hast this object in so speaking, and are not[175] palming this talk upon us as a mere pretence and subterfuge. Thou hast a care for thine enemy, thou fearest lest he be punished, then wouldest thou not have extinguished thine anger? For he that loves to that degree that he overlooks his own interest for the sake of the other’s advantage, that man has no enemy. (Then indeed) thou mightest say this. How long shall we trifle in matters that are not to be trifled with, and that admit of no excuse? Wherefore I beseech you, let us cut off these pretexts; let us not despise God’s laws: that we may be enabled with well-pleasing to the Lord to pass this life present, and attain unto the good things promised, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, might, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

References

  1. ↑ mss. and Edd. Πανταχοῦ γὰρ παῤ αὐτῶν ἐβούλετο λαβεῖν ἀφορμὴν, ὅπερ ἔφην. Τά τε γὰρ ἔθνη παρεζήλου λοιπὸν καὶ ῥαδίως κ. τ. λ. In παρεζήλου there is an allusion to Rom. 11:14, “if by any means I may provoke them to jealousy:” its subject therefore should be “the Apostle” (nam et gentes exstimulabat jam, Erasm.) “he was henceforth provoking to jealousy, being what he said to the Romans, “If by any means I may provoke,” etc., not “the Gentiles,” as Ben. makes it, nam gentes jam zelo fervebant. Besides transposing the parts b, c, we read, Παρεζήλου λοιπόν. Τά τε γὰρ ἔθυη ῥαδίως.…But perhaps it should be Παρεζήλου λοιπὸν, ὅπερ ἔφη “Εἰ πῶς παραζηλώσω κ. τ. λ.”

  2. ↑ Διὰ τοῦτο ἐνοχλεῖ (ἠνώχλει Sav.) αὐτοῖς συνεχῶς μεταπείθων, old text, retained by Saville. He is explaining why St. Paul still resorted to the synagogues, though an unwelcome visitant. He wished to separate the Church from the Synagogue: but he would not himself take the first step towards this. It must be the act of the Jews. Therefore until they by their outrageous conduct obliged him to depart, he kept on troubling them with his presence (εἰσωθοῦντα, ἠνώχλει). Not that his discourse was harsh: that word, ἐπαρρησ., does not mean this, but that he spoke freely and without reserve. (Recapitulation)—The unusual word μεταπείθων is probably a corruption of the abbreviation of the text-words, ἐπὶ μῆνας τρεῖς διαλεγ. καὶ πείθων, which the reporter may have written thus, μ. τ. πείθων.—Mod. text substitutes Διὰ τοῦτο διελέγετο αὐτοῖς συνεχῶς ὅτι ἔπειθε.

  3. ↑ πόσον ἤνυσεν ἡ ἐπιστασία. Cat., ἀποστασία, with reference to ἀποστὰς in Acts 19:9.—The letters marking the order in which the parts are given in the mss. will show the extreme confusion into which the notes of this Homily have fallen.

  4. ↑ Οὐχὶ φοροῦντες ἥπτοντο μόνον. Edd. i.e., “The process was not only this, that persons bearing these things, by touching the sick healed them, but the things themselves simply laid upon the sick were effectual for their healing.” But A. C. Cat. φοροῦντος, which is much better: “It was not only that they touched him (the Apostle) wearing these things”—viz. as the woman was healed by touching the hem of Christ’s garment—“but receiving them, they laid them upon the sick,” etc.—In the next sentence (g), for τοῦτο καὶ τὸ τῶν σκιῶν ἐστιν ὅπερ ἔλεγεν, (which Sav. gives in marg.), Edd. have τοῦτο τὸ τῶν σκιῶν αἰνιττόμενος, which Ben. renders has umbras insinuans. St. Chrys. elsewhere alleges the miraculous efficacy of St. Paul’s garments and of St. Peter’s shadow, in illustration of our Lord’s saying, t. i. 537. A. t. ii. 53. C.

  5. ↑ Ephesus was famous for its sorcerers and magicians. Plutarch and Eustathius speak of Ephesian letters (᾽Εφέσια γράμματα) which, written on slips, were carried about as charms and had power to assure success and avert disaster. The περίεργα were arts connected with this sorcery and the books burned contained, no doubt, mysterious sentences and symbols which gave to them an extravagant worth in the eyes of the superstitious. In this way the large price set upon them may be accounted for.—G.B.S.

  6. ↑ The meaning seems to be, Such was the effect of his two years’ preaching at Ephesus: and his Epistle shows what high attainments in the faith were made by the Ephesians.

  7. ↑ The partial restoration which is here attempted implies this scheme of the derangement: 2, 1.: 1, 3, 2, 4: see note 3, p. 252.

  8. ↑ ὡς μήτε τοὺς μαθητὰς εἰς θυμὸν ἐγεῖραι, μήτε ἐκείνους ἀναχωρῆσαι. Mod. text. transposes εἰς θ. ἐγεῖραι ανδ ἀναχωρ. We read ἀνεχώρησε. The verb either to ἐκείνους or to τοὺς μαθητάς is probably lost.

  9. ↑ Some have supposed Tyrannus to have been a Jewish teacher, who conducted a school in a private synagogue—a Beth Midrash (so Meyer). In this view, Paul and his companions, on account of the opposition which they encountered, separated themselves from the public synagogue, and betook them to this private Jewish school. But Tyrannus is a Greek name and the more common and preferable opinion is that he was a teacher of philosophy or rhetoric who had become a Christian and in whose apartments both Jews and Gentiles could meet without molestation.—G.B.S.

  10. ↑ τὴν κόνιν ταῦτα ἐργαζομένην, πιστευέτω, B. C. Cat. But A. substitutes κόρην, Mod. text σκίαν. He seems to allude here to the miracles effected by the very ashes of the martyrs: see e.g. t. ii. 494, A.: and perhaps with reference to these he says, Βαβαὶ, πόση τῶν πιστευσάντων ἡ δύναμις: unless this be meant as an exclamation of the persons who “took upon them,” etc. i.e. Like Simon, they saw the wonders wrought in the name of Jesus; “Wonderful (said they)! Why, what power is exercised by these men who have believed!” namely, by those who by laying the handkerchiefs, etc., upon the sick restored them to health.—Mod. text adds, “that to others also there comes (the power) of doing the same things: and how great the hardness of those who even after the demonstrations of power yet continue in unbelief.”

  11. ↑ From this point to the end of the Exposition, having in vain attempted to restore the true order, we take it as it lies in the mss. and Edd.—Below, “and after this;” i.e. “yet after this,” then these itinerant Jewish exorcists took upon them, etc. and not until after their punishment, when “fear fell upon them all,” did those of the professed believers (πῶν πεπιστευκότων) who still practiced magic come forward confessing their sins.

  12. ↑ Πῶς δὲ ἔτρεχος λοιπὸν κηρύττοντες δἰ ὧν ἔπασχον. The subject to ἔπασχον seems to be “these exorcists” the sons of Sceva: but to ἔτρεχονit seems to be “the Apostles.” “This made the Apostles wonderful in men’s eyes:” they had wrought miracles, and preached two years, “so that all in Asia heard the word of the Lord,” yet still these practices continued: but (see) how they ran (what success they had) now, preaching by the things these men were suffering: “and this became known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling in Asia, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.”—Mod. text, seemingly referring ἔτρεχονto the exorcists, reads καλῶς δὲ ἔτρ. And in place of Acts 19:10, gives, “Whence, showing this, it saith, ‘And this became known to all,’” etc. Acts 19:17.

  13. ↑ Ben. assigns this to the year 399, and cites the first of the “Eleven Homilies” t. xii. as having been delivered according to St. Chrys. thirty days after that great earthquake, viz., in the year of the fall of Eutropius, therefore a.d. 399. But Ed. Par. justly corrects this mistake: in fact, the σεισμὸς of which St. Chrys. there speaks (t. xii. p. 324. A.) is only a metaphor, meaning the catastrophe of Eutropius.

  14. ↑ Perhaps with an allusion to Jude 1:7, “Sodom and Gomorrah—set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”

  15. ↑ Meaning, perhaps, Even when they believe the miracles to be real, that which should have brought them to faith becomes to them an occasion of greater wickedness.

  16. ↑ The miracles at Antioch, when at the instigation of the demon (Apollo) the remains of the martyr Babylas were removed by order of Julian. See the Hom. de S. Babyla, t. ii. p. 567.—The Theodorus mentioned below cannot be the lapsed person of that name to whom St. Chrys. addressed the first of the two Paræneses, t. i. init. But probably πέρυσι is corrupt, and the allusion may be to the troubles at Antioch in connection with Theodorus the Sicilian; see p. 238, note 4.

  17. ↑ ἂν μὴ φύσις ἑτέρα προσέλθῃ. To complete the sense we must supply, “because this also (the being blinded by fear) is a natural affection: but what I have said is true, viz. that τῶν κατὰ φύσιν καὶ ἀνάγκην οὐ δυνάμεθα μεθίστασθαι, ἂν μὴ κ. τ. λ.

  18. ↑ τὶ οὖν ἂν καὶ ἡ σωφροσύνη. This is corrupt or mutilated. The sense requires, “What if in some cases ‘an evil mind’ be a natural necessity—as much as seeing or any other natural property or affection, but when there seems to be a change, it is only that fear casts out the evil mind for a while?”

  19. ↑ Meaning perhaps, That which should be the Temple of Christ, the body of the believer.

  20. ↑ Mod. text, “For look now at some one who has been abusive and has not been punished: not for this only is it a subject for weeping, that he does not suffer the punishment for his abusiveness, but also for another reason it is a subject for mourning. What may this be? That his soul is now become more shameless.” But Chrys. is speaking of the immediate evil—here the act of ὕβρις for which the man suffers, or will have to give account hereafter—and the permanent effect, the ἕξις which every evil act fixes on the soul.—῞Ετερονhere and above we render in its pregnant sense, “other and worse,” or, “what is quite another and a more serious thing.”

  21. ↑ Old text. Εἰ δέ τινες μηδ᾽ ὅλως νήφοιεν, οὐδὲ έκεῖνοι διδόασι δίκην. Sav. and Ben. οὕτω and δώσουσι. But Par. has resumed the unintelligible reading of mod. text, εἰ δέ τινες μηδ᾽ οὕτω ν., ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἐκεῖνοι διδόασι δίκην.

  22. ↑ ἀλλὰ τρίφωσι παῤ ἑαυτοις οἰκεῖον κακὸν, κἀθάπερ τινὰ δήμιον τὴν μνησικακίαν. Mod. text οἰκειακὸν καθ. τ. δ.

  23. ↑ For τί κατασκευάζεις ἕκτικον σαυτῷ νόσημα; B. has, τί κ. ἐκτήκον σαυτὸν ·τῷ νοσήματι, quæ lectio non spernanda, te morbo tabefaciens, Ben. The reading ἐκτήκον is explained by the etacism; the τι in νοσήματι is derived from the following τί βουλόμενον; hence it was necessary to alter σαυτῷ into σαυτὸν τῷ. In the following sentence, B. has τί βουλόμενος, “Why when thou wouldest be quit of it, dost thou keep thine anger?”

  24. ↑ Mod. text weakly, “But this I do that he may not laugh me to scorn, that he may not despise me.”

  25. ↑ Καθάπερ γὰρ ἐκεῖνα (meaning τὰ βρέφη) καὶ πρὸς (om. B. C.) τὰ ἄψυχα ὀργίζεται, κἂν μὴ πλήξῃ τὸ ἔδαφος ἡ μητὴρ, οὐκ ἀφίησι τὴν ὀργήν.—Mod. text and Edd. except Sav. omit ἡ μητήρ.

  26. ↑ Mod. text followed by Edd. perverts the whole story, making the parties contend, not for the relinquishing of the treasure, but for the possession of it, so making the conclusion (the willing cession of it by both to the third party) unintelligible, and the application irrelevant. The innovator was perhaps induced to make this alteration, by an unseasonable recollection of the Parable of the Treasure hid in a field.—“The seller having learnt this, came and wanted to compel the purchaser ἀπολαβεῖν τὸν θησαυρὸν,” (retaining ἀπολ., in the unsuitable sense “that he, the seller, should receive back the treasure.”) “On the other hand, the other (the purchaser) repulsed him, saying, that he had bought the piece of ground along with the treasure, and that he made no account of this (καὶ οὐδένα λόγον ποιεῖν ὑπὲρ τούτου.) So they fell to contention, both of them, the one wishing to receive, the other not to give,” etc.

  27. ↑ καὶ ἡμᾶς φιλονεικεῖν μὴ ἀμύνασθαι, καὶ τοὺς λελυπηκότας φιλονεικεῖν δοῦναι δίκην: as in the story, the parties ἐφιλονείκουν, the one μὴ λαβεῖν τὸν θ., the other δοῦναι.

  28. ↑ ᾽Εντεῦθεν. If St. Chrys. is rightly reported, he means the second Epistle, which he proceeds to quote from. But that Epistle was plainly not written ἀπὸ ᾽Εφέσου. Perhaps what he said was to this effect: “At this point I suppose it was—viz. after the mission of Timothy and Erastus—that he wrote (his first Epistle) to the Corinthians from Ephesus: and in the second Epistle he alludes to the great trial which ensued in the matter of Demetrius. He had promised to come to Corinth sooner, and excuses himself on the score of the delay.” But τὰ κατὰ Δημήτριον διηγούμενος can hardly be meant of St. Paul: it should be αἰνιττόμενος.

  29. ↑ The use of ἡ ὁδός without further definition, to represent the Christian religion, is peculiar to the Acts (Acts 9:2; Acts 19:9; Acts 19:23; Acts 24:22). Κυρίου or σωτηρίας would express the omitted defining idea.—G.B.S.

  30. ↑ ῞Ορᾳς τὴν εὐδοκίμησιν; This seems to refer to Acts 19:17–20. “But see how successes and trials here, as all along, alternate. Then the Jews contradicted: (Acts 19:9) then miracles, twofold, (Acts 19:11–19): now again (after that εὐδοκίμησις), danger.”—Here the mss. and Edd. give Acts 19:24–27, which we have distributed to their proper places.

  31. ↑ These silver “temple” (ναοὺς) were shrines, small models of the temple containing images of the goddess, which pilgrims to the temple purchased and carried away and probably used in their homes as objects of domestic worship.—G.B.S.

  32. ↑ Καὶ ὅρα κοινωνοὺς ὄντας αὐτούς· εἶτα τὸν κίνδυνον ἐπέστησεν (so Cat. C. -σαν, A. B. ἐπέτησεν). Mod. text, “But being themselves partners of the craft, he takes them as partners also of the riot. Then also he exaggerated (ηὔξησεν) the danger, adding. This our craft is in danger of coming into contempt. For this is pretty nearly what he declares by this, that from this art,” etc.

  33. ↑ ὅτι καθαιρῶν (Cat. ὅτε ἐκαθῄρουν) αὐτῶν τὰ σεβάσματα, ἐκεῖ στέμματα καὶ ταύρους προσέφερον· ἐνταῦθα φησιν ὅτι κινδυνεύει κ. τ. λ. These seem to be only rough notes or hints of what Chrys. said. The first words καθ. αὐτῶν τὰ σεβ. look like a reference to Acts 17:23, ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν: “thus at Athens, surveying the objects of their worship, and finding an Altar, etc. he thence takes occasion to preach the Unknown God. At Lystra, they brought garlands and oxen, and the Apostles thereupon, etc. Therefore these men here might well say, Our craft is in danger. For it was true, as was said on another occasion (at Jerusalem), Ye have filled, etc.: and, They that have turned the world, etc. Nay, of Christ also the Jews said the same, The world is going after Him.”

  34. ↑ Διὰ ταῦτα μετ᾽ ἐξετάσεως δεῖ ποιεῖν, Mod. text adds πάντα. This sentence, om. by A., seems to be out of place, and to belong rather to Acts 19:36. We have transposed the text Acts 19:28–29, which in mss. and Edd. is given after ὡς πᾶσι προκεῖσθαι.

  35. ↑ καὶ πανταχοῦ αὐτοῖς προκεῖνται. To make some sense of the passage, we adopt προσκεῖνται from B. We also transpose Acts 19:30 which is given with Acts 19:31 after the following sentence.

  36. ↑ Προεβάλοντο ᾽Ιουδαῖοι οἰκονομικῶς δὲ (supplied by Cat.) οὗτος οὐκ ἐφθέγξατο. Mod. text “The Jews thrust him forward, as Providence ordered it, that they might not have (it in their power) to gainsay afterwards. This man is thrust forward, and speaks: and hear what (he says).”

  37. ↑ Old text: ῾Ιερὸν ἕτερον οὕτως ἐκαλεῖτο—meaning, as we take it, the Palladium of Troy, which was also called “the Diopetes,” τὸ Παλλάδιον τὸ Διοπετὲς καλούμενον, Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv. 47.—ἤτοι τὸ ὄστρακον αὐτῆς φησιν. Something more is needed, therefore we supply ἢ τὸ ἄγαλμα αὐτῆς φησιν. But ἱερὸν in this sense is not usual. ῎Οστρακον, whatever it mean, cannot be the image of Diana, which was known to be of wood. The passage seems to be corrupt, and one might conjecture that ἱερὸν ἕτερον relates to “another Temple” of Diana built after the first which was burned by Herostratos, and that the name of this man is latent in the unintelligible ητοιτοοστρακον, and that Chrysostom’s remark is this, that together with that former Temple perished the original Diopetes: so that to speak of that image as still in being was a lie (τοῦτο ψεῦδος)—Mod. text “But a different ἱερὸν was thus called διοπετές: either then the idol of Diana they called Diopetes, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ Διὸς τὸ ὄστρακον ἐκεῖ νοπεπτωκὸς, and not made by man: or a different ἄγαλμαwas thus called among them.”—Isidore of Pelus. in the Catena: “Some say that it is spoken of the image of Diana, i.e. ‘(a worshipper) of the great Diana and of her διοπετες ἄγαλμα:’ some that the Palladium also (is here named as διοπ.), i.e. the image of Minerva, which they worshipped along with Diana.” Ammonius ibid., “the ναὸς τοῦ Διός: or the στρογγυλοειδὲς”—meaning the ὄστρακον?—“or rather, which is the true explanation, this image of Diana: or the Palladium, which they thought came from Jupiter, and was not the work of men.” Œcum. gives the same variety of explanations, from the Catena. The words τοῦτο ψεῦδος, which in the mss. follow the text Acts 19:36–37, are better referred to the Diopetes, as in our translation.—Mod. text ἄρα τὸ πᾶν ψεῦδος: and then, “these things however he says to the people, in order that those also,” etc. omitting δὲ preserved by the old text.

  38. ↑ This Diopetes, the image which was supposed to have fallen down from Jupiter or heaven (Δίος—πίπτω), was the image of Diana which was in the great temple at Ephesus. This was the superstitious belief of the people as is clear from the many instances in classic mythology in which statues are famed to have fallen from heaven. This image was of wood and was probably found there by the Greeks when they colonized Ionia.—G.B.S.

  39. ↑ i.e. In this, he prophesies (see above on this verse): but in his purpose of going to Jerusalem from Achaia, he was disappointed, for he had to return through Macedonia: ἢ προείλετο, i.e. this is the meaning of ἔθετο ἐν πνεύματι. Mod. text om. οὐκέτι ἐγχρονίσας, and adds: “for this is the meaning of ἔθετο, and such is the force of the expression.” Then: “But why he sends away T. and E., the writer does not say: but it seems to me that of this also he says, ᾽Εν πνεύματι. Wherefore when,” etc.—The meaning is: “He sends them away on this occasion, as he did at Athens: viz. because he could no longer forbear, therefore he thought it good to be left alone.”

  40. ↑ ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἦν ἡ τυραννὶς (mod. text ἡ πολλὴ φατρία) τῶν φιλοσόφων. But this seems to belong rather to Athens.

  41. ↑ Mod. text inserts for connection: “And if from this work wealth accrues to you, how hath he persuaded,” etc.

  42. ↑ ἐκκαῦσαι. Erasm. ut et confutaret totum et furorem populi extingueret. Ben. subverteret.…extingueret. But ἐκκαῦσαι will not bear this sense, nor does the context suggest it. Alexander’s object, it is represented, was to overthrow the preaching, and kindle the rage of the people yet more.—Cat. and Sav. marg. ἑλκύσαι.

  43. ↑ Mod. text “As if he had said, Do ye not worship her?”

  44. ↑ Mod. text “But, Our city, paying court to them: θεραπεύων αὐτοὺς:” for which the old text has, But, Your city. ᾽Εθεράπευσεν αὐτήν. Which may mean, Thus he, the town clerk, paid homage to the city, by speaking of its honors. But θεραπεύετε αὐτὴν in the preceding sentence requires the sense given in the translation.

  45. ↑ Σφόδρα γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἠλόγησεν καὶ διηπόρησεν. Mod. text Τούτῳ σφ. αὐτοὺς διηπ., omitting, ἠλόγησεν, which, if not corrupt is here put in an unusual sense.

  46. ↑ οὐ δυνησόμεθα old text, here and above, as in the Alexandrine ms. of the N. T. (received by Griesbach) but here with τῆς συστρ. τ. transposed. (If the negative be retained, it is better to read περὶ τῆς σ. τ. as in the leading authorities of the text: so that this clause is epexegetical to περὶ οὗ· for which, namely, for this concourse.)

  47. ↑ ταραχθεῖσα B. The other mss. ταριχευθεῖσα, which is unsuitable here.

  48. ↑ ὅλως οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἡ πάντα γέλως καὶ κατάγελως τὰ εκεῖ.

  49. ↑ C., ᾽Αλλ᾽ εἰ βούλει πάλιν πολλοὺς ἐξετάσωμεν τόπους· B., ᾽Αλλὰ πάλιν εἰ βούλει ἑτέρους ἐξετ. τόπους. Mod. text ᾽Αλλ᾽ εἰ β., πάλιν ἑτέρως ἐξετ. τοὺς αὐτοὺς τόπους. In the Translation we adopt ἑτέρως and omit τόπους.

  50. ↑ The text is corrupt: καὶ φρίξει τοὺς τόπους—perhaps it should be τοὺς ἐκεῖ τόπους—ἐνταῦθα ὁρῶν· καθάπερ, γὰρ ἐνταῦθα ἐν δεσμωτηρί& 251· τυγχάνων οὕτω κἀκεῖ πρὸ τῆς κρίσεως πρὸ τῆς μελλούσης ἡμέρας, sc. φρίξει. i.e. “just as here, being shut up in prison he looks forward with dread to the coming trial, so will he in that world,” etc. Mod. text quite misrepresenting the sense: “For, as he that is here shut up in prison is gentle towards all, so those also before the Judgment, before the coming Day, will be more gentle,” etc.

  51. ↑ The phrase ἄχρι τῆς ᾽Ασίας are omitted by א and B. and are now discarded in the leading critical editions. The residence of Timothy is not given, as being well known. It was probably Lystra (Acts 16:1).—G.B.S.

  52. ↑ St. Chrysostom’s reading of Acts 20:4 is peculiar, but does not appear in the vv. ll. of N. T. perhaps because the Edd. of Chrys. conform it to the usual text, which is Θεσσαλ. δὲ, ᾽Αρ. καὶ Σεκ. καὶ Γά& 190·ος Δερβαῖος καὶ Τιμόθεος, i.e. two Thessalonians, and beside them Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, etc. But in the preceding chapter, Acts 19:29, a Gaius was mentioned along with Aristarchus, and both as Macedonians. Hence it seems St. Chrys. read it with a stop after Γά& 190·ος, of Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus and Gaius. In his remark, he seems to be giving a reason for striking out καὶ before Τιμόθεος: viz. “How does he call Timothy a Thessalonian, (as a negligent reader might suppose to be the case, viz., Of Thess. Ar. and Sec. and Gaius Derbæus and Timothy?) He does not say this, but, of Thessalonians he mentions three, and then, of Derbe, Timothy, cf. Acts 16:1., whereas Gaius was not of Derbe, but of Macedonia, Acts 19:29.” The note of Œcumen. on the passage shows that Δερβαῖος was supposed by some to be a proper name: “Of the rest, he tells us what countries they were of: for Timothy he is content with the name, his personal character was distinction enough, and besides he has already told us where T. came from: viz. Acts 16:1. But if Δερβαῖος here is a noun of nation and not a proper name, perhaps he has here also mentioned his country.”

  53. ↑ Πεντηκοστὴ, meaning the whole of the seven weeks. The scope of the remark is, Being met for celebration of the Holy Eucharist, which followed the Sermon, and the discourse being lengthened out until midnight, they were fasting all the time (for the Eucharist was taken fasting, see Hom. xxvii. in 1 Cor.): so that, though it was during the weeks after Easter, when there was no fast, and not only so, but the Lord’s Day moreover, here was a fast protracted till midnight.

  54. ↑ That the religious observance of Sunday is here alluded to has been generally assumed. Taken in connection with 1 Cor. 16:2 and Rev. 1:10, the passage renders it highly probable that at this time (about a.d. 57) the first day of the week was regularly observed by the Christians in memory of the Lord’s resurrection, although it is certain that the Jewish Christians still observed the Jewish Sabbath.—G.B.S.

  55. ↑ οὐκ ἀπέστη, so as to lose the opportunity of hearing, and forego the “breaking of bread,” which was to follow the discourse. Comp. Hom. x. in Gen. init.

  56. ↑ The narrative requires the interpretation of Chrys. that this was a case of restoration to life, not merely of revival from suspended animation (as Olshausen, Ewald, DeWette). This is established by the fact that Eutychus is said to have seen taken up νεκρός, not ὡς νεκρός. Moreover to ἤρθη νεκρός (Acts 20:9) is opposed ἤγαγον ζῶντα (Acts 20:12). He was dead; they brought him alive. It is true that the apostle says: “His life (soul) is in him,” but this is said after he had fallen upon and embraced him, or this may have been said from the standpoint of his confidence of a miraculous restoration, as Jesus said of Jairus’ daughter: “The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth,” meaning that from his standpoint and in view of his power she still lived, although she was in reality dead.—G.B.S.

  57. ↑ Old text instead of ῎Ασσονhas Θάσον, a misreading which appears in some mss. and Versions of the Acts: Cat., Νάσον.

  58. ↑ παιδεύων τε αὐτοὺς χωρίζεσθαι αὐτοῦ: but mod. text ἅμα καὶ παιδεύων αὐτοὺς μηδὲ χωρίζεσθαι αὐτοῦ. After this, old text has ἀνήχθημέν, φησιν, εἰς τὴν Θάσον evidently confusing this clause of Acts 20:13, with the first of Acts 20:14, then, εἶτα παρέχονται (for παρέρχ.) τὴν νῆσον, followed by Acts 20:15–16. Mod. text, Acts 20:15, followed by “See, how Paul being urgent, they put to sea, and lose no time, but παρέρχονται τὰς νήσους,” and Acts 20:16.

  59. ↑ καὶ τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἑλεῖν (F. ἐλεεῖν) βουλόμενος, wishing by this means to overcome (for their good) even those who hated him. Then, ἅμα καὶ τὸν λόγον καθίει. Mod. text ἅμα ἔσπευδε τὸν λόγον καθεῖναι. Mr. Field remarks on Hom. in 2 Cor. p. 553 B. where we have παραίνεσιν καθίησι, that the much more usual expression is, εἴς τι καθεῖναι, and adds: “semel tantum ap. Nostrum reperimus λόγον καθεῖναι, viz. t. ix. p. 236. E.”—our passage.

  60. ↑ ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως κατεῖχε τὸν πόθον καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖ κατορθοῦν. The infinitive requires βουλόμενος or the like: i.e. “though desirous to get to Jerusalem, he restrained his desire, and made a stay at Troas of seven days, wishing, etc.:” but B. gives the same sense by reading κατορθῶν, Cat. κατώρθου. Mod. text οὕτως εἶχε τὸν πόθον καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖ κατορθοῦν.

  61. ↑ Πρὸς αὐτὸν τὸν καιρὸν, ἀρχὴν ὁ λόγος λαβὼν παρέτεινεν ὡς ἐνδεικνύμενος πεινῆν· καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἄκαιρον· οὐ γὰρ προηγουμένως εἰς διδασκαλίαν καθῆκεν. This is evidently mutilated; the verb to ὁ λόγος is wanting: ὡς ἐνδεικ. πεινῆν, either “making a display of,” or, “pleading as excuse the being hungry,” is unintelligible; so is οὐκ ἦν ἄκ. Mod. text attempts to make sense by reading: “At the very time ᾦ ἐνεδείκνυτο πεινῆν, καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἄκαιρον, ἀρχὴν ὁ λόγος λαβὼν παρετάθη, ὥστε οὐ προηγ.”

  62. ↑ Mod. text “many occupying even the windows, to hear that trumpet, and see that gracious countenance. What must the persons taught have been, and how great the pleasure they must have enjoyed!”

  63. ↑ Τοῦτο οἰκονομία λέγεται εἰς ἀκρότητα καὶ εἰς ὕψος. “This”—the blameless life and therewith συγκατάβασις described in 2 Cor. 6:3 ff—"is what one may indeed call Οἰκονομία—managing or dispensing things for the good of others, so that they shall have what is best for them in the best manner, without shocking their prejudices. Οἰκον., in the moral sense of the word, implies συγκατάβασοις, letting one’s self down to the level of others for their good. (Hence below, καὶ τὰ τῆς οἰκονομίας, καὶ (τὰ) τοῦ ἀλήπτου βίου.) “Talk of ‘economy’—here you have it at its very top and summit, in a degree not to be surpassed.” Instead of ὕψος the context seems to require “the lowest depth.” Hence mod. text τὸ εἰς ἀκρότητα εἶναι καὶ ὕψους ἀρετῆς, καὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης συγκαταβάσεως. Καὶ ἄκουε πῶς ὁ ὑπερβαίνων…“the being at the summit both of loftiness of virtue and of lowliness of condescension.” In the next sentence St. Paul is described as ὁ ὑπερβαίνων τὰ παραγγέλματα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, namely, the precept “that they which preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel,” 1 Cor. 9:14.

  64. ↑ Edd. καλῶς γε· οὐ γὰρ τοὺς μισθοὺς ἀπέλαβον: as if it meant, “And well that it is so: for I have not received my wages—therefore the reward is yet to come: not as it is with those who ἀπέχουσι τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν in this life, Matt. 6:2 ff.” If this were the meaning, the sentence would be out of place; it should be, “He said nothing of the kind, but would rather have repressed such thoughts with the consideration, It is well: for I have not received my wages—they are yet to come.” But in fact here as elsewhere the Edd. overlook the ironical interrogation οὐ γάρ. Read καλῶς γε (οὐ γάρ;) τοὺς μισθοὺς ἀπ έλαβον (or καλούς γε).

  65. ↑ Αἰναν. Sav. marg., Σαινάν. LXX. Edd., Σενναάρ. Hebr., Zaanan.

  66. ↑ This clause is evidently misplaced, and moreover requires to be completed. The meaning may be: “So in the highest of all God’s saving acts, the mission of the Son; for he that receiveth Him receiveth the Father.”

  67. ↑ i.e. putting this foremost of the Beatitudes.

  68. ↑ Something more ought to follow, but the report is imperfect. Mod. text “Others again there are who are not such as these, but who in the case of both characters preserve according to the occasion both the lowly and the high bearing: which thing indeed above all is characteristic of humility. Since then he is about to teach them such things, lest he should seem to be arrogant,” etc.

  69. ↑ Τὸ γὰρ διαμαρτύρασθαι τοῦτό ἐστιν, ὅταν..…Τὸ γὰρ διαμαρτύρασθαι ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολὺ τοῦτό ἐστιν.

  70. ↑ Old text διά τε τὰ ἔργα, διά τε τὸν Υἱ& 232·ν ἀγνοεῖν· καὶ πίστιν τὴν εἰς τὸν Κ. ᾽Ι. as if all this were said in explanation of the preceding Οὐδὲ γὰρ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι ᾔδεσαν αὐτόν. But δία τε τὰ ἔργα explains the clause τὴν εἰς τὸν Θεὸν μετάνοιαν, which requires to be inserted as in the Translation. Mod. text “both because they were ignorant of the Son, and because of their works, and their not having faith in the Lord Jesus.”

  71. ↑ Chrys. understands “bound in the spirit” to mean constrained by the Holy Spirit (so Theophylact, Beza, Calvin, Wordsworth et al.). The fact that the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the next verse (Acts 20:23) in such a way as to be distinguished apparently from “the spirit” here mentioned, has led most critics to believe that “the spirit” was Paul’s own spirit (so Meyer, Lechler, Lange, DeWette, Ewald, Alford, Hackett, Gloag). Δεδεμένος should not be taken as meaning bound with chains in prospect, i.e., as seen in his spirit in advance (as Bengel, Conybeare and Howson), but rather constrained, inwardly constrained.—G.B.S.

  72. ↑ mss. Cat. and Edd. ἀλγῶμεν “let us grieve:” but Savile, ἀλγῶ μέν. The next clause ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἡγοῦμαι, or, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ, ῾Ηγοῦμαι, requires something to make sense of it, as in the Translation.

  73. ↑ Διπλῆ ἡ παραμυθία. The meaning is, “It was his face that they would see no more: he chooses that expression by way of softening matters, implying that in spirit he would be present: and again, all ye, not they only, so that the grief was not peculiar to them:” but this being rather obscure, A. substitutes ἀθυμία, and mod. text Διπλῆ ἡ λύπη, i.e. “the dejection (or, the sorrow) was twofold, both the being to see his face no more, and the, All of them.”

  74. ↑ Neither of the two ideas which Chrys. draws from Acts 20:25—(a) that though absent in body, he would be present with them in spirit; (b) that the “all” addressed refers to the whole company—comes naturally from the text. The apostle states his firm conviction that he shall not again visit Ephesus. Whether he ever did so or not, we do not know. The probabilities in the case would depend upon the question of a release from his Roman imprisonment. He hoped for such a release and intended to visit Colossæ (Phlm. 1:22). On the supposition of such a release and on the consequent supposition of the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles, a visit after this time to Ephesus becomes very probable, especially since we find the apostle (2 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 4:20) at Troas and Miletus.—G.B.S.

  75. ↑ Hence it appears that St. Chrys. reads Κυρίου not Θεοῦ in this text, though in the citation the Scribes give it according to the other reading, Θεοῦ.

  76. ↑ It is an interesting fact that in this passage where the reading vacillates between Κυρίου and θεοῦ, while the report of the Homily has given us θεοῦ, the citation of the N. T. text favors the reading Κυρίου. The great majority of mss. read τοῦ Κυρίου: א and B. have τοῦ θεοῦ (the usual Pauline formula). Many critics hold that Κυρ. was changed to θ. in accordance with Pauline usage in the Epistles. The idea of the “blood of God” is against the reading θεοῦ. Modern critics are nearly equally divided. Alford, Westcott and Hort, read θεοῦ; Meyer, Tischendorf, Κυρίου; to us the latter seems decidedly preferable.—G.B.S.

  77. ↑ δείκνυσι τίμιον τὸ πρᾶγμα, ὅτι. Mod. text. πολὺ δείκν. δἰ ὧν εἶπε τίμιον τὸ πρ. So Edd. Multum ostendit dum dicit pretiosam rem. Ben.

  78. ↑ Οὐ γὰρ εἰ πολλοὺς εἶδε τότε ἐφείσατο (mod. ἐφείδετο). Non enim si multos vidisset, eis pepercisset, Ben. But Cat. has preserved the true reading, ἐφίστατο.

  79. ↑ ῎Εσται χρηστὸς καὶ μέγας ἀνήρ. The second epithet, being evidently unsuitable, mod. text gives, χρηστὸς ἀνὴρ καὶ πρᾶος γενήσεται. But perhaps χ. ἀ. καὶ μ. belongs to the next sentence, as an exclamation on Acts 20:22. “A good and great man!” and for μαλάσσεται· ἔσται we may read μαλαχθήσεται.

  80. ↑ Old text: ἵνα μὴ καταχώσῃ αὐτῶν τὴν διάνοιαν, followed by the latter part of Acts 20:27. Τοῦ ἀναγγεῖλαι ὑμῖν κ. τ. λ. But the connection may also be, “I have not shrunk—of course in due order and proportion” (or something of that kind) “that he may not overwhelm their minds, from declaring,” etc. It might seem, however, from the comment which follows, viz τὴν περὶ τοῦ παρόντος πράγματος, that Chrys. is here proposing an interpretation of Acts 20:27 different from what was implied in the first exposition, p. 269, and from that of Acts 20:20: i.e. “painful as it is, I have not shrunk from announcing to you all the counsel of God, to wit, as touching the present matter, my separation from you, so that ye shall see my face no more.” But this being very unsatisfactory, it is better to take the connection thus: Nor does he now shrink from declaring to them the whole counsel of God concerning the coming events, and their duty and responsibility therein. (We have therefore placed the mark of an hiatus before this clause.)—Mod. text substitutes, “But what is this (that he adds), ‘Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things.’ What then,” etc.

  81. ↑ The text is evidently confused or defective here. Mod. text “For that none may fancy it plea enough for his justification, that he is a disciple while yet he does not yield, therefore having said, I take you to record, he adds, for I have not shunned,” etc.

  82. ↑ St. Chrysostom succeeded Nectarius in the Archbishopric of Constantinople, 26th Feb. Coss. Honorius iv. and Eutychianus a.d. 398. Socrat. vi. 2.—From the following passage it appears that these Homm. though begun after Easter, perhaps of a.d. 400, extended over a considerable period of time, not being preached every day.—Below, mod. text spoils the sense by altering πικρότερα into κουφότερα.

  83. ↑ Mod. text inserts a φησίν, and makes the sentence interrogative. “And does this, you will say, profit them nothing nor shield them, that they watch for our souls? But then they watch as they that must give an account: and to some indeed this seems to be terrible.” The meaning in general seems to be: “If they perish, yet surely you can comfort yourself with the thought, that you at least are pure from their blood. No, this thought avails nothing to ward off (that sorrow). “Because they watch,” etc.—this seems a fearful thing. But if you be lost, it is not the thought of my accountability that gives me most concern—it is the thought of your perishing. Oh! that I might in the last day find you saved though not through me, yea, though I myself thereafter were called to account as not having done my part by you!”

  84. ↑ ῾Ετέρωθεν μὲν οὐδαμόθεν, ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν γενομένων) meaning perhaps, “From what has been done by us in our ministry: we will endeavor to persuade you by reminding you of all our care and pains for our salvation:”) τὰ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς πάντα ἀπολυσόμεθα. ᾽Απολύεσθαι (ἐγκλήματα), is frequent in Chrys., often confused with ἀπολούεσθαι and ἀποδύεσθαι. See Mr. Field’s Index and Annotat. in Hom. Matth.

  85. ↑ The phrase “which is able” (τῷ δυναμένῳ) may be connected with the word “God,” or with “the word of His grace.” As standing nearer the latter, this would be the natural construction. So our author has taken it, understanding by “the word of His grace” rather the grace itself than the doctrine concerning it. Most critics have preferred to connect the phrase with τῷ θεῷ on the ground that it is more appropriate to ascribe the giving of an inheritance among the sanctified directly to God than to His word. (So DeWette, Meyer, Alford, Gloag).—G.B.S.

  86. ↑ By “the weak” Chrys. evidently understands the physically weak, the sick and poor (see the Recapitulation) and we think correctly as opposed to the “weak in faith.” The apostle counsels labor in order to liberality toward the needy. So Olshausen, DeWette, Hackett, Gloag, Alford, vs. Neander, Tholuck, Lechler, Meyer.—G.B.S.

  87. ↑ The remainder of Acts 21:13–14 we have removed from this to its proper place.

  88. ↑ Οὐκ ἄρα ἐν Κορίνθῳ τοῦτο εἰργάσαντο μόνον οἱ διαφθείροντες τοὺς μαθητὰς κ. τ. λ. One would have expected εἰργάσατο μόνον, καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ δ. But the connection, not fully expressed, may be this: “So different from those “grievous wolves not sparing the flock,” the false teachers who would make a gain of them! So then” etc.

  89. ↑ Some text or texts of the Gospels should be supplied here: beginning perhaps like the next sentence with a Καὶ γάρ.

  90. ↑ By Syria he seems here to mean the northern parts, about Antioch. “They left Cyprus on the left, but nearer to it than the opposite coast of Syria, because he did not wish to come near that either.” Mod. text “This is not said idly, but to show that he did not think fit even to come near it (Cyprus), they sailing straight for Syria.” What follows required transposition: the derangement, 2, 1: 3, 5, 7: 4, 6, 8.

  91. ↑ A. C. Cat. (in B. the original characters are written over by a later hand), Εἶτα βουληθῆναι πέντε εἰς Τύρον. Perhaps βούλει θεῖναι. Mod. text εἶτα ἐκεῖθεν δἰ ἡμερῶν πέντε.

  92. ↑ Hom.x. in Matt. E. “But why, you may ask, did he (the Baptist) use a girdle also with his garment? This was a custom with the ancients, before this present soft and dissolute fashion of ours came in. Thus Peter appears girdled, and Paul likewise: as it says, ‘The man that owneth this girdle.”

  93. ↑ The meaning of the latter part of Acts 21:16 (ἄγοντες παῤ ᾧ ξενισθῶμεν Μνασωνί τινι Κυπρί& 251· κ. τ. λ.), according to Chrys., is that the disciples from Cæsarea conducted Paul to the house of Mnason at Jerusalem where he was to lodge, not (as our Eng. vss.), that they brought with them Mnason on their journey from Cæsarea to Jerusalem. The former seems the preferable view as there is nothing in the context to intimate that Mnason was at this time in Cæsarea and his residence was evidently Jerusalem. The construction of attraction is also equally well resolved in this way.—G.B.S.

  94. ↑ Here supply, “He that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me.”

  95. ↑ οὐκοῦν καὶ ὁ Χριστὸν (should it be Χριστιανὸν́̈) δεχόμενος, λήψεται μισθὸν τοῦ Χριστὸν ξενίζονος.—Ben. renders the latter clause, recipiet mercedem Christi peregrinantis.

  96. ↑ All our mss. omit χεῖρες, but the text αἱ δεδεμένον αὐτὸν ἰδοῦσαι requires more than this for its emendation. Below, before “not ashamed.” mod. text inserts, “These things He (Christ) confesseth.”

  97. ↑ ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἔχει ἰούγα ἡ ἐκκλησία. On ἰούγα, juga, see p. 74. Here also B. ἴυγγα., mod. text substitutes δαπανήματα.

  98. ↑ A. B. C. κἂν καταγώγιον ᾖ so Morel. Ben. But E. has here preserved the true reading κατώγεον, so Savil. with marg. κατάγαιον.

  99. ↑ It has been much disputed whether the charge: “Thou teachest apostacy from Moses,” etc., was true or not. There certainly was truth in the charge. Paul maintained that the Mosaic law, as such, was not binding upon Christians. But it was against those who made it a yoke of bondage upon believers, that he waged a polemic. Where there was no imposition of the law as necessary to salvation, Paul in no way antagonized it, but rather trusted to the free working of the principles of the gospel to gradually accomplish the abolition of its rites and forms. The truth seems to be that Paul was tolerant of Judaism where it did not impose burdens upon believers or threaten the completeness and sufficiency of the gospel; he even accommodated himself to Jewish requirements, as in shaving his head at Cenchrea and circumcising Timothy. He never unnecessarily opposed the law of Moses, but taught that it had been fulfilled in Christ. So far as he accommodated himself to its ceremonies, it was only that he might remove prejudice and so win the Jews to Christ.—G.B.S.

  100. ↑ Old text: μάλιστα γὰρ ἐκείνοις συγχρονίζει, as the comment on οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς ᾽Ασιας ᾽Ιουδαῖοι, meaning apparently that his arrival at Jerusalem would naturally fall at the same time with that of the Jews who, like himself, came from the same parts. Mod. text transfers the comment to the first clause of the verse, “And as the days were about to be fulfilled: ὅρα πῶς μάλιστα δὴ αὐτοῖς ἐγχρονίζει,” it is not easy to see with what meaning.

  101. ↑ ὅρα τὸ ἦθος αὐτῶν πανταχοῦ ταραχῶδες, καὶ ἁπλῶς βοῶντων ἐν τῷ μέσῳ. Meaning perhaps that the conduct of these Ephesian Jews was of a piece with that of their heathen countrymen, Acts 19:28.

  102. ↑ ἐν τοῖς σίγνοις αὐτὸν ἔμβαλε. Ammonius in the Catena, “It was a custom of the Jews to utter this cry against the just as they did against the Lord, Αἶρε αὐτόν! i.e. away with Him from among the living.” Hence Œcumen. combining this with the explanation in the text, “It was the custom of the Jews, etc. But some say, That is, what they say with us,” etc. And so mod. text, “It was a custom of the Jews to say this against those whom they would condemn, as also in the case of Christ they appear doing this, and saying, ῏Αρον αὐτόν! that is, Make him to disappear from among the living. “But some,” what among us they say according to the Roman custom, ᾽Εν τοῖς σίγνοις αὐτὸν ἔμβαλε, the same is the Αἶρε αὐτόν.

  103. ↑ Mod. text supplies the evident lacuna with, “And by what he says, takes him off from his suspicion. “But let us look again at what has been read. “There are,” they say, “with us seven men,” etc.

  104. ↑ This vow appears to have been the Nazarite vow described in Num. 6:1–21, taken by the apostle as an accommodation to Jewish prejudices and to allay the suspicions of the legal party in Jerusalem. This was done upon the recommendation of James, the “Bishop” of the church, and his associates. The significance of Paul’s paying the expenses, is, perhaps, that the period during which the others vow had run was on this condition reckoned to his account also. It is noticeable that the party of James distinctly admits that adherence to the legal ceremonies is not required of the Gentile Christians; it is equally important to notice that Paul yielded to the advice to take this view, as a concession in a matter of indifference, since he was living for the time as a Jew among Jews, that he might give no needless offence and might win the more. It was not a compromise, but an expedient concession to convictions and prejudices which it was not wise or necessary to oppose or increase.—G.B.S.

  105. ↑ Mod. text, “Using this economy then, he himself at a later time (?) accuses Peter, and he does not do this ἁπλς” St. Chrysostom’s view of St. Peter’s dissimulation at Antioch as an “economy,” is most fully given in his exposition of the passage, Χομμεντ. ιν Γαλ. χαπ. ii. §. 4, 5.

  106. ↑ Mod. text adds, “But as for the sicarii, some say they were a kind of robbers, so called from the swords they bore, which by the Romans are called sicæ: others, that they were of the first sect among the Hebrews. For there are among them three sects, generally considered (αἱρέσεις αἱ γενικαί): Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes who are also called ὅσιοι, for that is the meaning of the name ‘Essenes,’ on account of their reverend manner of life: but the same (?) are also called sicarii, because of their being zealots.” For a further illustration of the way in which the modern text was formed, especially in respect of its use of the Catena (see p. 279, note 3), compare the latter with Œcumenius on this passage. The Catena, namely, cites from Origen: “Among the Jews are τρεῖς αἱρέσεις γενικαί· Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes: these (last) exercise a more reverend manner of life, being lovers one of another and temperate: whence also they are called Essenes, i.e. ὅσιοι: but others called them (?) sicarii, i.e. zealots.” (Œcumen. using the Catena, makes a continuous exposition from Chrys., Origen, and Josephus. Mod. text from the same materials, interpolates the text of Chrys. as above.

  107. ↑ B. alone of our mss. gives the negative which the sense requires; restored to the text by Ed. Par. Ben. 2.

  108. ↑ The cupbearer may be Narcissus (Rom. 16:11): the name of the concubine is not mentioned. In one of his earliest works, Adv. Oppugn. Vitæ Monast. i. § 3. t. i. p. 59. D. St. Chrys. relates that Nero cast St. Paul into prison, and in the end beheaded him, in his rage at the loss of a favorite concubine, converted by him to the faith.

  109. ↑ Ben. ἠσπάσατο, which is the reading of D. only: all the rest ἐπεσπασατο.

  110. ↑ In the original, μυριάδας πολλάς. The deacon is probably Chrys. himself; the bishop, Flavian.

  111. ↑ καὶ μὴ μετὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας βλαβῆς. Mod. text and Edd. καὶ εὶ μὴ, which is ambiguous. “The thing to be considered is, whether they are offended δικαίως καὶ μὴ μετὰ τ. ἡ. β. justly, and not with concomitant hurt to ourselves should we give way.” As in the case afterwards mentioned, the sitting at meat in an idol’s temple; the “weak brothers” were offended δικαίως, and to abstain from such conduct was not attended with any moral hurt or loss to the men of “knowledge.”

  112. ↑ ὅταν τοίνυν ἀδιαφορον ᾖ τὸ κώλυμα, γινέσθω. Ben, quando igitur indifferens est, abstineatur. But the κώλυμα (which is overlooked in this rendering) seems to mean, the hindrance to the ἀποτάξασθαι, which latter will be the subject to γίνεσθω. For instance, if the impediment urged by others against a person’s taking the monastic vows be a thing indifferent, let him take them. Else, if we were to look to this only—viz. that this or that man is offended—πολλῶν ἔχομεν ἀποστῆναι—many are the right undertakings we should have to forego or desist from: as on the other hand were we to make it a rule to despise all considerations of offence, we should have to be the ruin of many a brother.

  113. ↑ Namely, in a matter where the duty of persisting in our course is plain—viz. where the other is offended οὐ δικαίως, and to give way would be μετὰ τῆς ἡμετέρας βλαβῆς—then, even though great evils to him or others result from our not giving way, we must take no notice of the offence, must allow it no weight.

  114. ↑ αὐτὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔτι. Here, as above, p. 118, it seems to be assumed that St. Paul’s judaizing at Jerusalem gave offence to the Gentile brethren in his company.

  115. ↑ Εἶτα ἵνα μὴ νομισθῆ τὸ ἔθνος ᾽Ιουδαῖος, λέγει τὴν θρησκείαν· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ ἔννομον ἑαυτὸν Χριστοῦ καλεῖ. Τί (A. B. C. add οὖν, Cat. δὴ) τοῦτο ἐστιν; (Mod. text adds, Παῦλος ψεύδεται; ῎Απαγε) Τί οὖν; οὐκ ἠρνήσατο; κ. τ. λ. The sense is confused by omission and transposition. It seems to be this: He gives the tribune to understand that he is a Roman: but because he would not have the Jews to suppose that he was not a Jew, therefore he declares his religion, that he is a Jew. And herein was no denial of his Christianity, etc. See below on v. 3, ἵνα μὴ πάλιν νομίσωσι τὸ ἔθνος ἄλλο, τὴν θρησκείαν ἐπήγαγεν. Hence we restore the sense as in the text.—Œcumen. gives it, “He immediately drew him off from this surmise, και τὸ ἔθνος καὶ τὴν θρησκείαν εἰπών, as in fact he elsewhere calls himself, Under the law to Christ.”

  116. ↑ Mod. text omits the article. ῾Ο τῷ Χριστῷ πιστεύων, as we take it, is the answer to the question, τί δὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν; In the next sentence (which Edd. separate from this only by a comma) he says: in the same sense he calls himself and Peter, φύσει ᾽Ιουδαῖοι, “born Jews (not proselytes,) and Jews still.” But Ammonius in the Catena: “I am a man which am a Jew: for we Christians are φύσει ᾽Ιουδαῖοι, as confessing the true faith: which is what the name Judah signifies.”

  117. ↑ The whole purpose of Paul’s defence here is to appease the prejudice against him as an apostate from Moses. He addresses the people of Jerusalem in their own tongue and as “brethren.” He shows them that although born in a Greek city, he had received his education in Jerusalem, under one of their most famous Rabbis. He sketches his history as a zealous adherent of Judaism. After his conversion he did not desert the religion of his fathers. It was while praying in the temple that the call of God came to him which summoned him to go as an apostle to the Gentiles. From this apology, it would be seen how far Paul was from despising the Mosaic law and also, how manifestly providential had been the call by which he had been set apart to a distinct work among the Gentiles. It is a guarded defence which neither antagonizes the law, nor admits its binding force over the apostle or his converts.

  118. ↑ Perhaps it should be, “And he too, not an alien:” viz. being a “devout man according to the Law:” as above, he says of Ananias, οὕτως οὐδὲν ἀλλότριόν ἐστι.

  119. ↑ Κρίνεται παῤ ἀνθρώποις (τισὶν ὁ Θεὸς add. mod. text) ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι Θεός. The subject, not expressed, is Christ. He is brought before the bar of men’s judgment for trial whether He be God: so below τοὺς δικάζοντας.

  120. ↑ Mod. text adds: “say the same: but be not thou seduced, but stand nobly that it may not be said of us also, They profess,” etc.

  121. ↑ Κἂν φανερῶς οὐ καταγινώσκῃ (B. C. -ει) διὰ το δόγμα, αλλ᾽ ἀποδέχεται κ. τ. λ. Ben. retains this, in the sense, saltem aperte non damnabit propter dogma: taking κἂν in different senses in this and the former clause. Ed. Par. Ben. 2, Legendum videtur φανερῶς οὖν καταγ. Licet sit quispiam valde efferus, licet aperte ob dogma condemnet, at clam etc. Erasm. Etiam si per dogma non condemnetur. The emendation is sure and easy: κἂν φανερῶς ΣΟΥ καταγινώσκῃ. So below, Πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ καταγινώσκοντες αὐτῶν διὰ τὸ δόγμα, αἰδοῦνται δια τον βίον.

  122. ↑ Old text ἐξηχότερον: a word unknown to the Lexicons, and of doubtful meaning. If we could suppose a comparative of the perfect participle in κως (analogous to the comparison of ἐρρωμένος and ἄσμενος), ἐξεστηκότερον would suit the sense very well: but such a form seems to be quite unexampled.—Mod. text ἀνοητότερον. Then: “Even as madmen have no self-possession, so this has no self-possession. When therefore is this to come to consciousness of itself, having such a dizziness; which it were well,” etc.

  123. ↑ The sense is confused in old text by misplacing the portions of sacred text. Mod. text “witnesses of the truth of Christ speaking boldly. But the Jews,” etc. Acts 22:21–24, which verses are followed in old text by φήσιν· αἶρε αὐτὸν οὐ γὰρ καθήκει αὐτὸν ζῇν. Below, mod. text “or the Jews themselves also,” and omits “or if it were not so, to have ordered him to be scourged.”

  124. ↑ The words, “I will send thee to the Gentiles,” were those at which the Jews took offence. That a word should come from heaven to Paul in the Temple, commanding him to leave the chosen people and the Holy City and go to the uncircumcised heathen, was a statement verging upon blasphemy. This admission they would regard as proof of Paul’s apostasy from Moses. It implied that he regarded the heathen as standing upon the same plane as themselves. The thought roused all their native bigotry. Beyond “this word” they would not hear him, nor did they think that one who should so estimate the privileges and character of the Jews as compared with the Gentiles was fit to live.—G.B.S.

  125. ↑ Προέτειναν ἀυτὸν τοῖς ἱμᾶσιν is commonly rendered, as here, “When they stretched him out, or bound him with thongs.” But this rendering seems to overlook the force of πρό in the verb and the force of the article τοῖς. The preferable interpretation seems to be, (Thayer’s Lex.): “When they had stretched him out for the thongs, i.e. to receive the blows of the thongs, by tying him up to a beam or pillar.” (So Meyer, DeWette, Lechler, Gloag).—G.B.S.

  126. ↑ Mod. text entirely mistaking the sense, interpolates, “On which account also the tribune fears on hearing it. And why, you will say, did he fear?” as if it meant, The tribune would have been afraid to be condemned for this, etc.

  127. ↑ Meaning that all provincial subjects of the Roman Empire came to be called Romans, only in the time of this Emperor: therefore in St. Paul’s time it was a great thing to be able to call one’s self a Roman. If it means, “All the citizens of Tarsus,” the remark is not apposite. Certain it is that Tarsus, an urbs libera by favor of M. Anthony, enjoyed neither jus coloniarum nor jus civitatis until long afterwards, and the Apostle was not a Roman because a citizen of Tarsus. This however is not the point of St. Chrysostom’s remark. In the Catena and Œcumen. it will be seen, that in later times the extended use of the name “Roman” as applied to all subjects of the Roman Empire made a difficulty in the understanding of this passage. Thus Ammonius takes it that St. Paul was a “Roman,” because a native of Tarsus which was subject to the Romans (so Œc.): and that the Jews themselves for the like reason were Romans; but these scorned the appellation as a badge of servitude; Paul on the contrary avouched it, setting an example of submission to the powers that be.—After this sentence mod. text interpolates, “Or also he called himself a Roman to escape punishment: for,” etc.

  128. ↑ παρέπεμψαν ἄν: mod. text (after Cat.) needlessly alters to παρέτρεψαν.

  129. ↑ πρόφασιν εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν ῾Ρωμαῖον τὸν Παῦλον· καὶ ἴσως.…We read τῷ εἰπεῖν and καὶ ψεύδεσθαι τὸν Π. ἴσως. Mod. text “But the tribune by answering, ‘with a great sum,’ etc., shows that he suspected it to be a pretext, Paul’s saying that he was a Roman: and perhaps he surmised this from Paul’s apparent insignificance.”

  130. ↑ Mod. text interpolates: “So far was it from being a falsehood, his saying, etc., that he also gained by it, being loosed from his chains. And in what way, hear.” And below, altering the sense: “He no longer speaks to the tribune, but to the multitude and the whole people.”

  131. ↑ Mod. text “When he ought to have been pricked to the heart, because (Paul) had been unjustly bound to gratify them, he even adds a further wrong, and commands him to be beaten: which is plain from the words subjoined.”

  132. ↑ Mod. text “Now some say, that he knowing it speaks ironically (or feigns ignorance, εἰρωνεύεται); but it seems to me, that he did not at all know that it was the high priest: otherwise he would even have honored him: wherefore,” etc. In old text τινές φασι, placed before ὅτι οὐκ ἤδειν, κ. τ. λ. requires to be transposed.

  133. ↑ Mod. text “Away with the thought: he appears to have done neither the one nor the other: but to one accurately considering it, the words,” etc.

  134. ↑ Παραινοῦσι, all our mss. But Erasm. debacchantur, and all the Edd. παροινοῦσιν, contrary to the sense.

  135. ↑ Other interpretations are given in the Catena and Œcum. “Anonym.: The high priest being a hypocrite deserved to be called a ‘whited wall.’ Whence also Paul says he did not even know him as high priest, since it is the work of a high priest to save the flock put under his charge: but this man made havoc upon it, etc. Severus: Paul justly reproached him, but then, as if repenting, said: ‘I knew not,’ etc. Not know that he was high priest? Then how saidst thou, ‘And sittest thou to judge me?’—But he pretends ignorance: an ignorance which does no harm, but is an ‘economy’ (οἰκονομοῦσαν): for reserve (μεταχειρισμὸς) may be more forcible than speaking out (παρρησία): an unseasonable παρρησία often hinders the truth: a seasonable μεταχ. as often advances it.”

  136. ↑ Other methods of dealing with Paul’s much debated statement: “I did not know that he was the high priest,” besides the view given in the text (with which agree Beza, Wolff, Lechler, et al.) are: (1) Paul did not perceive who it was that addressed him and thus did not know that it was the high priest whom he rebuked (Alford). (2) Paul did not acknowledge Ananias to be high priest; he would not recognize so unjust a man as a real high priest (Calvin, Meyer, Stier). (3) Ananias was not high priest at this time (Lightfoot, Whiston, Lewin). (4) Paul did not recollect or consider that it was the high priest whom he was addressing (Bengel, Olshausen, Neander, Schaff, Hackett, Conybeare and Howson, Gloag). In this view Paul apologizes for his rash words, spoken inadvertently and without reflection, by adding: “for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” Baur and Zeller suppose that the apostle never said what he is reported as saying. The choice appears to lie between views (2) and (4).—G.B.S.

  137. ↑ Mod. text omits the whole of the portion marked (a). The sense is: St. Paul is concerned to explain how it was that having been bred and taught in Jerusalem, he did not remain there. It was by command of Christ in a vision that he departed. In fact he could not stay there unless, etc. Accordingly we find him everywhere fleeing about from place to place, like one exiled from his own land. The words which are corrupt, are: οὐκ ἐκεῖ ἔμενεν; οὐδὲ ἐκεῖ διέτριβεν(οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐξῆν ἐκεῖ διατρίβειν?) εἰ μὴ μυρία κατ᾽ αὐτῶν (αὐτοῦ A) κατασκευᾶσαι (sic) ἤθελε πανταχοῦ· καθάπερ τις φυγὰς περιφυγών.

  138. ↑ τὸ οὕτω παράδοξον, viz. that the Jews would not receive the testimony of one, who from his known history had, of all men, the greatest claim to be heard by them: “‘Lord, they know,’ etc., therefore surely they will listen to me.” (So St. Chrysostom constantly interprets these words: see Cat. in loco.) But Christ did not gratify his wish for information on this point: He only bade him depart.—The innovator, who has greatly disfigured this Homily by numerous interpolations, has here: “did not teach him what he must do.”

  139. ↑ Better: “they cast off their clothes” as a signal of their anger and readiness to stone Paul. Others understand it to mean: waving their garments as a signal of their assent to the exclamations against Paul of those who were near.—G.B.S.

  140. ↑ τοῦτο μάλιστα ἠπόρησαν ἂν οἱ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι: i.e. perhaps “they would be at a loss to know the reason of his being brought before them loosed, not knowing what had passed between him and the tribune.” Mod. text amplifies: “This he ought to have done at the outset, and neither to have bound him, nor have wished to scourge him, but to have left him, as having done nothing such as that he should be put in bonds. ‘And he loosed him,’ it says, etc. This above all the Jews knew not what to make of.”

  141. ↑ εἷδον ἄνθρωπον θανατῶντα· εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἦν, κἂν ἐσίγησεν· καὶ λαβὼν αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθεν· κἂν ἐξέδωκεν αὐτὸν αὐτοῖς ὁ χιλίαρχος. The meaning (see above p. 289.) may be: “The wrong was not to be put up with, for to hold his peace under such treatment would have been to embolden the tribune to sacrifice him to his enemies, as a person who might be insulted with impunity.” But the passage is corrupt: perhaps it should be οὐκ (mod. text has οὕτως) εἶδον ἀνθρ. θαν. “They did not see before them one who was willing to die, i.e. to let them take away his life. For if this were the case, he had but to hold his peace, and the tribune would,” etc. Mod. text “In such wise saw they a man ready to die; and they would not endure it. ‘I knew not that he was the high priest.’ Why then: the rebuke was of ignorance. For if this were not the case, κἂν λαβὼν αὐτὸν ἀπῆλθε καὶ οὐκ ἐσίγησε, κἂν ἐξέδωκεν, κ. τ. λ.”

  142. ↑ Mod. text quite perverting the sense: “Obeying the law, not from a wish to show (ἐνδείξασθαι) to them: for those he had even strongly condemned. For the law’s sake, therefore, he defends himself, not for the sake of the people, with reason,” etc.

  143. ↑ Viz. it was because he did not choose to let the tribune despise him, p. 289. And so mod. text adds, ὅτι οὐκ ἐβούλετο καταφρονηθῆναι.

  144. ↑ Μάθωμεν καὶ τὴν ἐπιείκειαν, i.e. Paul’s as well as his παρρησία. Mod. text “Let us then also learn gentleness.”

  145. ↑ ὅτι παρυφεστᾶσιν αὐταῖς αἱ κακίαι, τῇ μὲν παρρησί& 139· θρασύτης τῇ δὲ ἐπιεικεί& 139· ἀνανδρία. It is seldom possible to match the ethical terms of one language with exact equivalents in another. Here θρασύτης, as opposed to παρρησία “courage in speaking one’s mind,” is not merely “audacity,” or “hardihood,” or “pugnacity,” or “the spirit of the bully,” though it may be applied to all these. On the whole, “forwardness” seems to be most suitable for the antithesis: the one character comes forward boldly and speaks up in the cause of truth and justice; the other thrusts itself forward, in its own cause, for resentment of wrongs done to one’s self. Below, in connection with ἀνανδρία it means what we call “bullying.”

  146. ↑ All our mss. ὁ γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ μὴ ἀλγῶν, δυσκόλως ὑπὲρ ἑτέρων ἀλγήσει, but Sav. marg. οὐκ ἀλγήσει: which we adopt as indispensable to the sense. In the next sentence, C. omits the μὴ before ἀμύνων, and A. the οὐκ before ἀμυνεῖται.

  147. ↑ ᾽Εκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲ ἀναγκαίας ἀπαιτούσης χρείας, τῆς οὐσίας ἅπτεται τῶν χρημάτων, οὗτος δὲ ἐκείνου γένοιτο ἂν ἀδελφός. We leave this as it stands, evidently corrupt. Something is wanting after οὗτος δὲ. “The former, the οἰκονομικὸς, is careful not to touch his principal or capital, but will confine his outlay within his income: the latter,” etc. But οὐδὲ ἀναγκ. ἀπ. χρείας is hardly suitable in the former case, and should rather come after οὗτος δέ “the latter, the niggard, though the need be ever so urgent, has not the heart to touch either principal or income”—or something to that effect. Then perhaps, πῶς οὖν οὗτος ἐκείνου γένοιτο ἂν ἀδελφός; Mod. text “For the former spends all upon proper objects; the latter, not even when urgent need requires, touches the principal of his money. The οἰκον. therefore will to brother to the μεγαλόψ.”

  148. ↑ This Homily is wanting in C. The mod. text swarms with interpolations.

  149. ↑ καὶ ἐν τούτῳ, viz. in saying “I am a Pharisee,” καὶ ἐν τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα, i.e. “Of the hope of resurrection,” etc. Mod. text “but is also permitted to contribute somewhat of himself, which also he does and καὶ ἐν τ., καὶ ἐν τῷ μ. τ. both on this occasion and on that which followed (?) he pleads for himself, wishing,” etc.

  150. ↑ Mod. text “Either because spirit and angel is one, or because the term ἀμφότερα is taken not only of two but of three.” (This is taken from Ammonius in the Catena. The innovator adds): “the writer therefore uses it καταχρηστικῶς, and not according to strict propriety.”

  151. ↑ The last clause in the Vulgate text, μὴ θεομαχῶμεν, is unknown to St. Chrys., being in fact quite a modern addition. Chrys. interprets it as an aposiopesis—viz. ποῖον ἔγκλημα; St. Isidore of Pelusium in the Cat. τὸ γὰρ εἰ ἤ ἐστι· τοῦτ᾽ ἐστιν, ἢ πν. ἐλάλησεν αὐτῷ ἢ ἄγγελος. Ammonius ibid. “Either the sentence is left incomplete, viz. but whether a spirit or an angel has spoken to him…is not certain: or, it is to be spoken as on the part of the Pharisees, Εἴδε (?) πν. κ. τ. λ. that is, Behold, he is manifestly asserting the resurrection, taught (κατηχηθείς) either by the Holy Ghost or by an angel the doctrine of the resurrection.” Mod. text using the latter: “Where is the crime, if an angel has spoken to him, if a spirit, and taught (κατηχηθείς) by him, he thus teaches the doctrine of the resurrection?” (and then, adopting the modern addition μὴ θεομ.), “then let us not stand off from him, lest warring with him, we be found also fighting against God.”

  152. ↑ The Pharisees were uniformly more favorably inclined to Christianity than the rival sect of the Sadducees. The latter, as disbelieving in the resurrection and the spirit-world, would be especially prejudiced against a system which made these tenets so central. The Pharisees, on the other hand, agreed on these points with Christianity. It is evident that in his defence here before the Sanhedrin Paul wishes to conciliate the Pharasaic party so far as can be done by emphasizing his own agreement with them respecting the resurrection. They, as believers in this doctrine, would have less prejudice against Paul’s teaching concerning Christ’s resurrection. In asserting his Pharasaic ancestry, Paul wishes to establish a point of connection with them and thus gain a foothold for the defence of his central truth of Christ’s resurrection, which justifies him in being His disciple and servant.—G.B.S.

  153. ↑ To this question mod. text interpolates for answer from Ammonius in the Catena, “that is, they declared themselves to be out of the pale of the faith to Godward, if they should not do that which was determined against Paul.”

  154. ↑ Καὶ ἄξιον ἐκπλαγῆναι τὸν Παῦλον· (A. and Cat. omit this) τί δὴ τοῦτο; οὐκ ἐθορυβήθη, οὐδὲ εἶπε. Here mod. text rightly transposes τί δὴ τοῦτο.

  155. ↑ Mod. text “And with reason the tribune does this (i.e. sends Paul away): for of course he did not wish either to gratify (χαρίσασθαι) or to assent.” But the meaning is: “If he had not been informed of their plot, he would have been embarrassed by the request, not liking to refuse, nor yet to grant it.”

  156. ↑ εἰ γὰρ μὴ οὕτω. Cat. οὗτος: “but for this man (the tribune.)”

  157. ↑ Mod. text omits ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλης πολλῆς· ὅρα πῶς.

  158. ↑ τοῦ δήμου τὴν ὀργὴν τῆς ὁρμῆς. ᾽Επεὶ οὖν τῆς πόλεως αὐτὸν ἐξέβαλον, τότε ἀφίστανται. So Edd. and our mss. but Cat. simply τὴν ὀργήν. The next sentence, if referred affirmatively to the Jews, would be untrue, for in fact the Jews οὐκ ἀπέστησαν. Possibly the scribes took it to refer to the soldiers: but this is very unsatisfactory. To make sense, it must be read interrogatively: “Well then, at any rate that now, they have got him out of the city, they desist from further attempts? By no means; and in fact the precautions taken for his safety show what was the tribune’s view of the matter, both that Paul was innocent and that they were set on murdering him.” We read ἀφίστανται τῆς ὁρμῆς.

  159. ↑ It has been necessary to rearrange the texts, and also to transpose the parts mark a, b.—Καὶ μὴν ὑμεῖς, φησί τοῦτο πεποιήκατε. The φησί here is hypothetical: “Tertullus wishes to arraign Paul as a seditious person. And yet, Felix might say, it is ye Jews that have been the movers of sedition: in these words ye describe yourselves.”—Mod. text “Acts 24:2–4. And yet ye have done this: then what need of an orator? See how this man, also from the very outset wishes to deliver him up as a revolutionary and seditious person, and with his praises preoccupies the judge. Then as having much to say, he passes it by, and only says this, But that I be not further tedious unto thee.”

  160. ↑ So much was sedition to their taste, they would have been the last to arraign him for that; on the contrary etc.—But Mod. text ὡς λυμεῶνα λοιπὸν καὶ κοινὸν ἐχθρὸν τοῦ ἔθνους διαβάλλουσι.

  161. ↑ The bracketed passage in Acts 24:6–8 om. in A. B. G. H. א. and R.V.—G.B.S.

  162. ↑ Hence it appears that Chrys. read ὄντα σε κριτὴν δίκαιον in Acts 24:10, though the old text in the citation omits the epithet. Cat. retains it.—See p. 299, note 2.

  163. ↑ As Felix had been many years a judge, he was conversant enough with the habits of the Jews to be aware that the Pentecost which brought Paul to Jerusalem was but twelve days past: so that there had not been time to raise a commotion. Mod. text, “And what did this contribute to the proof? A great point: for he shows that Felix himself knew that Paul had done nothing of all that he was accused of. But if he had ever raised an insurrection, Felix would have known it, being judge, and such an affair would not have scaped his notice.”—Below, διὰ τοῦτο ἐνταῦθα αὐτὸν ἕλκει, we suppose αὐτὸν to be Felix: Mod. text substitutes ἐντεῦθεν ἀφέλκων, referring it to the accuser. The meaning is obscure, but it seems to be, “draws the attention of his judge to this point,” viz., of his having come up to worship, and therefore ἐνδιατρίβει τούτῳ τῷ δικαί& 251· lays the stress upon this point, of Felix being a just judge. Perhaps, however, the true reading here is τῷ δεκαδύο, “of its being not more than twelve days.”

  164. ↑ ῞Αιρεσις in Acts 24:14 has the same meaning as in Acts 24:5. The meaning is therefore obscured by rendering it (as A.V.) in the former verse by “sect” and in the latter by “heresy.” It is party or sect in both cases, used as a term of reproach. Paul’s accusers considered him a member of a sect which they contemptuously called the Nazarenes. In his defence he takes up their own word.—G.B.S.

  165. ↑ Εἰτα καὶ ἐκβάλλει αὐτῶν τὸ πρόσωπον, rejects their person, repudiates their pretension. They had said, “We found him:” he answers, “There found me, in a condition as far as possible from that of a mover of sedition—not they, ‘but certain of the Jews from Asia.’ In the Recapitulation, he says, καλῶς δὲ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐκβάλλει referring to Acts 24:21. Hence one might conjecture here, εἶτα οὐκ ἐκβ., to be placed after Acts 24:20; but see p. 299, note 3.—Mod. text ἐκβ. ἀ. τ. πρ. λέγων ἀδιορίστως, ᾽Εν οἷς εὗρόν μέ τινες τῶν κ. τ. λ. “Saying indefinitely, ‘In which there found me,’ (and then adding), ‘certain of the Jews from Asia.’”

  166. ↑ Acts 24:5–6 had contained the three charges preferred by Tertullus, viz.: sedition, sectarianism and profanation of the temple. Paul was charged with creating disturbances among the Jews (Acts 24:5). To this he replies (Acts 24:11–12), that the charge is not sustained by facts; he worshipped in the temple, but neither there, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city, did he create a disturbance or gather a crowd. To the second charge that he is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5), Paul replies by conceding that he worships the God of his fathers after a way which they call a sect, but he denies that this fact involves rejection or contempt of the law or the prophets (Acts 24:14). To the third charge that he had attempted to profane the Temple (Acts 24:6), he replies by alleging that he had, on the contrary, brought offerings to the Temple service and that he had there peaceably taken part in the religious rites of the Nazarites (Acts 24:17–18). He concludes by insisting that his whole offence consists in having stoutly maintained the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.—G.B.S.

  167. ↑ Old text ταῦτα γὰρ εἰκότως περὶ ἐκείνου λέγεται, παρὰ δὲ τούτου…We read παρὰ ἐκείνου in the sense, “All that is to be said on those points comes from Lysias: from Paul, not a word.” Mod. text ταῦτα γὰρ παῤ ἐκείνων λέγεται γενέσθαι: “these things are said to have been done by those.”

  168. ↑ Here old text has the reading ἐν αἷς, above it was ἐν οἷς.—Here the first Redactor has confused the matter, in consequence of his supposing that at the mention of Tertullus (d) Chrys. must have gone into the Recapitulation. Hence he places (c) the formula ἀλλ᾽ ἴδωμεν κ. τ. λ. immediately before this. Accordingly to (d) as being comment on v. 4, he joins (e), and then supposing the ἐπιεικείας of (f) to refer to ἐπιεικεί& 139· Acts 24:4, he places this next. The part (b) he keeps in its place, viz. before the Recapitulation: there remained (a), and this he prefixes to b, though its contents clearly show that it belongs to the Recapitulation of v. 31.

  169. ↑ τὰ μὲν ἐκείνου, evidently the tribune, but Ben. quæ Paulum quidem spectabant.—They made the most of what the tribune had done, of their own violence they make as little as possible.

  170. ↑ See above, p. 197, note 3. The principal authorities for the δίκαιον are Laud’s Cod. Gr. and Cat. of Acts.

  171. ↑ καλῶς δὲ (B.) οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἐκβάλλει, i.e. but while he does well to challenge the parties who found him viz. the Jews from Asia, he does well also that he does not cast out or repudiate this particular which he goes on to mention—viz. his exclamation before the Sanhedrim. This may consist with what was said above, ἐκβάλλει αὐτῶν τὸ πρόσωπον: (see p. 297, note 1) viz. though he does this, and deprives them of the credit they took to themselves, for it was not that they found him; and as to his behavior in the temple, he will not admit their testimony, for they were not present: yet even these he challenges to testify to that of which they were cognizant.—Mod. text “from Asia, saying, Who ought to accuse me before thee, if they had aught against me. So confident was he to be clear as to the matters of which he was accused, that he even challenges them. But not only those from Asia, nay, those also from Jerusalem.”

  172. ↑ Mod. text adds, “by saying, ᾽Εκέκραξα: as much as to say, They have it not,” etc. But their violence was shown not by his crying out, but by the fact that they had nothing more against him than this exclamation.

  173. ↑ Old text ἆρα ἂν ἠθελήσατε οὕτω φιλοσοφεῖν δύνασθαι—; Mod. text ἆρα ἂν οὕτω φιλοσοφεῖν δύνησθε—; and so Ben. against grammar and the sense. Savile and Ed. Par. Ben. 2, ἆρα ἂν ἐθελήσητε,..…δύνασθε; But our mss. give it as above: and Savile’s reading does not suit the sense: which is, “Would not you have wished—? Well, then, so would he.”—Below, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖνος οὐκ (B., ἐκείνοις and om. οὐκ) ἀπὸ ἔχθρας τοσοῦτον, ὅσον ἀπὸ ἀσθενείας, τοῦτο ὑπομένει· οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς φύσεως τῶν ὑβρέων κινούμεθα, ὅσον ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν αὐτῶν. The scribes have made nonsense of the passage, and the Edd. retain it. If for ὑπομένει we read ὑπόμενε, this will answer to ἐπίσχες in the preceding sentence: to τοῦτο we supply πάσχει: so we read, ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖνοι, οὕτω καὶ οὗτος οὐκ ἀπὸ ἔ. ὅσον ἀπὸ ἀσθ. τοῦτο πάσχει· ὑπόμενε. Καὶ ἡμεῖς etc.

  174. ↑ B. C. ἵνα εἰδὼς ἐκεῖνο (mod. text ἐκεῖνος) τοῦτο (we read τούτῳ) καταστέλληται. Here, as often, ἐκεῖνο refers to the other world, τοῦτο to this life: “knowing what will come of it there, (i.e. the coals of fire) he may,” etc.

  175. ↑ καὶ μὴ…Mod text καὶ μὴν…“And yet thou art,” etc.

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. 251–302. Christian Classics Ethereal Library: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111

2
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