John Chrysostom, 4th c.

Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles / 2

Homily VIII on Acts iii. 1.

Homily VIII.

Acts 3:1

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

Everywhere we find these two Apostles in great harmony together. “To him Simon Peter beckoned.” (John 13:24.) These two also “came together to the sepulchre. (John 20:3 et seq.) And concerning John, Peter said unto Christ, “And what shall this man do?” (John 21:21.) Now as for the other miracles, the writer of this book omits them; but he mentions the miracle by which they were all[1] put in commotion. Observe again that they do not come to them purposely; so clear were they of ambition, so closely did they imitate their Master. Why now did they go up to the temple? Did they still live as Jews? No, but for expediency (χρησίμως).[2] A miraculous sign again takes place, which both confirms the converts, and draws over the rest; and such, as they were a sign for having wrought.[3] The disease was in the nature of the man, and baffled the art of medicine. He had been forty years lame (Acts 4:20–22), as the writer says afterwards, and no one during all that time had cured him. And the most obstinate diseases are those which are born with men. It was a great calamity, insomuch that even to provide for himself his necessary sustenance was impossible for him. The man was conspicuous both from the place, and from his malady. Hear how the matter is related. “And a certain man, lame from his mother’s womb, was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple.” (Acts 3:2.) He sought to receive alms, and he did not know who the men were. “Who seeing Peter and John about to go into the temple, asked an alms. And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him, with John, said, Look on us.” (Acts 3:3–4.) Yet, not even so were the man’s thoughts elevated, but he persisted in his importunity. For such is poverty; upon a refusal, it compels people still to persist. Let this put us to shame who fall back in our prayers. But observe, I pray you, Peter’s gentleness: for he said, “Look on us.” So truly did their very bearing, of itself, betoken their character. “And he gave heed unto them, expecting to receive something of them. Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have I give thee.” (Acts 3:5–6.) He did not say, I give thee something much better than silver or gold: but what? “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk. And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up.” (Acts 3:7.) Such was also the way of Christ. Often He healed by word, often by an act, often also He stretched forth the hand, where men were somewhat weak in faith, that the cure might not appear to be spontaneous. “And he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up.” This act made manifest the Resurrection, for it was an image of the Resurrection. “And immediately his feet and ankle bones received strength. And he leaping up stood, and walked.” (Acts 3:8.) Perhaps it was by way of trying himself that he put it thus to further proof, whether perchance the thing done might not be to no purpose. His feet were weak; it was not that he had lost them. Some say that he did not even know how to walk.[4] “And entered with them into the temple.” Of a truth it was marvellous. The Apostles do not urge him; but of his own accord he follows, by the act of following pointing out his benefactors. “And leaping and praising God;” not admiring them, but God that wrought by them. The man was grateful.

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

He was so[7] well known to all, that “they recognized him. And all the people,” it says, “saw him walking and praising God; and they recognized (ἐπεγίνωσκον) that it was he which sat for alms at the Beautiful gate of the temple.” (Acts 3:9.) It is well said, “they recognized,” inasmuch as he was one unknown now by reason of what had happened: for we use this term with regard to objects, which we find a difficulty in recognizing. [“And they were filled with wonder and amazement at that which had happened unto him.”] Needs must it be believed that[8] the name of Christ remits sins, seeing it produces even such effects as this. (“And as he held Peter and John, all the people came together at the porch that is called Solomon’s, greatly wondering.” (Acts 3:11.) From his good feelings and love towards the Apostles, the lame man would not leave them; perhaps he was thanking them openly, and praising them. “And all the people,” it is said, “ran together unto them. And when Peter saw them, he answered.” (Acts 3:12.) Again it is he who acts, and addresses the people.

And in the former instance, it was the circumstance of the tongues that aroused them to hearing, now it was this miracle; then, he took occasion to speak from their accusations now, from their supposition. Let us then consider, in what this address differs from the former, and in what it agrees with that. The former was held in a house, before any one has come over, and before they themselves have wrought anything; this, when all are wondering, and the healed man is standing by; when none doubt, as in the other case where some said “These men are full of new wine.” (Acts 12:13.) At the one, he was surrounded by all the Apostles as he spoke; but at this, he has John alone; for by this time he is bold, and become more energetic. Such is the nature of virtue; once started, it advances, and never stops. Observe also how it was divinely ordered, that the miracle should take place in the temple, that others also might wax bold, while the Apostles work not in holes (εἰς καταδύσεις) and corners, and in secret: though not in the interior of the temple either, where the greater number were. How then, I pray you, was it believed? The man himself who was healed proclaimed the benefit. For there was no reason why he should lie, nor why he should have joined a different set of people.[9] Either then it was because of the spaciousness of the place, that he there wrought the miracle, or because the spot was retired. And observe the event. They went up for one object, and they accomplished another. Thus also did Cornelius: he prayed and fasted[10] * * *. But hitherto they always call Him, “of Nazareth.” “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” said Peter, walk. For in the first instance, the thing required was, that He should be believed in.

Let us not, I pray you, give over at the beginning of the story:[11] and if one has named some particular achievement of virtue, and then has dropped it for awhile, let us begin over again. If we get into the right mood (ἐν ἕξει), we shall soon arrive at the end, soon reach the summit. For earnestness, it is said, begets earnestness, and dulness begets dulness. He who has effected some little reformation, thereby receives encouragement to approach greater things, and thence again to go on something more than that; and just as it is with fire, the more wood it lays hold on, the more vehement it becomes, so likewise zeal, the more pious reflections it kindles, the more effectually is it armed against their opposites. As, for example: There are set in us, like so many thorns, perjury, falsehood hypocrisy, deceit, dishonesty, abusiveness, scoffing, buffoonery, indecency, scurrility; again under another head, covetousness, rapacity, injustice, calumny, insidiousness; again, wicked lust, uncleanness, lewdness, fornication, adultery; again, envy, emulation, anger, wrath, rancor, revenge, blasphemy, and numberless others. If we effect a reformation in the first instances, not only in them will the success have been achieved, but through them in the following cases also. For reason has then gained more strength to overthrow those other vices. For instance, if he, who has frequently sworn, once extirpates that satanic habit, he has not only gained this point, but a habit of piety in other respects will have been brought in. For no one, I suppose, averse to swearing would easily consent to do any other wicked act; he will feel a reverence for the virtue already acquired. Just as the man who wears a beautiful robe, will blush to roll himself in the mire; so is it also here. From this beginning he will come to learn not to be angry, not to strike, not to insult. For if once he has come right in little matters, the whole affair is done. Often, however, something of this sort takes place, that a person has once reformed, and then again through carelessness falls back into the old sins but too readily, so that the case becomes irremediable. For instance, we have made it a law to ourselves not to swear; we have got on well, for some three, or even four days; after that being hard put to it, we scattered away the whole of our collected gain; we then fall into indolence and recklessness. Still it is not right to give over; one must set to work zealously again. For it is said, he that has built up a house, and then sees his building pulled down, will have less spirit for building again. Yes, but for all this, one must not be dispirited, but must once more set to work zealously.

Let us then lay down daily laws for ourselves. For a time let us begin with the easier. Let us retrench all that superfluity of paths, and put a bridle on our tongues; let no one swear by God. Here is no outlay, here is no fatigue, here is no cost of time. It is sufficient to will, and all is done. It is a matter of habit. I beseech and entreat you, let us contribute thus much of zeal. Tell me, if I had bid you contribute your money, would not each one of you readily cast in according to his ability? If you saw me in extreme danger, would you not, if it had been possible, have cut off your own flesh to give me? Well, I am in danger now, and in great danger, such indeed that, were I withal confined to a dungeon, or had I received ten thousand stripes, or were a convict in the mines, I could not suffer more. Reach me then the hand. Consider how great is the danger, that I should not have been able to reform this which is least: I say “least” in regard to the labor required. What shall I have to say hereafter, when thus called to account? “Why did you not remonstrate? why did you not enjoin? why did you not lay the law before them? why did you not check the disobedient?” It will not be enough for me to say, that I did admonish. It will be answered, “You ought to have used more vehement rebuke; since Eli also admonished.” (1 Sam. 2:24.) But God forbid I should compare you with Eli’s sons. Indeed, he did admonish them and say, “Nay, my sons, do not so; evil is the report that I hear of you.” (1 Sam. 3:13.) But subsequently the Scripture saith, that he did not admonish his sons: since he did not admonish them severely, or with threats. For is it not strange indeed, that in the synagogues of the Jews the laws are in such force, and whatever the teacher enjoins is performed; while here we are thus despised and rejected? It is not my own glory that I care for (my glory is your good report), but it is for your salvation. Every day we lift up our voice, and shout in your ears. But there is none to hear. Still we take no strong measures. I fear we shall have to give an account at the coming Day of this excessive and unseasonable leniency.

Wherefore, with a loud and clear voice, I proclaim to all and testify, that those who are notorious for this transgression, who utter words which come “of the evil one,” (Matt. 5:37.) (for such is swearing,) shall not step over the threshold of the Church. Let this present month be the time allowed you for reforming in this matter. Talk not to me, “Necessity of business compels me to use oaths, else people do not believe me.” To begin with this, retrench those oaths which come merely of habit. I know many will laugh, but it is better to be laughed at now, than wept for hereafter. They will laugh, who are mad. For who, I ask, in his right mind would laugh at the keeping of the commandment? But suppose they do; why, it will not be at us, but at Christ, that such men will laugh. You shudder at the word! I knew you would. Now if this law were of my making, at me would be the laughing; but if Another be the Lawgiver, the jeering passes over to Him. Yes, and Christ was once spit upon, and smitten with the palm, smitten upon the face. Now also He bears with this, and it is no wonder (οὐδὲν ἀπεικὸς)! For this, hell is prepared; for this, the worm that dieth not. Behold, again I say and testify; let him laugh that will, let him scoff that listeth. Hereunto are we set, to be laughed at and mocked, to suffer all things. We are “the offscouring” (1 Cor. 4:13) or the world, as blessed Paul says. If any man refuse to conform to this order, that man I, by my word, as with a trumpet’s blast, do prohibit to set foot over the Church’s threshold, be he prince, be he even the crowned head. Either depose me from this station, or if I am to remain, expose me not to danger. I cannot bear to ascend this throne, without effecting some great reformation. For if this be impossible, it is better to stand below. Nothing more wretched than a ruler who does his people no good. Do exert yourselves, and attend to this, I entreat you; and let us strive, and of a surety more will come of it. Fast, entreat God (and we will do the same with you) that this pernicious habit may be eradicated. It is no great matter,[12] to become teachers to the world; no small honor to have it said everywhere, that really in this city there is not a man that swears. If this come to pass, you will receive the reward not only of your own good works; indeed what I am to you, this you will become to the world. Assuredly others also will emulate you; assuredly you will be a candle set upon a candlestick.

And is this, you will say, the whole matter? No, this is not all, but this is a beginning of other virtues. He who swears not, will certainly attain unto piety in other respects, whether he will or not, by dint of self-respect and awe. But you will urge that most men do not keep to it, but fall away. Well, better one man that doeth the will of the Lord, than ten thousand transgressors. In fact, hereby is everything subverted, everything turned upside down, I mean, because after the fashion of the Theatre we desire numbers not a select number. For what indeed will a multitude be able to profit? Would you learn that it is the saints, not the numbers, which make the multitude? Lead out to war ten hundred thousand men, and one saint, and let us see who achieves the most? Joshua the son of Nun went out to war, and alone achieved all; the rest were of no use.[13] Wouldest thou see, beloved, that the great multitude, when it does not the will of God, is no better than a thing of naught? I wish indeed, and desire, and with pleasure would be torn in pieces, to adorn the Church with a multitude, yea, but a select multitude; yet if this be impossible, that the few should be select, is my desire. Do you not see, that it is better to possess one precious stone, than ten thousand farthing pieces? Do you not see that it is better to have the eye sound, than to be loaded with flesh, and yet deprived of sight? Do you not see that it is better to have one healthy sheep, than ten thousand with the murrain; that fine children, though few, are better than many children diseased withal; that in the Kingdom there will be few, but in hell many? What have I to do with a multitude? what profit therein? None. Rather they are a plague to the rest. It is as if one who had the option of ten healthy persons or ten thousand sick folks, should take to himself the latter in addition to the ten. The many who do nothing well, will avail us only for punishment hereafter, and disgrace for the time being. For no one will urge it as a point in our favor that we are many; we shall be blamed for being unprofitable. In fact, this is what men always tell us, when we say, We are many; “aye, but bad,” they answer.

Behold again: I give warning, and proclaim with a loud voice, let no one think it a laughing matter: I will exclude and prohibit the disobedient; and as long as I sit on this throne, I will give up not one of its rights. If any one depose me from it, then I am no longer responsible; as long as I am responsible, I cannot disregard them; on account not of my own punishment, but of your salvation. For I do exceedingly long for your salvation. To advance it, I endure pain and vexation. But yield your obedience, that both here and hereafter you may receive a plentiful reward, and that we may in common reap eternal blessings; through the grace and mercy of the only-begotten Son of God; to Whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily IX on Acts iii. 12.

Homily IX.

Acts 3:12

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

There is greater freedom of speech in this harangue, than in the former. Not that he was afraid on the former occasion, but the persons whom he addressed there, being jesters and scoffers, would not have borne it. Hence in the beginning of that address he also bespeaks their attention by his preamble; “Be this known unto you, and hearken to my words.” (Acts 2:14.) But here there is no need of this management. (κατασκευἥς.) For his hearers were not in a state of indifference. The miracle had aroused them all; they were even full of fear and amazement. Wherefore also there was no need of beginning at that point, but rather with a different topic; by which, in fact, he powerfully conciliated them, namely, by rejecting the glory which was to be had from them. For nothing is so advantageous, and so likely to pacify the hearers, as to say nothing about one’s self of an honorable nature, but, on the contrary, to obviate all surmise of wishing to do so. And, in truth, much more did they increase their glory by despising glory, and showing that what had just taken place was no human act, but a Divine work; and that it was their part to join with the beholders in admiration, rather than to receive it from them. Do you see how clear of all ambition he is, and how he repels the honor paid to him? In the same manner also did the ancient fathers; for instance, Daniel said, “Not for any wisdom that is in me.” (Dan. 2:30.) And again Joseph, “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Gen. 11:8.) And David, “When the lion and the bear came, in the name of the Lord I rent them with my hands.” (1 Sam. 17:34.) And so likewise here the Apostles, “Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?” (Acts 3:13.) Nay, not even this;[14] for not by our own merit did we draw down the Divine influence. “The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers.” See how assiduously he thrusts himself (εἰσωθει) upon the fathers of old, lest he should appear to be introducing a new doctrine. In the former address he appealed to the patriarch David, here he appeals to Abraham and the rest. “Hath glorified His Servant[15] Jesus.” Again a lowly expression, like as in the opening address.

But at this point he proceeds to enlarge upon the outrage, and exalts the heinousness of the deed, no longer, as before, throwing a veil over it. This he does, wishing to work upon them more powerfully. For the more he proved them accountable, the better his purpose were effected. “Hath glorified,” he says, “His Servant Jesus, Whom ye delivered up, and denied Him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.” The charge is twofold: Pilate was desirous to let Him go; you would not, when he was willing. “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the Prince (or Author) of Life: Whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.” (Acts 3:14–15.) Ye desired a robber instead of Him. He shows the great aggravation of the act. As he has them under his hand, he now strikes hard. “The Prince of Life,” he says. In these words he establishes the doctrine of the Resurrection. “Whom God hath raised from the dead.” (Acts 2:26.) “Whence doth this appear?” He no longer refers to the Prophets, but to himself, inasmuch as now he has a right to be believed. Before, when he affirmed that He was risen, he adduced the testimony of David; now, having said it, he alleges the College of Apostles. “Whereof we are witnesses,” he says.

“And His name, through faith in His name, hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all.” Seeking to declare the matter (ζητὥν τὸ πρἅγμα εὶπεἵν), he straightway brings forward the sign: “In the presence,” he says, “of you all.” As he had borne hard upon them, and had shown that He Whom they crucified had risen, again he relaxes, by giving them the power of repentance; “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” (Acts 3:17.) This is one ground of excuse. The second[16] is of a different kind. As Joseph speaks to his brethren, “God did send me before you (Gen. 45:5); what in the former speech he had briefly said, in the words, “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken,”—this he here enlarges upon: “But what God before had showed by the mouth of all His Prophets, that His Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled.” (Acts 3:18.) At the same time showing, that it was not of their doing, if this be proved, that it took place after God’s counsel. He alludes to those words with which they had reviled Him on the Cross, namely “Let Him deliver Him, if He will have Him; for He said, I am the Son of God. If[17] He trust in God, let Him now come down from the cross.” (Matt. 27:42–43.) O foolish men, were these idle words? It must needs so come to pass, and the prophets bear witness thereunto. Therefore if He descended not, it was for no weakness of His own that He did not come down, but for very power. And Peter puts this by way of apology for the Jews, hoping that they may also close with what he says. “He hath so fulfilled,” he says. Do you see now how he refers everything to that source? “Repent ye therefore,” he says, “and be converted.” He does not add, “from your sins;” but, “that your sins, may be blotted out,” means the same thing. And then he adds the gain: “So shall the times of refreshing come from the presence of the Lord.” (Acts 3:19.) This betokens them in a sad state, brought low by many wars.[18] For it is to the case of one on fire, and craving comfort, that the expression applies. And see now how he advances. In his first sermon, he but slightly hinted at the resurrection, and Christ’s sitting in heaven; but here he also speaks of His visible advent. “And He shall send Jesus the Christ ordained[19] (for you), “Whom the heaven must (i.e. must of necessity) receive, until the times of the restitution of all things.” The reason why He does not now come is clear. “Which God hath spoken,” he continues, “by the mouth[20] of His holy prophets since the world began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.” Before, he had spoken of David, here he speaks of Moses. “Of all things,” he says, “which He hath spoken.” But he does not say, “which Christ,” but, “which God hath spoken[21] by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:20–21.) Then he betakes him to the ground of credibility, saying, “A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; Him shall ye hear in all things.” And then the greatness of the punishment: “And it shall come to pass, that every soul which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those that follow, after, as many as have spoken have likewise foretold of these days.” (Acts 3:23–24.) He has done well to set the distinction here. For whenever he says anything great, he appeals to them of old. And he found a text which contained both truths; just as in the other discourse he said, “Until He put His foes under His feet.” (Acts 2:35.) The remarkable circumstance is, that the two things stand together; that is, subjection and disobedience, and the punishment. “Like unto me,” he says. Then why are ye alarmed? “Ye are the children of the prophets” (Acts 3:25): so that to you they spake, and for your sakes have all these things come to pass. For as they deemed that through their outrage they had become alienated (and indeed there is no parity of reason, that He Who now is crucified, should now cherish them as His own), he proves to them that both the one and the other are in accordance with prophecy. “Ye are the children,” he says, “of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, ‘And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.’ Unto you first,” he continues, “God having raised up His Son (τόν Παἵδα) sent Him.” “To others indeed also, but to you first who crucified Him.” “To bless you,” he adds, “in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.” (Acts 3:26.)

Now let us consider again more minutely what has been read out. (Recapitulation.) In the first place, he establishes the point that the miracle was performed by them[22]; saying, “Why marvel ye?” And he will not let the assertion be disbelieved: and to give it more weight, he anticipates their judgment. “Why look ye,” he says, “so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk?” (Acts 3:12.) If this troubles and confounds you, learn Who was the Doer, and be not amazed. And observe how on all occasions when he refers to God, and says that all things are from Him, then he fearlessly chides them: as above where he said, “A man approved of God among you.” (Acts 2:22.) And on all occasions he reminds them of the outrage they had committed, in order that the fact of the Resurrection may be established. But here he also subjoins something else; for he no more says, “of Nazareth,” but what? “The God of our fathers hath glorified His Servant Jesus.” (Acts 3:13.) Observe also the modesty. He reproached them not, neither did he say at once, “Believe then now: behold, a man that has been forty years lame, has been raised up through the name of Jesus Christ.” This he did not say, for it would have excited opposition. On the contrary, he begins by commending them for admiring the deed, and again calls them after their ancestor: “Ye men of Israel.” Moreover, he does not say, It was Jesus that healed him: but, “The God of our fathers hath glorified,” etc. But then, lest they should say, How can this stand to reason—that God should glorify the transgressor? therefore he reminds them of the judgment before Pilate, showing that, would they but consider, He was no transgressor; else Pilate had not wished to release Him. And he does not say, “when Pilate was desirous,” but, “was determined to let Him go.” “But ye denied the Holy One,” etc. (Acts 3:13–14.) Him who had killed others, ye asked to be released; Him Who quickeneth them that are killed, ye did not wish to have! And that they might not ask again, How should it be that God now glorifies Him, when before He gave no assistance? he brings forward the prophets, testifying that so it behooved to be. “But those things which God before had showed,” etc., (infra Acts 3:18.) Then, lest they should suppose that God’s dispensation was their own apology, first he reproves them. Moreover, that the denying Him “to Pilate’s face,” was no ordinary thing; seeing that he wished to release Him. And that ye cannot deny this, the man who was asked in preference to Him is witness against you. This also is part of a deep dispensation. Here it shows their shamelessness and effrontery; that a Gentile, one who saw Him for the first time, should have discharged Him, though he had heard nothing striking; while they who had been brought up among His miracles, have done the very opposite! For, as he has said, “When he (Pilate) had determined to let Him go,” that it may not be imagined that he did this of favor, we read, “And he said, It is a custom with you to release one prisoner: will ye therefore that I release unto you this man? (Matt. 27:15.) “But ye denied the Holy One and the Just.” (Mark 15:6.) He does not say, “Ye delivered up;” but everywhere, “Ye denied.” For, said they, “We have no king but Cæsar.” (John 19:15.) And he does not say only, Ye did not beg off the innocent, and, “Ye denied” Him but, “Ye slew” Him. While they were hardened, he refrained from such language; but when their minds are most moved, then he strikes home, now that they are in a condition to feel it. For just as when men are drunk we say nothing to them, but when they are sober, and are recovered from their intoxication then we chide them; thus did Peter: when they were able to understand his words, then he also sharpened his tongue, alleging against them many charges; that, Whom God had glorified, they had delivered up; Whom Pilate would have acquitted they denied to his face; that they preferred the robber before Him.

Observe again how he speaks covertly concerning Christ’s power, showing that He raised Himself: just as in his first discourse he had said, “Because it was not possible that He should be holden of it” (Acts 2:24), so here he says, “And killed the Prince of Life.” (Acts 3:15.) It follows that the Life He had was not from another. The prince (or author) of evil would be he that first brought forth evil; the prince or author of murder, he who first originated murder; so also the Prince (or Author) of Life must be He Who has Life from Himself.[23] “Whom God raised up,” he continues: and now that he has uttered this, he adds, “And his name, upon faith in his name, hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know; yea, the faith which is by Him hath given Him this perfect soundness. [The faith which is by Him ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοὕ πίστις.] And[24] yet it was ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστις, “the faith which is in Him” (as its object) that did all. For the Apostles did not say, “By the name,” but, “In the name,” and it was in Him (εἰς αὐτὸν) that the man believed. But they did not yet make bold to use the expression, “The faith which is in Him.” For, that the phrase “By Him” should not be too low, observe that after saying, “Upon the faith of His name,” he adds, “His name hath made him strong,” and then it is that he says, “Yea, the faith which is by Him hath given him this perfect soundness.” Observe how he implies, that in the καὶ ἐκεἵνο former expression also “Whom God raised up,” he did but condescend to their low attainments. For that Person needed not Another’s help for His rising again, Whose Name raised up a lame man, being all one as dead. Mark how on all occasions he adduces their own testimony. Thus above, he said, “As ye yourselves also know;” and, “In the midst of you:” and here again, “Whom ye see and know: in the presence of you all.” (Acts 2:22.) And yet that it was, “In His name,” they knew not: but they did know that the man was lame, that he stands there whole.[25] They that had wrought the deed themselves confessed, that it was not by their own power, but by that of Christ. And had this assertion been unfounded, had they not been truly persuaded themselves that Christ had risen again, they would not have sought to establish the honor of a dead man instead of their own, especially while the eyes of the multitude were upon them. Then, when their minds were alarmed, immediately he encourages them, by the appellation of Brethren, “And now, brethren, I wot, etc.” For in the former discourse he foretold[26] nothing, but only says concerning Christ, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly:” here he adds an admonition. There he waited till the people spoke: here, he knew how much they had already effected, and that the present assembly was better disposed toward them. “That through ignorance ye did it.” And yet the circumstances mentioned above were not to be put to the score of ignorance. To choose the robber, to reject Him Who had been adjudged to be acquitted, to desire even to destroy Him—how should this be referred to ignorance? Nevertheless, he gives them liberty to deny it, and to change their mind about what had happened. “Now this indeed, that you put to death the innocent, ye knew: but that you were killing “the Prince of Life,” this, belike, ye did not know.” And he exculpated not them alone, but also the chief contrivers of the evil, “ye and your rulers:” for doubtless it would have roused their opposition, had he gone off into accusation. For the evil-doer, when you accuse him of some wickedness that he has done, in his endeavor to exonerate himself, grows more vehement. And he no longer says, “Ye crucified,” “Ye killed,” but, “Ye did it;” leading them to seek for pardon. If those rulers did it through ignorance, much more did these present.[27] “But these things which God before had showed,” etc. (Acts 3:18.) But it is remarkable, that both in the first and in the second discourse, speaking to the same effect, that is, in the former, “By the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God;” and in this, “God before had showed that Christ should suffer;” in neither does he adduce any particular text in proof. The fact is, that each one of such passages is accompanied with many accusations, and with mention of the punishment in store for them [as]; “I will deliver up,” says one, “the wicked in requital for His grave, and the rich in return for His death.” (Isa. 53:9.) And again, * * * “Those things,” he says, “which God before had showed by the mouth of all His prophets, that Christ should suffer, He hath so fulfilled.” It shows the greatness of that “counsel,”[28] in that all spoke of it, and not one only. It does not follow, because the event was through ignorance, that it took place irrespectively of God’s ordinance. See how great is the Wisdom of God, when it uses the wickedness of others to bring about that which must be. “He hath fulfilled,” he says: that they may not imagine that anything at all is wanting; for whatsoever Christ must needs suffer, has been fulfilled. But do not think, that, because the Prophets said this, and because ye did it through ignorance, this sufficeth to your exculpation. However, he does not express himself thus, but in milder terms says, “Repent ye therefore.” (Acts 3:19.) “Why? For[29] either it was through ignorance, or by the dispensation of God.” “That your sins may be blotted out.” I do not mean the crimes committed at the Crucifixion; perhaps they were through ignorance; but so that your other sins may be blotted out: this[30] only. “So shall the times of refreshing come unto you.” Here he speaks of the Resurrection, obscurely.[31] For those are indeed times of refreshing, which Paul also looked for, when he said, “We that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burthened.” (2 Cor. 5:4.) Then to prove that Christ is the cause of the days of refreshing, he says, “And He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was for you ordained.” (Acts 3:20.) He said not, “That your sin may be blotted out,” but, “your sins;” for he hints at that sin also. “He shall send.” And whence?[32] “Whom the heaven must receive.” (Acts 3:21.) Still [“must”] “receive?” And why not simply, Whom the heaven hath received? This, as if discoursing of old times: so, he says, it is divinely ordered, so it is settled: not a word yet of His eternal subsistence.—“For Moses indeed said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord raise up for you:” “Him shall ye hear in all things that He shall speak unto you:” and having said, “All things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy Prophets,” (Acts 3:22) now indeed he brings in Christ Himself. For, if He predicted many things and it is necessary to hear Him, one would not be wrong in saying that the Prophets have spoken these things. But, besides, he wishes to show that the Prophets did predict the same things. And, if any one will look closely into the matter, he will find these things spoken in the Old Testament, obscurely indeed, but nevertheless spoken. “Who was purposely designed,” says he: in Whom[33] there is nothing novel. Here he also alarms them, by the thought that much remains to be fulfilled. But if so, how says he, “Hath fulfilled?” (Acts 3:18.) The things which it was necessary “that Christ should suffer,” are fulfilled: the things which must come to pass, not yet. “A prophet shall the Lord God raise up for you from among your brethren, like unto me.” This would most conciliate them. Do you observe the sprinkling of low matters and high, side by side,—that He Who was to go up into the heavens should be like unto Moses? And yet it was a great thing too. For in fact He was not simply like unto Moses,[34] if so be that “every soul which will not hear shall be destroyed.” And one might mention numberless other things which show that He was not like unto Moses; so that it is a mighty text that he has handled. “God shall raise Him up unto you,” says Moses, “from among your brethren,” etc.: consequently Moses himself threatens those that should not hear. “Yea, and all the prophets,” etc.: all this[35] is calculated to attract “Yea, and all the prophets,” says the Apostle, “from Samuel.” He refrains from enumerating them singly, not to make his discourse too long; but having alleged that decisive testimony of Moses, he passes by the rest. “Ye,” he says, “are the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God made.” (Acts 3:25) “Children of the covenant;” that is, heirs. For lest they should think that they received this offer from the favor of Peter, he shows, that of old it was due to them, in order that they may the rather believe that such also is the will of God. “Unto you first,” he continues, “God having raised up His Son Jesus, sent Him.” (Acts 3:26.) He does not say simply, “Unto you He sent His Son,” but also, after the resurrection, and when He had been crucified. For that they may not suppose that he himself granted them this favor, and not the Father, he says, “To bless you.” For if He is your Brother, and blesses you, the affair is a promise. “Unto you first.” That is, so far are you from having no share in these blessings, that He would have you become moreover promoters and authors of them to others. For[36] you are not to feel like castaways. “Having raised up”: again, the Resurrection. “In turning away,” he says, “every one of you from his iniquities.” In this way He blesses you: not in a general way. And what kind of blessing is this? A great one. For of course not the turning a man away from his iniquities is itself sufficient to remit them also. And if it is not sufficient to remit, how should it be to confer a blessing? For it is not to be supposed that the transgressor becomes forthwith also blessed; he is simply released from his sins. But this,[37] “Like unto me,” would no wise apply. “Hear ye Him,” he says; and not this alone, but he adds, “And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.” When he has shown them that they had sinned, and has imparted forgiveness to them, and promised good things, then indeed, then he says, “Moses also says the same thing.” What sort of connection is this: “Until the times of the restitution;” and then to introduce Moses, saying, that[38] all that Christ said shall come to pass? Then also, on the other hand, he says, as matter of encomium (so that for this reason also ye ought to obey): “Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant:” i.e. heirs. Then why do you stand affected towards that which is your own, as if it were another’s? True, you have done deeds worthy of condemnation; still you may yet obtain pardon. Having said this, with reason he is now able to say, “Unto you God sent his Son Jesus to bless you.” He says not, To save you, but what is greater; that the crucified Jesus blessed His crucifiers.

Let us then also imitate Him. Let us cast out that spirit of murder and enmity. It is not enough not to retaliate (for even in the Old Dispensation this was exemplified); but let us do all as we would for bosom-friends, as we would for ourselves so for those who have injured us. We are followers of Him, we are His disciples, who after being crucified, sets everything in action in behalf of his murderers, and sends out His Apostles to this end. And yet we have often suffered justly; but those acted not only unjustly, but impiously; for He was their Benefactor, He had done no evil, and they crucified Him. And for what reason? For the sake of their reputation. But He Himself made them objects of reverence. “The scribes and the pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that do ye, but after their works do ye not.” (Matt. 23:2.) And again in another place, “Go thy way, show thyself to the priest.” (Matt. 8:4.) Besides, when He might have destroyed them, He saves them. Let us then imitate Him, and let no one be an enemy, no one a foe, except to the devil.

Not a little does the habit of not swearing contribute to this end: I mean to the not giving way to wrath:[39] and by not giving way to wrath, we shall not have an enemy either. Lop off the oaths of a man, and you have clipt the wings of his anger, you have smothered all his passion. Swearing, it is said, is as the wind to wrath. Lower the sails; no need of sails, when there is no wind. If then we do not clamor, and do not swear, we have cut the sinews of passion. And if you doubt this, just put it to experiment. Impose it as a law upon the passionate man that he shall never swear, and you will have no necessity of preaching moderation to him. So the whole business is finished. For[40] even though you do not forswear yourselves [yet], by swearing at all, do you not know in what absurd consequences you involve yourselves—binding yourselves to an absolute necessity and as with a cord, and putting yourselves to all manner of shifts, as men studying how to rescue their soul from an evil which there is no escaping, or, failing of that, obliged [by that self-imposed necessity] to spend your life thenceforth in vexation, in quarrels, and to curse your wrath? But all is in vain, and to no purpose. Threaten, be peremptory (διόρισαι), do all, whatever it be, without swearing; [so]: it is in your power to reverse (ἀναλὕσαι) both what you have said and what you have done if you have the mind. Thus on the present day I must needs speak more gently to you. For since ye have heard me, and the greater part of the reformation is achieved by you, now then let us see for what purpose the taking of oaths was introduced, and why allowed to be. In relating to you their first origin, and when they were conceived, and how, and by whom we shall give you this account in requital for your obedience. For it is fit that he who has made his practice right, should be taught the philosophy of the matter, but he who is not yet doing the right, is not worthy to be told the history.

They made many covenants in Abraham’s time, and slew victims, and offered sacrifices, and as yet oaths were not. Whence then did they come in? When evil increased, when all was confusion, upside down, when men had turned aside to idolatry: then it was, then, when men appeared no longer worthy to be believed, that they called God as witness, as if thereby giving an adequate surety for what they said. Such in fact is the Oath: it is a security where men’s principles cannot be trusted.[41] So that in the indictment of the swearer the first charge is this,—that he is not to be trusted without a surety, and a great surety too: for such is the exceeding faithlessness, that they ask not man as surety, but will needs have God! Secondly, the same charge lies against him who receives the oath: that, in a question of compact, he must drag in God for warranty, and refuse to be satisfied unless he get Him. O the excessive stupidity, the insolence of such conduct! Thou, a worm, earth and dust, and ashes, and vapor, to drag in thy Lord as the surety, and to compel the other to drag Him in likewise! Tell me, if your servants were disputing with each other, and exchanging[42] assurances with each other, and the fellow-servant should declare that for his part he would not be satisfied till he had their common master given him for surety, would he not have stripes given him without number, and be made to know that the master is for other purposes, and not to be put to any such use as this? Why do I speak of a fellow-servant?[43] For should he choose any respectable person, would not that person consider it an affront? But I do not wish to do this, say you.[44] Well: then do not compel the other to do so either: since where men only are in question, this is done—if your party says, “I give such an one as my surety,” you do not allow him. “What then,” say you, “am I to lose what I have given?” I am not speaking of this; but that you allow him to insult God. For which reason greater shall be the inevitable punishment to him who forces the oath upon another, than to him who takes it: the same holds with regard to him who gives an oath when no one asks him. And what makes it worse, is, that every one is ready to swear, for one farthing, for some petty item, for his own injustice. All this may be said, when there is no perjury; but if perjury follow in the train, both he that imposes and he that takes the oath have turned everything upside down. “But there are some things,” you will say, “which are unknown.” Well take these into account, and do nothing negligently; but, if you do act negligently, take the loss to yourself as your punishment. It is better to be the loser thus, than in a very different way. For tell me—you force a man to take an oath, with what expectation? That he will forswear himself? But this is utter insanity; and the judgment will fall upon your own head; better you should lose your money, than he be lost. Why act thus to your own detriment, and to the insulting of God? This is the spirit of a wild beast, and of an impious man. But you do this in the expectation that he will not forswear himself? Then trust him without the oath. “Nay, there are many,” you reply, “who in the absence of an oath would presume to defraud; but, once the oath taken, would refrain.” You deceive yourself, man. A man having once learnt to steal, and to wrong his neighbor, will presume full oft to trample upon his oath; if on the contrary he shrinks from swearing, he will much more shrink from injustice. “But he is influenced against his will.” Well then, he deserves pardon.

But why am I speaking of this kind of oaths, while I pass over those in the market-place? For as regards these last, you can urge none of these pleas. For ten farthings you there have swearing and forswearing. In fact, because the thunderbolt does not actually fall from heaven, because all things are not overthrown, you stand holding God in your bonds: to get a few vegetables, a pair of shoes, for a little matter of money, calling Him to witness. What is the meaning of this? Do not let us imagine, that because we are not punished, therefore we do not sin; this comes of God’s mercy; not of our merit. Let your oath be an imprecation upon your own child, upon your own self: say, “Else let the hangman lash my ribs.” But you dare not. Is God less valuable than thy ribs? is He less precious than thy pate? Say “Else let me be struck blind.” But no. Christ so spares us, that He will not let us swear even by our own head; and yet we so little spare the honor of God, that on all occasions we must drag Him in! Ye know not what God is, and with what sort of lips he behooves to be invoked. Why, when we speak of any man of eminent worth, we say, “First wash your mouth, and then make mention of him:” and yet, that precious Name which is above every name, the Name which is marvellous in all the earth, the Name which devils hear and tremble, we haul about as we list! Oh! the force of habit! thereby has that Name become cheap. No doubt, if you impose on any one the necessity of coming into the sacred edifice to take his oath there, you feel that you have made the oath an awful one. And yet how is it that it seems awful in this way, but because we have been in the habit of using that at random, but not this? For ought not a shudder of awe to be felt when God is but named? But now, whereas among the Jews His Name was held to be so reverend, that it was written upon plates, and none was allowed to wear the characters except the high-priest alone: we bandy about His Name like any ordinary word. If simply to name God was not allowed to all; to call Him to witness, what audacity is it! nay, what madness! For if need were (rather than this) to fling away all that you have, ought you not readily to part with all? Behold, I solemnly declare and testify; reform these oaths of the forum, these superfluous oaths,[45] and bring to me all those who wish to take them. Behold, in the presence of this assembly, I charge those who are set apart for the tending of the Houses of Prayer, I exhort and issue this order to them, that no person be allowed to take such oaths at his own discretion: or rather, that none be allowed to swear in any other way, but that the person be brought to me, whosoever he be, since even for these matters less will not serve but they must needs come before us, just as if one had to do with little children. May there be no occasion! It is a shame in some things still to need to be taught. Do you dare to touch the Holy Table, being a person unbaptized? No, but what is still worse, you the baptized dare to lay your hand upon the Holy Table, which not even all ordained persons are allowed to touch, and so to take your oath. Now you would not go and lay your hand upon the head of your child,[46] and yet do you touch the Table, and not shudder, not feel afraid? Bring these men to me; I will judge, and send them away rejoicing, both the one and the other.[47] Do what you choose; I lay it down as a law that there be no swearing at all. What hope of salvation, while we thus make all to have been done in vain? Is this the end of your bills, and your bonds, that you should sacrifice your own soul? What gain do you get so great as the loss? Has he forsworn himself? You have undone both him and yourself. But has he not? even so still you have undone (both), by forcing him to transgress the commandment.[48] Let us cast out this disease from the soul: at any rate let us drive it out of the forum, out of our shops, out of our other work-places; our profits will but be the greater. Do not imagine that the success of your worldly plans is to be ensured by transgressions of the Divine laws. “But he refuses to trust me,” say you; and in fact I have sometimes heard this said by some: “Unless I swear oaths without number, the man will not trust me.” Yes, and for this you may thank yourself, because you are so off-hand with your oaths. For were it not so, but on the contrary were it clear to all men that you do not swear, take my word for it, you would be more readily believed upon your mere nod, than those are who swallow oaths by thousands. For look now: which do you more readily believe? me who do not swear, or those that do swear? “Yes,” say you, “but then you are ruler and bishop.” Then suppose I prove to you that it is not only for that reason? Answer me with truth, I beseech you; were I in the habit of perpetually swearing, would my office stand me in that stead? Not a whit. Do you see that it is not for this reason? And what do you gain at all? Answer me that. Paul endured hunger; do you then also choose to hunger rather than to transgress one of the commandments of God. Why are you so unbelieving? Here are you, ready to do and suffer all things for the sake of not swearing: and shall not He reward you? Shall He, Who sustains day by day both takers and breakers of oaths, give you over to hunger, when you have obeyed Him? Let all men see, that of those who assemble in this Church not one is a swearer. By this also let us become manifest, and not by our creed alone; let us have this mark also to distinguish us both from the Gentiles and from all men. Let us receive it as a seal from heaven, that we may everywhere be seen to be the King’s own flock. By our mouth and tongue let us be known, in the first place, just as the barbarians are by theirs: even as those who speak Greek are distinguished from barbarians, so let us be known. Answer me: the birds which are said to be parrots, how are they known to be parrots? is it not by speaking like men? Let us then be known by speaking like the Apostles; by speaking like the Angels. If any one bid you swear tell him, “Christ has spoken, and I do not swear.” This is enough to make a way for all virtue to come in. It is a gate to religion, a high road leading to the philosophy of piety;[49] a kind of training-school. These things let us observe, that we may obtain also the future blessings, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, power and honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily X on Acts iv. 1.

Homily X.

Acts 4:1

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

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

“Being grieved that they taught the people.” (Acts 4:2.) Not merely because they taught, but because they declared, not alone that Christ Himself was risen from the dead, but moreover, that we through Him do rise again. “Because they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” So mighty was His Resurrection, that to others also He is the cause of a resurrection.[50] “And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day; for it was now eventide. (Acts 4:3.) What impudence! They[51] feared not the multitude; for this also the captain of the temple was with them: they had their hands still reeking with the blood of the former victim. “For it was now eventide,” it is said. It was with the wish to abate their spirit that those men did this, and guarded them; but the delay only served to make the Apostles more intrepid. And consider who these are who are arrested. They are the chiefs of the Apostles, who are now become a pattern to the rest, that they should no longer crave each other’s support, nor want to be together. “Howbeit, many having heard the word, believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.” (Acts 4:4.) How was this? Did they see them in honor? Did they not behold them put in bonds? How then did they believe? Do you see the evident efficacy? And yet even those that believed already might well have become weaker. But no, it is no longer so: for Peter’s sermon had laid the seed deep into them, and had taken a hold upon their understandings. Therefore were [their enemies] incensed, that they did not fear them, that they made no account of their present troubles. For, say they, if He that was crucified effects such great things, and makes the lame to walk, we fear not these men either.[52] This again is of God’s ordering. For those who now believe were more numerous than the former. Therefore it was that in their presence they bound the Apostles, to make them also more fearful. But the reverse took place. And they examine them not before the people, but privately, that the hearers may not profit by their boldness.

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, and Annas the High Priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the High Priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.” (Acts 4:5–6.) For now along with the other evils (of the times[53]), the Law was no longer observed. And again they set off the business with the form of a tribunal, to constitute them guilty by their iniquitous sentence. “And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?” (Acts 4:7.) And yet they knew it well; for it was because they were “grieved that they preached through Jesus the resurrection” that they arrested them. Then for what purpose do they question them? They expected the numbers present would make them recant, and thought by this means to have put all right again. Observe then what they say: “And by what name have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them.” (Acts 4:8.) And now, I pray you, call to mind Christ’s saying; “When they deliver you up unto the synagogues, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall speak; for it is the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. (Luke 12:11; Luke 12:14.) So that it was a mighty Power they enjoyed. What then says Peter? “Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel.” Mark the Christian wisdom of the man; how full of confidence it is: he utters not a word of insult, but says with respect, “Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we be this day called to account of the good deed done to the impotent man.” He takes them in hand right valiantly; by the opening of his speech he exposes[54] them, and reminds them of the former things: that it is for a work of beneficence they are calling them to account. As if he had said, “In all fairness we ought to have been crowned for this deed, and proclaimed benefactors; but since “we are even put upon our trial for a good deed done to an impotent man,” not a rich man, not powerful, not noble—and yet who would feel envy in a case like this?” It is a most forcible (ἀπαγγελια, al. ἐπαγγελία) way of putting the case; and he shows that they are piercing their own selves:—“By what means this man is made whole: be it known unto you all, and to all the people Israel; that by the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth:”—this is what would vex them most. For this was that which Christ had told the disciples, “What ye hear in the ear that preach ye upon the housetops.—That in the name of Jesus Christ,” he says, “of Nazareth, Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand here before you whole.” (Acts 4:10). (Matt. 10:27.) Think not, he says that we conceal the country, or the nature of the death. “Whom ye crucified, Whom God raised from the dead, even by Him doth this man stand before you whole.” Again the death, again the resurrection. “This is the stone,” he says, “which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.” (Acts 4:11.) He reminds them also of a saying which was enough to frighten them. For it had been said, “Whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. (Matt. 21:44.)—Neither is there salvation in any other, (Acts 4:12.) Peter says. What wounds, think you, must these words inflict on them! “For there is none other name,” he continues, “under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Here he utters also lofty words. For when[55] the object is, not to carry some point successfully, but only to show boldness he does not spare; for he was not afraid of striking too deep. Nor does he say simply, “By another;” but, “Neither is there salvation in any other:” that is, He is able to save us. In this way he subdued their threatening.

“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13.) The two unlearned men beat down with their rhetoric them and the chief priests. For it was not they that spake, but the grace of the Spirit. “And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.” (Acts 4:14.) Great was the boldness of the man; that even in the judgment-hall he has not left them. For had they said that the fact was not so, there was he to refute them. “But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, saying, What are we to do to these men?” (Acts 4:15.) See the difficulty they are in, and how the fear of men again does everything. As in the case of Christ, they were not able (as the saying is) to undo what is done,[56] nor to cast it into the shade, but for all their hindering, the Faith did but gain ground the more; so was it now. “What shall we do?” O the folly! to suppose that those who had tasted of the conflict, would now take fright at it: to expect, impotent as their efforts had proved in the beginning, to effect something new, after such a specimen of oratory as had been exhibited! The more they wished to hinder, the more the business grew upon their hands. But what say they? “For that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straightly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all, nor teach, in the name of Jesus.” (Acts 4:16–18.) See what effrontery is shown by these, and what greatness of mind by the Apostles. “But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people.” (Acts 4:19–21.) The miracles shut their mouths: they would not so much as let them finish their speech, but cut them short in the middle, most insolently. “For all men glorified God for that which was done. For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was showed.” (Acts 4:22.) But let us look over what has been said from the beginning.

“And as they spake unto the people, etc. Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection of the dead.” (Recapitulation, Acts 4:1–2.) So[57] then at first they did all for the sake of man’s opinion (or glory): but now another motive was added: that they should not be thought guilty of murder, as they said subsequently, “Do ye wish to bring this man’s blood on us?” (Acts 5:28.) O the folly! Persuaded that He was risen, and having received this proof of it,[58] they expected that He Whom death could not hold, could be cast into the shade by their machinations! What can match the folly of this![59] Such is the nature of wickedness: it has no eyes for anything, but on all occasions it is thrown into perturbation. Finding themselves overborne, they felt like persons who have been outwitted: as is the case with people who have been forestalled and made a sport of in some matter. And yet[60] they everywhere affirmed that it was God that raised Him: but[61] it was “in the Name of Jesus” that they spake; showing that Jesus was risen. “Through Jesus, the resurrection of the dead”: for they themselves also held a resurrection: a cold and puerile doctrine, indeed, but still they held it. Why this alone, was it not sufficient to induce them to do nothing to them—I mean, that the disciples with such boldness bore themselves in the way they did? Say, wherefore, O Jew, dost thou disbelieve? Thou oughtest to have attended to the sign done, and to the words, not to the evil disposition of the many. “By their teaching the people.”[62] For already they were in ill repute with them by reason of what they had done to Christ; so that they were rather increasing their own obloquy. “And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold until the morrow; for it was now eventide.” (Acts 4:3.) In the case of Christ, however, they did not so; but having taken Him at midnight, they immediately led him away, and made no delay, being exceedingly in fear of the multitude: whereas in the case of the Apostles here, they were bold. And they no more take them to Pilate, being ashamed and blushing at the thought of the former affair, lest they should also be taken to task for that.

“And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes were gathered together at Jerusalem.” (Acts 4:5.) Again in Jerusalem: and there it is that men’s blood is poured out; no reverence for their city either; “And Annas, and Caiaphas,” etc. (Acts 4:6.) “And Annas,” it says, “and Caiaphas.” His maid-servant it was that questioned Peter, and he could not bear it: in his house it was that Peter denied, when Another was in bonds there: but now, when he has come into the midst of them all, see how he speaks! “By what name have ye done this?” Why dost thou not speak it, what it is, but keepest that out of sight? “By what name have ye done this?” (Acts 4:7.) And yet he affirmed, It was not we that did it. “Ye rulers of the people,” etc. (Acts 4:8.) Observe his wisdom: he does not say outright, “In the Name of Jesus we did it,” but how? “In His Name this man”—He does not say, “was made whole by us;” but—“doth stand here before you whole.” And again, “If we be examined concerning the good deed done to the impotent man.” (Acts 4:9.) He hits them hard, that they are always making a crime of such acts, finding fault with works of beneficence done to men: and he reminds them of their former doings, that they run to do murder, and not only so, but make a crime of doing good deeds. Do you observe too (in point of rhetoric) with what dignity they express themselves?[63] Even in the use of words they were becoming expert by practice, and henceforth they were not to be beaten down.[64] “Be it known unto you all,” etc. (Acts 4:10.) Whereby he shows them that they rather do, in spite of themselves, preach Christ; themselves extol the doctrine, by their examining and questioning. O exceeding boldness—“Whom ye crucified! Whom God raised up”—this is bolder still! Think not that we hide what there is to be ashamed of. He says this all but tauntingly: and not merely says it, but dwells upon the matter. “This,” says he, “is the Stone which was set at naught by you builders;” and then he goes on to teach them, saying in addition, “Which is made the head of the corner” (Acts 4:11.); that is to say, that the Stone is indeed approved! Great was the boldness they now had, in consequence of the miracle. And when there was need to teach, observe how they speak and allege many prophecies; but when the point was to use boldness of speech, then they only speak peremptorily. Thus “Neither,” says he, “is there any other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12.) It is manifest to all, he says, because not to us alone was that Name given; he cites even themselves as witnesses. For, since they asked, “In what name did ye it?” “In Christ’s,” says he: “there is none other name. How is it that ye ask? On all hands this is palpable. “For there exists not another name under heaven, whereby we must be saved.” This is the language of a soul which has renounced (κατεγνωκυίας) this present life. His exceeding out-spokenness proves here, that when he speaks in lowly terms of Christ, he does it not of fear, but of wise forbearance (συγκαταβαίνων): but now that it was the fitting time, he speaks not in lowly terms: by this very thing intending to strike dismay into them. Behold another miracle not less than the former. “And beholding the boldness of Peter and John,” etc. “And they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.” (Acts 4:13.) Not without a meaning has the Evangelist set down this passage; but in saying, “they recognized them that they had been with Jesus,” he means, in His Passion: for only these were [with Him] at that time, and then indeed they had seen them humble, dejected: and this it was that most surprised them: the greatness of the change. For in fact Annas and Caiaphas with their company were there, and these then also had stood by Him, and their boldness now amazed them. “And beholding the boldness.” For[65] not only their words; their very bearing showed it; that they should stand there so intrepidly to be tried in a cause like this, and with uttermost peril impending over them! Not only by their words, but by their gesture also, and their look and voice, and, in short, by everything about them, they manifested the boldness with which they confronted the people. From the things they uttered, they marvelled, perhaps: “that they were unlearned and common men:” for one may be unlearned, yet not a common or private man, and a common man, yet not unlearned. “Having perceived,” it says. Whence? From[66] what they said? Peter does not draw out long speeches, but then by his very manner and method (τἥς ἀπαγγελίας καὶ τἥς συνθήκης) he declares his confidence. “And they recognized them that they had been with Jesus.” Which circumstance made them believe that it was from Him they had learned these things, and that they did all in the character of His disciples.[67] But not less than the voice of these, the miracle uttered a voice of its own: and that sign itself stopped their mouths. [“And beholding the man,” etc.] So that they would have been peremptory (ἐπέσκηψαν) with them, if the man had not been with them. “We cannot deny it.” So that they would have denied it, if the thing had not been so: if the testimony had not been that of the people in general. “But that it spread no further among the people.” (Acts 4:17.) And yet it was palpable to all men! But such is the nature of wickedness: everywhere it is shamed. “Let us straitly threaten them.” What sayest thou? Threaten? And expect ye to stop the preaching? And[68] yet all beginnings are hard and trying. Ye slew the Master, and did not stop it: and now, if ye threaten, do ye expect to turn us back? The imprisonment did not prevail with us to speak submissively, and shall ye prevail? “And they called them, and commanded them,” etc. (Acts 4:18–19.) It[69] had been much better for them to let them go. “And Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.” When the terror was abated (for that command was tantamount to their being dismissed), then also the Apostles speak more mildly: so far were they from mere bravery: “Whether[70] it be right,” says he: and “We cannot [but speak]. Whether it be right in the sight of God to obey you rather than God.” (Acts 4:20.) Here [by “God”] they mean Christ, for he it was that commanded them. And once more they confirm the fact of His Resurrection. “For we cannot but speak the things we have seen and heard:” so that we are witnesses who have a right to be believed. “So when they had further threatened them.” (Acts 4:21.) Again they threatened in vain. “They let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.” So then the people glorified God, but these endeavored to destroy them: such fighters against God were they! Whereby they made them more conspicuous and illustrious. “For My strength,” it is said, “is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Cor. 12:9.)

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

Let us then hold fast to virtue; let not these words end only in delight, and in a certain elevation of the spirits. This is not the theatre, for singers (κιθαρώδων), and tragedians, and musicians (κιθαριστὥν), where the fruit consists only in the enjoyment and where the enjoyment itself passes with the passing day. Nay, would that it were enjoyment alone, and not mischief also with the enjoyment! But so it is: each man carries home with him much of what he has witnessed there, sticking to him like the infection of a plague: and one indeed, of the younger sort, having culled such snatches of song here and there of those satanic plays,[71] as he could fix in his memory, goes singing them about the house: while another, a senior, and forsooth too staid for such levity, does not this indeed, but what is there spoken, both the preachments and the very words, he remembers it all; and another again, some filthy and absurd ditty. From this place you depart, taking nothing with you.—We have laid down a law—nay, not we: God forbid! for it is said, “Call no man your master upon the earth” (Matt. 23:8); Christ has laid down a law that none should swear. Now, say, what has been done with regard to this law? For I will not cease speaking of it; “lest,” as the Apostle saith, “if I come again, I must not spare.” (2 Cor. 13:2.) I ask then, have you laid the matter to heart? have you thought of it seriously? have you been in earnest about it, or must we again take up the same subject? Nay, rather, whether you have or not, we will resume it, that you may think seriously about it, or, if you have laid it to heart, may again do this the more surely, and exhort others also. With what then, I pray you, with what shall we begin? Shall it be with the Old Testament? For indeed this also is to our shame, that the precepts of the Law, which we ought to surpass, we do not even thus observe! For we ought not to be hearing such matters as these: these are precepts adapted to the poor Jewish level (τἥς ᾽Ιουδαἳκἥς εὐτελείας): we ought to be hearing those counsels of perfection; “Cast away thy property, stand courageously, and give up thy life in behalf of the Gospel, scorn all the goods of earth, have nothing in common with this present life; if any wrong thee, do him good; if any defraud thee, bless him; if any revile thee, show him honor; be above everything.” (S. Ambros. de Off. i. 2.) These and such as these are what we ought to be hearing. But here are we discoursing about swearing; and our case is just the same as if, when a person ought to be a philosopher, one should take him away from the great masters, and set him to spell syllables letter by letter! Just think now what a disgrace it would be for a man having a flowing beard, and with staff in hand, and cope on shoulders,[72] to go to school with children, and be set the same tasks with them: would it not be above measure ridiculous? And yet the ridicule which belongs to us is even greater. For not as the difference between philosophy and the spelling-lesson, so is that between the Jewish polity and ours: no indeed, but as the difference between angels and men. Say now, if one could fetch down an angel from heaven, and should bid him stand here and listen to our preaching, as one whose duty it is to conform himself thereto, would it not be shameful and preposterous? But if to be yet, like children, under teaching about these things be ridiculous; what must it be, not even to attend to these things: how great the condemnation, how great the shame! To be Christians still, and to have to learn that it is not right to swear! However, let us put up with that, lest we incur even worse ridicule.

Well, then, let us speak to you to-day from the Old Testament. What does it tell us? “Accustom not thy mouth to swearing; neither use thyself to the naming of the Holy One.” And why? “For as a servant that is continually beaten shall not be without a blue mark, so he that sweareth.” (Sir. 23:10.) See the discernment of this wise man. He did not say, “Accustom not to swearing” thy mind, but “thy mouth”; because being altogether an affair of the mouth, thus it is easily remedied. For at last it becomes a habit without intention; as for instance, there are many who entering the public baths, as soon as they have passed the threshold, cross (Hom. in 1 Cor. 11:7) themselves (σφραγίζονται).[73] This the hand has got to do, without any one’s bidding, by force of habit. Again, at the lighting of a candle, often when the mind is intent on something else, the hand makes the sign. In the same way also the mouth, without concurrence of the mind, articulates the word, from mere habit, and the whole affair is in the tongue. “Neither use thyself,” he says, “to the naming of the Holy One. For as a servant that is continually beaten shall not be without a blue mark, so he that sweareth.” He speaks not here of false oaths, but he cuts down all oaths, and to them also assigns their punishment. Why then, swearing is a sin. For such in truth is the soul; full of all these ulcers, all these scars. But you do not see them? Yes, this is the mischief of it; and yet you might see if you wished; for God has given you eyes. With eyes of this kind did the Prophet see, when he said, “My wounds stink, and are corrupt, because of my foolishness.” (Ps. 38:5.) We have despised God, we have hated that good Name, we have trodden Christ under foot, we have lost all reverence, none names the Name of God with honor. Yet if you love any one, even at his name you start to your feet; but God you thus continually invoke, and make nothing of it. Call upon Him for the benefit of your enemy; call upon Him for the salvation of your own soul; then he will be present, then you will delight Him; whereas now you provoke Him to anger. Call upon Him as Stephen did; “Lord,” he said, “lay not this sin to their charge.” (Acts 7:59.) Call upon Him as did the wife of Elkanah, with tears and sobs, and prayers. (1 Sam. 1:10.) I prevent you not, rather I earnestly exhort you to it. Call upon him as Moses called upon Him, yea, cried, interceding for those[74] who had driven him into banishment. For you to make mention at random of any person of consideration, is taken as an insult: and do you bandy God about in your talk, in season, out of season? I do not want to hinder you from keeping God always in your mind: nay, this I even desire and pray for, only that you should do this, so as to honor Him. Great good would this have done us, if we had called upon God only when we ought, and for what we ought. And why, I would ask, were such miracles wrought in the Apostles’ times, and not in ours? And yet it is the same God, the same Name. But no, the case is not the same. For then they called upon Him only for those objects which I have mentioned; whereas we call upon Him not for these, but quite other purposes.—If a man refuse to believe you, and that is why you swear, say to him, “Believe me:” however, if you will needs make oath, swear by yourself. I say this, not to set up a law against Christ’s law; God forbid; for it is said. “Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay (Matt. 5:37): but by way of coming down to your present level, that I may more easily lead you to the practice of this commandment, and divert you from this tyrannical habit. How many who have done well in other respects, have been undone by these practices! Shall I tell you why it was permitted the ancients to take oaths? (for to take false oaths, was not permitted to them either.) Because they swore by idols. But are you not ashamed to rest in laws, by which they in their infirmity were led on to something better? It is true, when I take a Gentile in hand, I do not immediately lay this injunction upon him, but in the first place I exhort him to know Christ; but if the believer, who has both learnt Him and heard Him, must needs crave the same forbearance with the Gentile, what is the use, what the gain (of his Christianity?)—But the habit is strong, and you cannot detach yourself from it? Well then, since the tyranny of habit is so great, transfer it into another channel. And how is this to be done? you will ask. What I have said often, I say also now; let there be many monitors (λογισταὶ), let there be many examiners and censors (ἐξετασταὶ, δοκιμασταί). Say, if you chance to put on your[75] mantle inside out, you allow your servant to correct your mistake, and are ashamed to learn of him, although there is much to be ashamed of in this; and here when you are getting hurt to your soul, are you ashamed to be taught better by another? You suffer your menial to put your dress in order, and to fasten your shoes, and will you not endure him that would put your soul in order? Let even your menial, your child, your wife, your friend, your kinsman, your neighbor, be your teachers on this point. For as when a wild beast is hunted down from all sides, it is impossible for it to escape; so he that has so many to watch him, so many to reprove him, who is liable to be struck at from all sides, cannot help being on his guard. The first day he will find it hard to put up with, and the second, and the third; but after that it will come easier, and, the fourth passed, there will not even be anything to do. Make the experiment, if you doubt me; take it into consideration, I beseech you. It is not a trifling matter to be wrong in, nor yet to come right in; on both sides it is great for evil and for good. May the good be effected, through the grace and loving-mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily XI on Acts iv. 23.

Homily XI.

Acts 4:23

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

Not for their own glory did they tell the tale—how should such be their motive?—but what they displayed was the proofs therein exhibited of the grace of Christ. All that their adversaries had said, this they told; their own part, it is likely, they omitted: this made the hearers all the more courageous. What then? These again flee to the true Succor, to the Alliance invincible, and again, “with one accord. And when they heard that,” it is said, “with one accord they lifted up their voice to God, and said:” (Acts 4:24) and with great earnestness, for it is no prayer made at random. Observe with what exquisite propriety their prayers are framed: thus, when they besought to be shown who was meet for the Apostleship, they said, “Thou, Lord, which knowest the heart of all men, show:” (Acts 1:24) for it was a subject for Prescience there: but here, where the thing needed was that the mouths of their adversaries should be stopped, they speak of lordship; wherefore they begin thus: Lord, “(Δέσποτα) the God that madest heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: Who,[76] by the Holy Ghost through the mouth of Thy servant, David our father, didst say, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ.” (Acts 4:24–26.) It is to sue God, as one may say upon His own covenants, that they thus produce this prophecy: and at the same time to comfort themselves with the thought, that in vain are all the imaginations of their foes. This then is what they say: Bring those words into accomplishment, and show that they “imagine vain things.—For of a truth,” they proceed, “there were gathered together in this city, against Thy holy Child Jesus, (Παἵδα) Whom Thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, for to do whatsoever Thy hand and Thy counsel determined before to be done. And now, Lord, behold their threatenings.” (Acts 4:27–29.) Observe their largeness of mind (φιλοσοφίαν). These are not words of imprecation. In saying, “their threatenings, they do not mean this or that thing specifically threatened, but only in general, the fact of their threatening, perhaps, as being formidable. In fact, the writer is concise in his narrative. And observe, they do not say, “Crush them, cast them down;” but what? “And grant unto Thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak Thy word.” Let us also learn thus to pray. And yet how full of wrath one would be, when fallen among men intent upon killing him, and making threats to that effect? how full of animosity? But not so these saints. “By stretching forth Thine hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done by the Name of Thy holy Child Jesus.” (Acts 4:30.) If in that Name the mighty deeds are wrought, great will be the boldness.

“And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together.” (Acts 4:31.) This was the proof that they were heard, and of His visitation. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” What means, “They were filled?” It means, They were inflamed; and the Gift burned up within them. “And they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” (Acts 4:32.) Do you see that together with the grace of God they also contributed their part? For everywhere it ought to be well observed, that together with the grace of God they do their part likewise. Just as Peter said above, “Silver and gold have I none”; and again, that “they were all[77] together.” (Acts 3:6.) But in this place, having mentioned that they were heard, the sacred writer proceeds to speak also of them, what virtue they showed. Moreover, he is just about to enter upon the narrative of Sapphira and Ananias, and with a view to show the detestable conduct of that pair, he first discourses of the noble behavior of the rest. Now say, did their love beget their poverty, or the poverty the love? In my opinion, the love begat the poverty, and then the poverty drew tight the cords of love. For observe what he says: “They were all of one heart and of one soul.” Behold,[78] heart and soul are what make the “together.” “Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. And with great power the Apostles rendered their testimony (ἀπεδίδουν) of the resurrection.” (Acts 4:33.) The phrase betokens them to be as persons put in trust with a deposit: he speaks of it as a debt or obligation: that is, their testimony they with boldness did render, or pay off, to all. “And great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked.” (Acts 4:34.) Their feeling was just as if they were under the paternal roof, all for awhile[79] sharing alike. It is not to be said, that though indeed they maintained the rest, yet they did it with the feeling that the means whereof they maintained them were still their own. No, the admirable circumstance is this, that they first alienated their property, and so maintained the rest, on purpose that the maintenance might not come as of their own private means, but as of the common property. “For as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles’ feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” (Acts 4:35.) A great mark of honor this, that “they laid them at the Apostles’ feet. And Joses, who by the Apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (‘which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation.’)” (Acts 4:36.) I do not think that this is the same with the companion of Matthias; for that person was also called Justus and [Barsabas, but this, Joses and] “Barnabas” [“son of consolation“]. I suppose he also received the name from his virtue, as being qualified and suited for this duty. “A Levite, and of the country of Cyprus by birth.” Observe on all occasions how the writer indicates the breaking up of the Law. But how was he also a “Cyprian by birth?” Because they then even removed to other countries, and still were called Levites. “Having land, sold it, and brought the price, and laid it at the Apostles’ feet.[80]”

Let us now look over again what has been said. [“And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.”] (Recapitulation, Acts 4:23.) See the unostentatious conduct of the Apostles, and their largeness of mind. They did not go about boasting, and say, “How we served (ἀπεχρησάμεθα) the priests!” nor were they ambitious of honor: but, we read, “they came unto their own company. Observe how they do not cast themselves upon temptations, but when the temptations present themselves, with courage endure them. Had it been some other of the disciples, perhaps, emboldened by the countenance of the multitude, he might have insulted, might have vented ever so many harsh expressions. But not so these true philosophers; they do all with mildness and with gentleness. “And when they heard that, we read, with one accord they lifted up their voice to God.” (Acts 4:24.) That shout proceeded from delight and great emotion. Such indeed are the prayers which do their work, prayers replete with true philosophy, prayers offered up for such objects, by such persons, on such occasions, in such a manner; whereas all others are abominable and profane. “Lord, Thou the God that madest heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” Observe how they say nothing idle, no old wives’ talk and fables, but speak of His power. Just as Christ Himself said to the Jews, “If I by the Spirit of God do cast out devils:” behold the Father also speaks by the Spirit. For what saith it? “Lord, the God Who,[81] by the Holy Ghost, through the mouth of our father Thy servant David didst say, Why did the nations rage?” (Acts 4:25.) Scripture is wont thus to speak of one as of many. “For of a truth, Lord, against Thy Holy Child Jesus, Whom Thou didst anoint,[82] both Herod and Pontius Pilate,” etc. (Acts 4:27.) Observe how, even in prayer, they circumstantially describe the Passion, and refer all to God.—That is, Not they had power to do this: but Thou didst it all, Thou[83] that didst permit, that dost call to account, and yet didst bring to accomplishment, Thou the All-skilful and Wise, that didst serve Thee of Thine enemies for Thine own pleasure. (Acts 4:28.) “For to do whatever Thy hand,” etc. Here they discourse of His exceeding Skill and Wisdom and Power. So then, as enemies they came together, and with murderous purpose, and as opposing themselves, but they did what things Thou wouldest: “For to do,” as it is said, “whatsoever Thy hand and Thy purpose determined before to be done.” What means, “Thy hand?” Here he seems to me to denote[84] one and the same thing by power and purpose, meaning that for Thee it is enough but to will: for it is not by power that one determines. “Whatsoever Thy hand,” etc. i.e. Whatsoever Thou didst ordain: either this is the meaning, or, that by His hand He did effect. “And now, Lord, regard their threatenings.” (Acts 4:29.) As at that time, it is said, they “imagined vain things,” so “now,” grant that their imaginations may be in vain: i.e. let not their threatenings come into accomplishment. And this they said not because they would themselves deprecate any hardship, but for the preaching’s sake. For they do not say, “and deliver us out of dangers;” but what? “And grant unto Thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak Thy word.” Thou Who didst bring to pass the former designs, bring these also to accomplishment. Observe,[85] how they affirm God to be the Author of their confidence; and how they ask all for God’s sake, nothing for their own glory or ambition. They promise for their own part, that they will not be dismayed; but they pray that signs may be wrought “by stretching forth Thy hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done:” (Acts 4:30) for without these, however great the zeal they showed, they would be striving to no purpose. God assented to their prayer, and manifested this, by shaking the place. For “when they had prayed,” it is said, “the place was shaken.” (Acts 4:31.) And wherefore this was done, hear from the prophet, when he says, “He looketh on the earth, and maketh it to tremble. (Ps. 4:32.) For by this He made it manifest that He is present to their prayers. And again, another prophet saith, “The earth was shaken, and did tremble at the presence of the Lord.” (Ps. 18:7; Ps. 68:8.) And God did this, both to make it more awful, and to lead them on to a courageous trust. “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.” They[86] gained increased boldness. As it was the beginning (of their work), and they had besought a sensible sign for their persuasion (πρὸς τὸ πεισθἥναι αὐτους)—but after this we nowhere find the like happening—therefore great was the encouragement they received. In fact, they had no means of proving that He was risen, save by miraculous signs. So that it was not only their own assurance (ἀσφαλείαν) that they sought: but that they might not be put to shame, but that they might speak with boldness. “The place was shaken,” and that made them all the more unshaken. For this is sometimes a token of wrath, sometimes of favor and providence, but on the present occasion, of wrath. For[87] in those times it took place in an unusual manner. Thus, at the Crucifixion, the earth was shaken: and the Lord Himself says, “Then there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes in divers places.” (Matt. 24:7.) But then the wrath of which it was a sign was against the adversaries: as for the disciples, it filled them with the Spirit. Observe, even the Apostles, after the prayer, are “filled with the Holy Ghost.” “And[88] the multitudes of them that believed,” etc. (Acts 4:32.) Great, you perceive, is the virtue of this thing, seeing their was need of this (grace) even in that Company. For this is the foundation of all that is good, this of which he now for the second time makes mention, exhorting all men to the contempt of riches: “Neither[89] said any of them that aught of the things he possessed was his own,” “but they had all things common.” For that this was in consequence not merely of the miraculous signs, but of their own purpose, is manifest by the case of Sapphira and Ananias. “And with great power gave the Apostles witness,” etc. (Acts 4:33.) Not in word, but with power the Apostles exhibited their testimony of the Resurrection: just as Paul saith, “And my preaching was not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but with manifestation of the Spirit and of power.” And it is not merely, With power, but, “With great power.” (1 Cor. 2:4.) “And great grace,” it says, “was upon them all; for neither was there any among them that lacked.” (Acts 4:34.) This is why the grace (was upon them all,) for that “there was none that lacked:” that is, from the exceeding ardor of the givers, none was in want. For they did not give in part, and in part reserve: nor yet in giving all, give it as their own. And they lived moreover in great abundance: they removed all inequality from among them, and made a goodly order. “For as many as were possessors,” etc. And with great respect they did this: for they did not presume to give into their hands, nor did they ostentatiously present, but brought to the Apostles’ feet. To them they left it to be the dispensers, made them the owners, that thenceforth all should be defrayed as from common, not from private, property.[90] This was also a help to them against vain-glory. If this were done now, we should live more pleasant lives, both rich and poor, nor would it be more pleasant to the poor than to the rich themselves. And if you please, let us now for awhile depict it in words, and derive at least this pleasure from it, since you have no mind for it in your actions. For at any rate this is evident, even from the facts which took place then, that by selling their possessions they did not come to be in need, but made them rich that were in need. However, let us now depict this state of things in words, and let all sell their possessions, and bring them into the common stock—in words, I mean: let none be excited, rich or poor. How much gold think you would be collected? For my part, I conjecture—for of course it is not possible to speak exactly—that supposing all here, men and women, to empty out their whole property, lands, possessions, houses,—for I will not speak of slaves, since at that time there was no such thing, but doubtless such as were slaves they sat at liberty,—perhaps ten hundred thousand pounds weight of gold would be the amount collected: nay, twice or thrice as much. For consider; at what number of “juga”[91] (yokes) is our city rated? How many (of the population) shall we say are Christians? shall we say an hundred thousand, and the rest Greeks and Jews? Then what thousands (of pounds) of gold would be collected! And what is the number of poor? I do not think more than fifty thousand. Then to feed that number daily, what abundance there would be! And yet if the food were received in common, all taking their meals together, it would require no such great outlay after all. But, you will ask, what should we do after the money was spent? And do you think it ever could be spent? Would not the grace of God be ten thousand fold greater? Would not the grace of God be indeed richly poured out? Nay, should we not make it a heaven upon earth? If, where the numbers were three thousand and five thousand, the doing of this thing had such splendid success, and none of them complained of poverty, how much more glorious would this be in so vast a multitude? And even of those that are without, who would not contribute?—But, to show that it is the living separately that is expensive and causes poverty, let there be a house in which are ten children: and the wife and the man, let the one work at her wool, the other bring his earnings from his outdoor occupation: now tell me, in which way would these spend most? by taking their meals together and occupying one house, or by living separately? Of course, by living separately. For if the ten children must live apart, they would need ten several rooms, ten tables, ten attendants, and the income otherwise in proportion. Is it not for this very reason, that where there is a great number of servants, they have all one table, that the expense may not be so great? For so it is, division always makes diminution, concord and agreement make increase. The dwellers in the monasteries live just as the faithful did then: now did ever any of these die of hunger? was ever any of them not provided for with plenty of everything? Now, it seems, people are more afraid of this than of falling into a boundless and bottomless deep. But if we had made actual trial of this,[92] then indeed we should boldly venture upon this plan (τοὕ πράγματος). What grace too, think you, would there not be! For if at that time, when there was no believer but only the three thousand and the five thousand: when all, throughout the world, were enemies, when they could nowhere look for comfort, they yet boldly entered upon this plan with such success; how much more would this be the case now, when by the grace of God there are believers everywhere throughout the world? What Gentile would be left? For my part, I think there would not be one: we should so attract all, and draw them to us? But yet if we do but make[93] fair progress, I trust in God that even this shall be realized. Only do as I say, and let us successfully achieve things in their regular order; if God grant life, I trust that we shall soon bring you over to this way of life.

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

Put it in my power to speak out boldly, in the presence both of Gentiles and of Jews, and, above all, of God. Yea, I entreat you by the love, by the pangs wherewith I have travailed for your birth, “my little children.” I will not add what follows, “of whom I travail in birth again;” nor will I say, “until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. 4:19). For I am persuaded, that Christ has been formed in you. Other language I will use towards you; “My brethren, dearly beloved and longed for, my joy and my crown.” (Phil. 4:1.) Believe me that I shall use no other language. If at this moment there were placed upon my head ten thousand richly-jewelled royal crowns, they could not give me the joy which I feel at your growth in holiness; or rather, I do not think the monarch himself has such a joy, as that wherewith I joy over you. Let him have come home, victorious over all the nations at war with him, let him have won many other crowns besides the crown of his right; and receive other diadems as tokens of his victory: I do not think he would joy over his trophies, as I joy over your soul’s progress. For I exult, as if I had a thousand crowns on my head; and well may I rejoice. For if by the grace of God you achieve this good habit, you will have gained a thousand battles far more difficult than his; by wrestling and fighting with malicious demons, and fiendish spirits, with the tongue, not with sword, but by the will. For consider how much is gained, if so be that you do succeed! You have eradicated, first, a heinous habit; secondly, an evil conceit, the source of all evil, namely, the opinion that the thing is indifferent and can do no hurt; thirdly, wrath; fourthly, covetousness; for all these are the offspring of swearing. Nay, hence you will acquire a sure footing in the way to all other virtues. For as when children learn their letters, they learn not them alone, but by means of them are gradually taught to read; so shall it be with you. That evil conceit will no longer deceive you, you will not say, This is indifferent; you will no longer speak by mere habit, but will manfully stand against all, so that having perfected in all parts that virtue which is after God, you may reap eternal blessings, through the grace and loving-kindness of His Only-Begotten Son, to Whom with the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power and honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily XII on Acts iv. 36, 37.

Homily XII.

Acts 4:36–37

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

The writer is now about to relate the affair of Ananias and Sapphira, and in order to show that the man’s sin was of the worst description, he first mentions him who performed the virtuous deed; that, there being so great a multitude all doing the same, so great grace, so great miracles, he, taught by none of these, but blinded by covetousness, brought destruction upon his own head. “Having land,—meaning that this was all he possessed,—sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles’ feet. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, and kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the Apostles’ feet.” (Acts 5:1–2.) The aggravating circumstance was, that the sin was concerted, and none other saw what was done. How came it into the mind of this hapless wretch to commit this crime? “But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?” (Acts 5:3.) Observe even in this, a great miracle performed, greater far than the former. “Whiles it remained,” says he, “was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” (Acts 5:4.) That is, “Was there any obligation and force? do we constrain you against your will?” “Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost.” (Acts 5:5.) This miracle is greater than that of the lame man, in respect of the death inflicted, and the knowing what was in the thought of the heart, even what was done in secret.[94] “And great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, and wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much?” (Acts 5:6–8.) The woman he would fain save, for the man had been the author of the sin: therefore he gives her time to clear herself, and opportunity for repentance, saying, “Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Holy Ghost? Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then she fell down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost; and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things.” (Acts 5:9–11.)

After this fear had come upon them, he wrought more miracles; both Peter and the rest; “And by the hands of the Apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. And of the rest durst no man join himself to them,” i.e. to the Apostles; “but the people magnified them,” i.e. the Jewish people. If[95] “no man durst join himself unto them,” the Apostles, “there were,” however, “the more added unto the Lord, believers, multitudes both of men and of women, insomuch that they brought out into the streets their impotent folk, and laid them upon couches and beds, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.” (Acts 5:12–15.) For Peter was the wonderful one, and he to whom they more gave heed both because of his public harangue, the first and the second and the third, and because of the miracle; for he it was that wrought the miracle, the first, the second, the third: for the present miracle was twofold: first, the convicting the thoughts of the heart, and next the inflicting of death at his word of command. “That at the least the shadow of Peter passing by,” etc. This had not occurred in the history of Christ; but see here what He had told them actually coming to pass, that “they which believe on Me, the works that I do shall they do also; and greater works than these shall they do.” (John 14:12.) “There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them that were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed every one.” (Acts 5:16.)

And now I would have you observe the way in which their whole life is interwoven. First there was despondency on account of Christ taken from them, and then came joy because of the Spirit descending upon them; again, dejection because of the scoffers, and then joy in the result of their own apology. And here again we find both dejection and gladness. In that they were become conspicuous, and that God made revelations to them, there was gladness: in that they had cut off some of their own company, there was sadness. Once more: again there is gladness upon their success, and again sadness by reason of the High Priest. And so it will be seen to be the case throughout. And the same will be found to hold in the case of the ancient saints likewise.—But let us look over again what has been said.

“They sold them,” it is written, “and brought the prices, and laid them down at the Apostles’ feet.” (Recapitulation. Acts 4:34–37.) See, my beloved brethren, how instead of leaving the Apostles to sell, they themselves sold, and presented the prices to them. “But[96] a certain man named Ananias,” etc. (Acts 5:1.) This history touches Bishops too, and very forcibly. And the wife of Ananias was privy to the thing done: therefore he examines her. But perhaps some one will say that he dealt very harshly with her. What do you mean? What harshness? If for gathering sticks a man is to be stoned, much rather ought he for sacrilege; for this money was become sacred. He that has chosen to sell his goods and distribute them, and then withdraws them, is guilty of sacrilege. But if he is sacrilegious, who resumes from his own, much more he who takes from what is not his own. And do not think that because the consequence is not now the same, the crime will go unpunished. Do you see that this is the charge brought against Ananias, that having made the money sacred, he afterwards secreted it? Couldest thou not, said Peter, after selling thy land, use the proceeds as thine own? Wast thou forbidden? Wherefore after thou hadst promised it? See how at the very beginning, the devil made his attack; in the very midst of such signs and wonders, how this man was hardened! Something of the same kind had happened upon a time in the Old Testament. The son of Charmi coveted the devoted thing: for observe there also what vengeance ensues upon the sin. Sacrilege, beloved, is a most grievous crime, insulting, and full of contempt. We neither obliged thee to sell, the Apostle says, nor to give thy money when thou hadst sold; of thine own free choice thou didst it; why hast thou then stolen from the sacred treasury? “Why,” he says, “hath Satan filled thine heart?” (Acts 5:3.) Well, if Satan did the thing, why is the man made guilty of it? For admitting the influence of the devil, and being filled with it. You will say, they ought to have corrected him. But he would not have received correction; for he that has seen such things as he had seen, and is none the better, would certainly be none the better for anything else that could be done; the matter was not one to be simply passed over: like a gangrene, it must be cut out, that it might not infect the rest of the body. As it is, both the man himself is benefitted in regard that he is not left to advance further in wickedness, and the rest, in that they are made more earnest; otherwise the contrary would have ensued. In the next place, Peter proves him guilty, and shows that the deed was not hidden from him, and then pronounces the sentence. But wherefore, upon what purpose hast thou done this? Didst thou wish to keep it? Thou oughtest to have kept it all along, and never to have professed to give it. The sacrilege, beloved, is a grievous one. For another, it may be, coveted what was not his own: but it was at thy discretion to keep what was thine own. Why then didst thou first make it sacred, and then take it? Out of excessive contempt hast thou done this. The deed does not admit of pardon, it is past pleading for.—Therefore let it be no stumbling-block to any, if at present also there are sacrilegious persons. If there were such persons then, much more now, when evils are many. But let us “rebuke them before all, that others also may fear.” (1 Tim. 5:20.) Judas was sacrilegious, but it was no stumbling-block to the disciples. Do you see how many evils spring from love of money? “And great fear, it is said, came on all them that heard these things.” (Acts 5:5.) That man was punished, and others profited thereby. Not without cause. And yet, signs had been wrought before: true, but there was not such a sense of fear. So true is that saying, “The Lord is known by executing judgments.” (Ps. 9:16.) The same thing had occurred in the case of the Ark: Uzzah was punished and fear came upon the rest. (2 Sam. 6:7.) But in that instance the king through fear removed from him the Ark; but here the disciples became more earnestly heedful. [“And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in,” etc.] (Acts 5:7.) But observe how Peter, instead of sending for her, waited till she entered; and how none of the others durst carry out the intelligence. Such the teacher’s awfulness, such the disciples’ reverence, such the obedience! “An interval of three hours,”—and yet the woman did not hear of it, and none of those present reported it, although there was time enough for it to be noised abroad; but they were afraid. This circumstance the Evangelist relates with wonder even, when he says, “Not knowing what was done, came in.” “And Peter answered unto her,” etc. (Acts 5:8.) And yet she might have perceived even from this that Peter knew the secret. For why, having questioned none other, does he question you? Was it not clear that he asked because he knew? But so great was her hardness, it would not let her attempt to evade the guilt; and with great confidence she replied; for she thought she was speaking only to a man. The aggravation of the sin was, that they committed it as with one soul, just as upon a settled compact between them. “How is it that ye have agreed together,” he said, “to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door.” (Acts 5:9.) First he makes her learn the sin, and then shows that she will justly suffer the same punishment with her husband, since she has committed the same wickedness: “And they shall carry thee out. And she fell down straightway at his feet,” for she was standing near him, “and yielded up the ghost.” (Acts 5:10.) So entirely by their own act had they invited upon themselves the vengeance! Who after that would not be struck with awe? who would not fear the Apostle? who would not marvel? who not be afraid? “And they were with one accord, all of them in Solomon’s porch,” (Acts 5:12) no longer in a house, but having occupied the very Temple, they there passed their time! No longer they guarded themselves against touching the unclean; nay, without scruple they handled the dead. And observe how, while to their own people they are severe, against the aliens they do not exercise their power. “But[97] the people,” he says, “magnified them.” (Acts 5:13.) And as he had mentioned their being “in Solomon’s porch,” that you may not wonder how the multitude allowed this, he tells us that they did not dare even to approach them: for “no man,” he says, “durst join himself unto them.” “But believers were the more added unto the Lord, multitudes both of men and women: insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.” (Acts 5:14–15.) Great faith, surpassing what had been shown in the case of Christ. How comes this? Because Christ declared: “And greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto My Father.” (John 14:12.) And these things the people do, while the Apostles remain there, and are not moving about from place to place: also from other places they were all bringing [their sick] on beds and couches: and from all quarters accrued to them fresh tribute of wonder; from them that believed, from them that were healed, from him that was punished; from their boldness of speech towards those (their adversaries), from the virtuous behavior of the believers: for certainly the effect produced was not owing to the miracles only. For though the Apostles themselves modestly ascribe it all to this cause, declaring that they did these things in the name of Christ, yet at the same time the life and noble conduct of the men helped to produce this effect. “And believers were more added unto the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.” Observe, how he now no longer tells the number of them that believe; at such a rate was the faith making way even to an immense multitude, and so widely was the Resurrection proclaimed. So then “the people magnified them:” but they were now no longer lightly to be despised as once they were: for in a little moment, at a single turn of the scale, such have been the effects produced by the fisherman and by the publican! Earth was become a heaven, for manner of life, for boldness of speech, for wonders, for all besides; like Angels were they looked upon with wonder: all unconcerued for ridicule, for threats, for perils: compassionate[98] were they, and beneficent; some of them they succoured with money, and some with words, and some with healing of their bodies and of their souls; no kind of healing (πἅν εἶδος ἰατρείας) but they accomplished.

Peter all but pleads for himself, when at the point to inflict the punishment, and at the same time gives a lesson to the rest. For because the act would seem exceeding stern, therefore it is that he does so much[99] in the case.[100] In respect of the woman also the process of judgment was terrible. But[101] see how many evils grow out of the sacrilege: covetousness, contempt of God, impiety; and upon these too he pleaded for himself before the assembly, in that he did not immediately proceed to punishment, but first exposed the sin. None groaned, none lamented, all were terrified. For as their faith increased, the signs also were multiplied, and great was the fear among their own company: for the things which are from without do not so militate (πολεμεἵ) against our peace, as do the acts of our own people. If we be firmly joined together, no[102] warfare will be hard: but the mischief would be the being divided and broken up. Now they went about in the public place: with boldness they attacked even the market, and in the midst of enemies they prevailed, and that saying was fulfilled, “Be Thou Ruler in the midst among Thine enemies.” (Ps. 10:2.) This was a greater miracle, that they, arrested, cast into prison, should do such acts as these!

If those for lying suffered such things, what shall not the perjured suffer? Because she simply affirmed, “Yea, for so much,” ye see what she suffered. Bethink you then; they that swear and forswear themselves, of what should they be worthy? It[103] comes in opportunely to-day even from the Old Testament to show you the heinousness of perjury. “There was,” it says, “a flying sickle, ten cubits in breadth.” (Zech. 5:2.) The “flying” betokens the swift advent of the vengeance which pursues oaths; that it is many cubits in length and breadth, signifies the force and magnitude of the woes; that it comes flying “from heaven,” is to show that the vengeance comes from the judgment-seat on high: that it is in the form of a sickle,” denotes the inevitableness of the doom: for just as the sickle, where it comes and has hooked the neck, is not drawn back with nothing but itself, but with the head reaped off, even so the vengeance which comes upon the swearers is severe, and will not desist until it have completed its work. But if we swear and escape, let us not be confident; this is but to our woe. For what think ye? How many, since Ananias and Sapphira, have dared the same with them? How is it then, say you, that they have not met with the same fate? Not because it was allowed in them, but because they are reserved for a greater punishment. For those who often sin and are not punished, have greater reason to fear and dread than if they were punished. For the vengeance is increased for them by their present impunity and the long-suffering of God. Then let us not look to this, that we are not punished; but let us consider whether we have not sinned: if sinning we are not punished, we have the more reason to tremble. Say, if you have a slave, and you only threaten him, and do not beat him; when is he most in fear, when most inclined to run away? Is is not when you only threaten him? And hence we advise each other not to be continually using threats, thereby choosing rather to agitate the mind by the terror, and lacerating it worse than with blows. For in the one instance the punishment is momentary, but in the other it is perpetual. If then no one feels the stroke of the sickle, do not look to this, but rather let each consider whether he commits such sins. Many like things are done now as were done before the Flood, yet no flood has been sent: because there is a hell threatened, and vengeance. Many sin as the people did in Sodom, yet no rain of fire has been poured down; because a river of fire is prepared. Many go the lengths of Pharaoh; yet they have not fared like Pharaoh, they have not been drowned in a Red Sea: for the sea that awaits them, is the sea of the bottomless pit, where the punishment is not accompanied with insensibility, where there is no suffocation to end all, but in ever lengthened torture, in burning, in strangling, they are consumed there. Many have offended like the Israelites, but no serpents have devoured them: there awaits them the worm that never dieth. Many have been like Gehazi, yet they have not been struck with leprosy: for instead of leprosy, it remains for them to be cut asunder, and numbered among the hypocrites. Many have both sworn and forsworn; but if they have indeed escaped, let us not be confident: the gnashing of teeth awaits them. Yea, here too they will suffer many grievous woes, though, it may be, not immediately, but after further transgressions, that the vengeance may be the greater; for even we often set out at first with small sins, and then through great offences lose all. Therefore when you see anything happening to you, call to mind that particular sin of yours. The sons of Jacob are an example of this. Remember Joseph’s brothers; they had sold their brother, they had even attempted to slay him; nay, they had slain him, as far as inclination went; they had deceived and grieved the old man; they suffered nothing. After many years they are brought into extreme peril, and now they are put in remembrance of this their sin. Exceeding wisely is this circumstance brought in. Hear what they say: “We are verily guilty concerning our brother.” (Gen. 42:21.) In this manner then do thou also, when anything happens, say, We are verily guilty, because we have not obeyed Christ; because we have sworn; my much swearing, and my false swearing, has fallen upon my own head. Confess thou; since they also confessed, and were saved. For what though the punishment follow not immediately? Since Ahab also did not immediately after his sin in the matter of Naboth suffer that vengeance which he yet at last suffered. (1 Kgs. 21:19.) And what is the reason of this? God sets thee a time, in which to wash thyself clean; but if thou persist, at last He will send down the vengeance. You have seen the fate of liars. Consider what is the fate of false swearers, consider, and desist. It is impossible a swearer should not forswear himself, whether he will or not; and no perjurer can be saved. One false oath sufficeth to finish all, to draw down upon us the whole measure of vengeance. Let us then take heed to ourselves, that we may escape the punishment due to this offence, and be deemed worthy of the loving kindness of God, through the grace and mercies of His only-begotten Son, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Homily XIII on Acts v. 17, 18.

Homily XIII.

Acts 5:17–18

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

“Having risen up,” that is, being[104] roused, being excited at the things taking place, the high-priest and they which were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees) were filled with indignation, and laid their hands on the Apostles:” they now assault them more vigorously: “and put them in the common prison;” but did not forthwith bring them to trial, because they expected them again to be softened down. “But the Angel of the Lord opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” “And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught.” (Acts 5:19–21.) This was done both for the encouragement of the disciples, and for the benefit and instruction of the others. And observe how the proceeding in the present instance is just the same as in what Christ Himself did. Namely, in His miracles though He does not let men see them in the act of being wrought, He furnishes the means whereby they may be apprised of the things wrought: thus, in His Resurrection, He did not let them see how He rose: in the water made wine, the guests do not see it done, for they have been drinking much, and the discernment He leaves to others. Just so in the present case, they do not see them in the act of being brought forth, but the proofs from which they might gather what had been done, they do see. And it was by night that the Angel put them forth. Why was this? Because[105] in this way they were more believed than they would have been in the other: so, people would not even have had occasion to put the question: they would not in some other way have believed. So it was in the old times, in the case of Nebuchadnezzar: he saw them praising God in the furnace, and then indeed he was put in amazement. (Dan. 3:24.) Whereas then these priests ought as their first question to have asked, How came ye out? instead of this, as if nothing had happened, they ask, “Did we not straitly charge you not to speak?” (Acts 5:28.) And observe, by report of others they are apprised of all the circumstances: they see the prison remaining closed with safety, and the guards standing before the doors.[106] A twofold security this; as was the case at the sepulchre, where was both the seal, and the men to watch. See how they fought against God! Say, was this of man’s doing, that happened to them? Who led them forth, when the doors were shut? How came they out, with the keepers standing before the door? Verily they must be mad or drunken to talk so. Here are men, whom neither prison, nor bonds, nor closed doors, had been able to keep in; and yet they expect to overpower them: such is their childish folly! Their officers come and confess what has taken place, as if on purpose to debar them from all show of reason. Do you mark how there is miracle upon miracle, differing in kind, some wrought by them, others on them, and these more illustrious than the others? “And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high-priest came, and they that were with him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the officers came, and found them not in the prison, they returned, and told, saying, The prison truly found we shut with all safety, and the keepers standing without before the doors: but when we had opened, we found no man within. Now when the high-priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow.” (Acts 5:21–25.) It[107] is well ordered that the information was not brought to them at once, but they are first utterly at a loss what to think, that when they have considered it well and seen that there is a Divine Power in the case, then they may learn the whole state of the case. “Then came one, and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. Then went the captain with the other officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the multitude, lest they should have been stoned.” (Acts 5:25–26.) O the folly of the men! “They feared,” saith he, “the multitude.” Why, how had the multitude helped the Apostles? When they ought to have feared that God Who was continually delivering them like winged creatures out of their power, instead of that, “they feared the multitude!” “And the high-priest,” shameless, reckless, senseless, “asked them, saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” (Acts 5:27–28.) What then (say the Apostles)? Again with mildness they address them; and yet they might have said, “Who are ye, that ye countermand God?” But what do they say? Again in the way of exhortation and advice, and with much mildness, they make answer. “Then Peter and the other Apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29.) High magnanimity! He shows them too that they are fighting against God.[108] For, he says, Whom ye killed, Him hath God raised up. “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, Whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:30–31.) And again they refer the whole to the Father, that He should not seem to be alien to the Father. “And hath exalted,” saith He, “with his right hand.” He affirms not merely the Resurrection, but the Exaltation also. “For to give repentance to Israel.” Observe here as before the gain (to them): observe the perfection of doctrine conveyed in the form of apology. “And we are witnesses of these things.” (Acts 5:32.) Great boldness of speech! And the ground of their credibility: “And so is also the Holy Ghost, Whom God hath given to them that obey Him.” Do you observe that they allege not only the Spirit’s testimony? And they said not, “Whom He hath given” to us, but, “to them that obey Him:” therein alike showing their own unassuming temper, and intimating the greatness of the gift, and showing the hearers that it was possible for them also to receive the Spirit. See, how these people were instructed both by deeds and by words, and yet they paid no heed, that their condemnation might be just. For to this end did God suffer the Apostles to be brought to trial, that both their adversaries might be instructed, and all might learn, and that the Apostles might be invigorated to boldness of speech. “And they hearing that, were cut to the heart.” (Acts 5:33.) The[109] others (on a former occasion) “when they heard these things were pricked;” here they were cut (as with a saw) (διεπρίοντο) “and desired to slay them.” (Acts 2:37.)

But it is necessary now to look over again what we have read. “But the angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life. Brought[110] them forth.” (Recapitulation, Acts 5:19–20.) He did not bring them away to benefit themselves thereby, but, “Stand,” he says, “and speak in the temple to the people.” But if the guards had put them out, as those thought, they would have fled, that is, supposing they had been induced to come out: and if those had put them forth, they would not have stood in the temple, but would have absconded. No one is so void of sense, as not at once to see this. “Did we not straitly charge you?” (Acts 5:28.) Well, if they undertook to obey you, ye do well to call them to account: but if even at the very time they told you they would not obey, what account have you to call them to, what defence is there for them to make? “And behold ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.”[111] Mark the inconsistency of the accusations, and the exceeding folly. They want to make it appear now, that the dispositions of the Jews[112] are sanguinary, as if they were doing these things not for the truth’s sake, but in the wish to be revenged. And for this reason too the Apostles do not answer them with defiance (θρασέως): for they were teachers. And yet where is the man, who, with a whole city to back him, and endowed with so great grace, would not have spoken and uttered something big? But not so did these: for they were not angered; no, they pitied these men, and wept over them, and marked in what way they might free them from their error and wrath. And they no longer say to them, “Judge ye:” (Acts 4:19) but they simply affirm, saying, “Whom God raised up, Him do we preach: it is by the will of God that these things are done.” They said not, Did not we tell you even then, that “we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard?” (Acts 4:20.) for they are not contentious for glory; but they repeat again the same story,—the Cross, the Resurrection. And they tell not, wherefore He was crucified—that it was for our sakes: but they hint at this indeed, but not openly as yet, wishing to terrify them awhile. And yet what sort of rhetoric is here? None at all,[113] but everywhere it is still the Passion, and the Resurrection and the Ascension, and the end wherefore: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus,” etc. (Acts 5:30–31.) And yet what improbable assertions are these! Very improbable, no doubt; but for all that, not rulers, not people, had a word to say against them: but those had their mouths stopped, and these received the teaching. “And we,” saith he, “are witnesses of these things.” (Acts 5:32.) Of what things? Of His having promised forgiveness and repentance: for the Resurrection indeed was acknowledged, now. But that He giveth forgiveness, both we are witnesses, and “so is the Holy Ghost,” Who would not have come down, unless sins had been first remitted: so that this is an indisputable proof. “When they heard that, they were cut” (to the heart), “and took counsel to slay them.” (Acts 5:33.) Hearest thou of the forgiveness of sins, O wretched man, and that God doth not demand punishment, and dost thou wish to slay them? What wickedness was this! And yet, either they ought to have convicted them of lying, or if they could not do that, to have believed: but if they did not choose to believe, yet they ought not to slay them. For what was there deserving of death? Such was their intoxication, they did not even see what had taken place. Observe, how everywhere the Apostles, when they have made mention of the crime, add the mention of forgiveness; showing, that while what had been done was worthy of death, that which was given was proffered to them as to benefactors! In what other way could any one have persuaded them?

“Then stood up the high-priest,” etc. As[114] men in high repute, these (the Apostles) were about to take their place near to the Prophets. The Sadducees were they that were most sore on the subject of the Resurrection. But perchance some one will say: Why, what man, endowed with such gifts as the Apostles were, would not have been great? But consider,[115] I pray you, how, before that they were endowed with the grace, “they were continuing steadfastly with one accord in prayer” (Acts 1:14), and depending on the aid from above. And dost thou, my beloved, hope for the kingdom of heaven, yet endurest naught? And hast thou received the Spirit, yet sufferest not such things, nor encounterest perils? But they, before they had breathing-time from their former dangers, were again led into others. And even this too, that there is no arrogance, no conceit, how great a good it is! To converse with mildness, what a gain it is! For not all that they did was the immediate work of grace, but there are many marks of their own zeal as well. That the gifts of grace shine forth in them, this was from their own diligence. See, for instance, from the very beginning, how careful Peter is; how sober and vigilant: how they that believed cast away their riches, had no private property, continued in prayer, showed that they were of one mind, passed their time in fastings. What grace, I ask (alone), did all this? Therefore it is that He brings the evidence home to them through their own officers. Just as in the case of Christ, it was their officers who said, “Never man spake as this Man speaketh.” (John 7:46.) These[116] (proofs) are more apt to be believed than the Resurrection.—Observe also the moderation shown by (the rulers) themselves, and how they give way. “The high-priest asked them, saying,” etc. (Acts 5:27): here he reasons with them, forsooth, in a moderate tone; for he was frightened: indeed to hinder was what he desired rather than to kill, since that he cannot do: and with the view to rouse them all, and show them the extreme danger they are in, “And intend,” says he (to the Apostles), “to bring this man’s blood upon us.” Dost thou still take Him to be but man? He wants to make it appear that the injunction was necessary for their own safety. But mark what (Peter) says: “Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 5:31.) Here he forbears to mention the Gentiles, not to give them a handle against him. “And they desired,” it says, “to slay them.” (Acts 5:33.) See again these in perplexity, these in pain: but those in quiet and cheerfulness and delight. It is not merely, They were grieved, but “They were cut” (to the heart). Truly this makes good that proverb, “Evil do, evil fare:” as we may see in this case. Here were these men in bonds, set at the bar of judgment, and the men that sit in judgment upon them were in distress and helpless perplexity. For as he who strikes a blow upon the adamant, gets the shock of the blow himself, so it was with these men. But they saw that not only was their boldness of speech not stopped, but rather their preaching increased the more, and that they discoursed without a thought of fear, and afforded them no handles against them.

Let us imitate these, my beloved: let us be undaunted in all our dangers. There is nothing dreadful to him that fears God; but all that is dreadful is for others. For when a man is delivered from his passions, and regards all present things as a shadow, say, from whom shall he suffer anything dreadful? whom shall he have to fear? whom shall he need plead to? Let us flee to this Rock which cannot be shaken. If any one were to build for us a city, and throw up a wall around it, and remove us to a land uninhabited, where there were none to disturb us, and there supply us with abundance of everything, and not suffer us to have aught to trouble us with anybody, he would not set us in such perfect safety, as Christ hath done now. Be it a city made of brass, if you will, surrounded on all sides with a wall, lofty and impregnable, let there be no enemy near it; let it have land plentiful and rich, let there be added abundance of other things, let the citizens too be mild and gentle, and no evil-doer there, neither robber, nor thief, no informer, no court of justice, but merely agreements (συναλλάλματα); and let us dwell in this city: not even thus would it be possible to live in security. Wherefore? Because there could not but be differences with servants, with wives, with children, to be a groundwork of much discomfort. But here was nothing of the kind; for here was nothing at all to pain them or cause any discomfort. Nay, what is more wonderful to say, the very things which are thought to cause discomfort, became matter of all joy and gladness. For tell me, what was there for them to be annoyed at? what to take amiss? Shall we cite a particular case for comparison with them? Well, let there be one of consular dignity, let him be possessed of much wealth, let him dwell in the imperial city, let him have no troublesome business with anybody, but only live in delight, and have nothing else but this to do, seated at the very summit of wealth and honor and power: and let us set against him a Peter, in bonds if you will, in evils without number: and we shall find that he is the man that lives the most delightfully. For when there is such excess of joy, as to be delighted when in bonds, think what must be the greatness of that joy! For like as those who are high in office, whatsoever evils may happen, are not sensible of them, but continue in enjoyment: so did these the more rejoice on account of these very evils. For it is impossible, impossible in words to express how great pleasure falls to their lot, who suffer for Christ’s sake: for they rejoice in their sufferings, rather than in their good things. Whoso loves Christ, knows what I say.—But what as regards safety? And who, I ask, if he were ever so rich, could have escaped so many perils, going about among so many different nations, for the sole purpose[117] of bringing about a reformation in their manner of life? For it was just as if by royal mandate that they carried all before them, nay, far more easily, for never mandate could have been so effectual, as their words were. For the royal edict compels by necessity, but these drew men willingly and spontaneously, yea, and with hearts above measure thankful. What royal edict, I ask, would ever have persuaded men to part with all their property and their lives; to despise home, country, kindred, yea, even self-preservation? Yet the voices of fishermen and tent-makers availed for this. So that they were both happy, and more powerful and strong than all others. “Yes,” say you, “those of course were, for they wrought miracles.” (supra, p. 83, note 4.) But I ask what miracles did those who believed work, the three thousand, and the five thousand; and yet these, we read, passed their time in gladness? And well they might: for that which is the groundwork of all discomforts, the possession of riches, was done away with. For that, that, I say, was ever the cause both of wars and fighting, and grief, and discomfort, and all evils: the thing which makes life full of labor and troubles, it is that. And indeed it would be found that many more rich than poor have reason to be sad. If any think this is not true, their notion is derived not from the nature of the things, but from their own fancy. And if the rich do enjoy some sort of pleasure, this is not to be wondered at: for even those who are covered all over with the itch, have a good deal of pleasure. For that the rich are for all the world like these, and their mind affected in the same sort, is plain from this circumstance. Their cares annoy them, and they choose to be engrossed with them for the sake of the momentary pleasure: while those who are free from these affections, are in health and without discomfort. Whether is more pleasant, I ask, whether of the two more safe? To have to take thought only for a single loaf of bread and suit of clothes, or for an immense family, both slaves and freemen, not having care about himself (only)? For as this man has his fears for himself, so have you for those who depend on your own person. Why,[118] I pray you, does poverty seem a thing to be shunned? Just in the same way as other good things are, in the judgment of many, things to be deprecated. “Yes,” say you, “but it is not that those good things are subjects for deprecation, but that they are hard of attainment.” Well, so is poverty, not a thing to be deprecated, but hard of attainment: so that if one could bear it, there would be no reason to deprecate it. For how is it that the Apostles did not deprecate it? how is it that many even choose it, and so far from deprecating, even run to it? For that which is really a thing to be deprecated, cannot be an object of choice save to madmen. But if it be the men of philosophic and elevated minds that betake themselves to this, as to a safe and salubrious retreat, no wonder if to the rest it wears a different appearance. For, in truth, the rich man seems to me to be just like a city, unwalled, situated in a plain, inviting assailants from all sides: but poverty, a secure fortress, strong as brass can make it, and the way up to it difficult. “And yet,” say you, “the fact is just the reverse: for these are they, who are often dragged into courts of law, these are they who are overborne and ill-treated.” No: not the poor, as poor, but those who being poor want to be rich. But I am not speaking of them, but of such as make it their study to live in poverty. For say, how comes it that nobody ever drags the brethren of the hills into courts of law? and yet if to be poor is to be a mark for oppression, those ought most of all to be dragged thither, since they are poorer than all others. How comes it that nobody drags the common mendicants into the law-courts? Because they are come to the extreme of poverty. How is it that none does violence to them, none lays vexatious informations against them? Because they abide in a stronghold too safe for that. How many think it a condition hard to struggle against, poverty, I mean, and begging! What then, I ask, is it a good thing to beg? “It is good, if there be comfort,” say you; “if there be one to give: it is a life so free from trouble and reverses, as every one knows.” But I do not mean to commend this; God forbid! what I advise is the not aiming at riches.

For say, whom would you rather call blessed? those who find themselves at home with virtue, (ἐπιτηδείους πρὸς ἀρετήν) or those who stand aloof? Of course, those who are near. Say then, which of the two is the man to learn anything that is profitable, and to shine in the true wisdom? the former, or the latter? The first, all must see. If you doubt it, satisfy yourself in this way. Fetch hither from the market-place any of the poor wretches there; let him be a cripple, lame, maimed: and then produce some other person, comely of aspect, strong in body, full of life and vigor in every part, overflowing with riches: let him be of illustrious birth, and possessed of great power. Then let us bring both these into the school of philosophy: which of them, I ask, is more likely to receive the things taught? The first precept, at the outset, “Be lowly and moderate” (for this is Christ’s command): which will be most able to fulfil it, this one or the other? “Blessed are they that mourn” (Matt. 5:4): which will most receive this saying? “Blessed are the lowly:” which will most listen to this? “Blessed are the pure in heart. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake” (Matt. 5:8; Matt. 5:6; Matt. 5:10). Which will with ease receive these sayings? And, if you will, let us apply to all of them these rules, and see how they will fit. Is not the one inflamed and swollen all over, while the other is ever lowly minded and subdued in his whole bearing? It is quite plain. Yes, and there is a saying to that effect among those that are without: “(I was) a slave,[119] Epictetus by name, a cripple in body, for poverty a very Irus, and a friend of the Immortals.” For how, I would ask, can it be otherwise, but that the soul of the rich must teem with evils; folly, vainglory, numberless lusts, anger and passion, covetousness, iniquity, and what not? So that even for philosophy, the former is more congenially (ἐπιτηδεία) disposed than the latter. By all means seek to ascertain which is the more pleasant: for this I see is the point everywhere discussed, whether such an one has the more enjoyable way of life. And yet even as regards this, we need not be in doubt; for to be near to health, is also to have much enjoyment. But whether of the two, I would ask, is best disposed (ἐπιτήδειος) to the matter now in hand, that which we will needs carry into accomplishment—our law, I mean—the poor man or the rich? Whether of them will be apt to swear? The man who has children to be provoked with, the man who has his covenants with innumerable parties, or the man who is concerned to apply for just a loaf of bread or a garment? This man has not even need of oaths, should he wish, but always lives free from cares of business; nay, more, it is often seen that he who is disciplined to swear not at all, will also despise riches; and one shall see in his whole behavior his ways all branching off from this one good habit, and leading to meekness, to contempt of riches, to piety, to subduedness of soul, to compunction of heart. Then let us not be indolent, my beloved, but let us again show great earnestness: they who have succeeded, that they may keep the success achieved, that they be not easily caught by the receding wave, nor the refluent tide carry them back again [they[120] too who are yet behindhand, that they may be raised up again, and strive to make up that which is wanting. And meanwhile let those who have succeeded, help those who have not been able to do the same]: and by reaching out their hands, as they would to men struggling in the deep water, receive them into the haven of no-swearing (ἀνωμοσίας). For it is indeed a haven of safety, to swear not at all: whatever storms burst upon us, to be in no danger of sinking there: be it anger, be it insult, be it passion, be it what it may, the soul is stayed securely; yea, though one have vented some chance word or other that ought not, and had been better not, to be spoken, yet he has laid himself under no necessity, no law. (Supra, Hom. ix. §5. ad. Pop. Ant. viii. §3.) See what Herod did for his oath’s sake: he cut off the head of the Fore-runner. “But because of his oaths,” it says, “and because of them which sat at meat with him” (Mark 6:26), he cut off the head of the Prophet. Think what the tribes had to suffer for their oath in the matter of the tribe of Benjamin (Judg. 21:5–10): what Saul had to suffer for his oath (1 Sam. 14:24, etc.). For Saul indeed perjured himself, but Herod did what was even worse than perjury, he committed murder. Joshua again—you know how it fared with him, for his oath in the matter of the Gibeonites. (Josh. 9.) For it is indeed a snare of Satan, this swearing. Let us burst[121] the cords; let us bring ourselves into a condition in which it will be easy (not to swear); let us break loose from every entanglement, and from this snare of Satan. Let us fear the command of the Lord: let us settle ourselves in the best of habits: that, making progress, and having achieved this and the rest of the commandments, we may obtain those good things which are promised to them that love Him, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost together be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Homily XIV on Acts v. 34.

Homily XIV.

Acts 5:34

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

This Gamaliel was Paul’s teacher. And one may well wonder, how, being so right-minded in his judgment, and withal learned in the law, he did not yet believe. But it cannot be that he should have continued in unbelief to the end.[122] Indeed it appears plainly from the words he here speaks. He “commanded,” it says, “to put the men forth a little space [and said unto them.]” Observe how judiciously he frames his speech, and how he immediately at the very outset puts them in fear. And that he may not be suspected of taking their part, he addresses them as if he and they were of the same opinion, and does not use much vehemence, but as speaking to men intoxicated through passion, he thus expresses himself: “Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.” (Acts 5:35.) Do not, he would say, go to work rashly and in a hurry. “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody: to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to naught.” (Acts 5:36.) By examples he teaches them prudence; and, by way of encouragement, mentions last the man who seduced the greatest number. Now before he gives the examples, he says, “Take heed to yourselves;” but when he has cited them, then he declares his opinion, and says, “Refrain from these men.” For, says he, “there rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to naught. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow them.” (al. it) (Acts 5:37–39.) Then[123] what is there, he would say, to hinder you to be overthrown? For, says he (take heed), “lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” He would dissuade them both by the consideration that the thing is impossible, and because it is not for their good. And he does not say by whom these people were destroyed, but that there they “were scattered,” and their confederacy fell away to nothing. For if, says he, it be of man, what needs any ado on your part? but if it be of God, for all your ado you will not be able to overcome it. The argument is unanswerable. “And they were persuaded by him.” (Acts 5:40.) How were they persuaded? So as not to slay them, but merely to scourge. For, it says, “And when they had called the Apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” See after what great works they are scourged! And again their teaching became more extended: for they taught at home and in the temple, “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. (Acts 5:41–42.) And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” (Acts 6:1.) Not absolutely in those immediate days; for it is the custom of Scripture to speak of things next about to happen, as taking place in immediate succession. But by “Hellenists” I suppose he means those who spoke Greek [“against the Hebrews”]: for[124] they did not use the Greek language. Behold another trial! observe how from within and from without there are warrings, from the very first! “Then,” it says, “the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” (Acts 6:2.) Well said: for the needful must give precedence to the more needful. But see, how straightway they both take thought for these (inferior matters), and yet do not neglect the preaching. “Because their widows were overlooked:” for those (the Hebrews) were treated as the persons of greater consequence (αἰδεσιμώτεροι). “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 6:3–5.) so were the others also full of faith;[125] not to have the same things happening as in the case of Judas, as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira—“and Philip, and Prochoras, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” (Acts 6:5–7.)

But[126] let us look over again what has been spoken. “Ye men of Israel take heed to yourselves.”(Recapitulation, Acts 5:35.) See here, I pray you, how mildly Gamaliel reasons, and how he says but a few words to them, and does not recount ancient histories, although he might have done so, but more recent instances, which are most powerful to produce belief. With this view he throws out a hint himself, saying, “For before these days” (Acts 5:36): meaning, not many days before. Now had he at once said, “Let these men go,” both himself would have fallen into suspicion, and his speech would not have been so effective: but after the examples, it acquired its own proper force. And he mentions not one instance, but a second also: “for,” saith the Scripture, “in the mouth of two witnesses” (Matt. 18:16): and yet he had it in his power to mention even three. “Refrain from these men.” (Acts 5:38.) See how mild his manner is, and his speech not long, but concise, and his mention even of those (impostors) how free from passion: “And all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered.” And[127] for all this he does not blaspheme Christ. They heard him, all these unbelievers, heard him, these Jews. [“For if this council or this work be of men, it will come to naught.”] Well then, since it did not come to nought, it is not of men. [“But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.”] (Acts 5:39.) Once more he checks them by the impossibility and the inexpediency of the thing, saying, “Lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”[128] And he does not say, If Christ be God; but the work (itself) declares (this). He does not pronounce upon it, either that, it is “of men,” or that it is “of God;” but he leaves the proof to the future. “They were persuaded [by him].” (Acts 5:40.) Then why, it may be asked, do ye scourge them? Such was the incontrovertible justness of his speech, they could not look it in the face; nevertheless, they sated their own animosity; and again they expected to terrify them in this way. By the fact also of his saying these things not in the presence of the Apostles, he gained a hearing more than he would otherwise have done; and then the suavity of his discourse and the justness of what was said, helped to persuade them. In fact, this man all but preached the Gospel. “[129]Ye were persuaded,” one may say, “that ye had not strength to overthrow it. Wherefore did ye not believe?” Such is the witness borne even by enemies. There it is four hundred, there, four thousand: and here the first movers were twelve. Let not the number which added itself affright you. (Acts 2:41; Acts 4:4.) He might also have mentioned another instance, that of the Egyptian, but what he has spoken is fully sufficient. And he closes his speech with an alarming topic: “Lest haply,” etc. And he does not pronounce upon it, lest he should seem to be pleading their cause; but he reasons by way of syllogism from the issue of the matter. And he does not venture to pronounce that it is not of men, nor yet that it is of God; for had he said that it was of God, they would have gainsaid him: but had he said that it was of men, they would again have taken prompt measures. Therefore he bids them wait for the end, saying, “Refrain.” But they once more threaten knowing indeed that they avail nothing, but doing after their manner. Such is the nature of wickedness: it attempts even impossibilities.—“And after this man rose up Judas,” etc. These things Josephus relates in detail. (Ant. xx. 8; ib. v. 2; xviii. 1. B. J. ii. 8. 1.) But what a great thing it was that he ventured to affirm: that it was of God, when in the sequel it received its proof from the events! Great boldness of speech, great freedom from all respect of persons![130] And he does not say, “But if ye do not overthrow it, it is of God;” but, “If it be of God, it will not be overthrown.” “And to him they agreed.” (Acts 5:40.) They reverenced the high character of the man. “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ.” (Acts 5:41.) What miracles so wonderful as this? Nowhere is the like of this recorded of the old saints: for Jeremiah indeed was scourged for the word of God, and they threatened Elijah, and the rest: but in this case, even by this very thing, and not only by their miracles, these showed forth the power of God. He does not say, that they were not pained, but that though pained they rejoiced. How does this appear? From their boldness afterwards: they were so instant still, even after their beatings, in preaching the word. “But in the temple,” it says, “and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” (Acts 5:42.) “And in those days”—when these things were done, when there were scourgings, when there were threatenings, when the disciples were multiplying—also, it says, “there arose a murmuring.” (Acts 6:1.) And this comes of the multitude: for it is impossible to have strict order in a multitude. “There arose a murmuring,” etc. to,—“And[131] a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.—There arose murmuring against the Hebrews”—for that description of people seemed to be more honorable—“because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.”[132] (Acts 6:1–7.) So then there was a daily ministration for the widows. And observe how he calls it a “ministration” (διακονία), and not directly alms: extolling by this at once the doers, and those to whom it was done. “Were neglected.” This did not arise from malice, but perhaps from the carelessness of the multitude. And therefore he brought it forward openly, for this was no small evil. Observe, how even in the beginning the evils came not only from without, but also from within. For you must not look to this only, that it was set to rights, but observe that it was a great evil that it existed.[133] “Then the twelve,” etc. (Acts 6:2.) Do you observe[134] how outward concerns succeed to inward? They do not act at their own discretion, but plead for themselves to the congregation. So ought it to be done now. “It is not reason,” says he, “that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” First he puts to them the unreasonableness of the thing; that it is not possible for both things to be done with the same attention: just as when they were about to ordain Matthias, they first show the necessity of the thing, that one was deficient, and there must needs be twelve. And so here they showed the necessity; and they did it not sooner, but waited till the murmuring arose; nor, on the other hand, did they suffer this to spread far. And, lo! they leave the decision to them: those who pleased all, those who of all were honestly reputed, them they present:[135] not now twelve, but “seven, full of the Spirit and of wisdom: well reported of” for their conversation. (Acts 6:3.) Now when Matthias was to be presented, it was said, “Therefore must one of these men which have companied with us all the time” (Acts 1:21): but not so here: for the case was not alike. And they do not now put it to the lot; they might indeed themselves have made the election, as moved by the Spirit: but nevertheless, they desire the testimony of the people. The fixing the number, and the ordaining them, and for this kind of business, rested with them: but the choice of the men they make over to the people, that they might not seem to act from favor: just as God also leaves it to Moses to choose as elders those whom he knew. (Num. 11:16.) “And of wisdom.” For indeed there needs much wisdom in such ministrations. For think not, because he hath not the word committed unto him, that such an one has no need of wisdom: he does need it, and much too. “But we,” saith he, “will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” (Acts 6:4.) Again they plead for themselves, beginning and ending with this. “Will give ourselves continually,” he saith. For so it behooved, not just to do the mere acts, or in any chance way, but to be continually doing them. “And the saying,” we are told, “pleased the whole multitude.” (Acts 6:5–6.) This too was worthy of their wisdom. All approved of what was said so sensible was it. “And they chose,” it says (again it is the people (αὐτοί) that choose,) “Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” They separated them from the multitude, and it is the people (αὐτοί) that draw them, not the Apostles that lead them. Observe how he avoids all that is superfluous: he does not tell in what way it was done, but that they were ordained (ἐχειροτονήθησαν) with prayer: for this is the meaning of χειροτονία, (i.e. “putting forth the hand,”) or ordination: the hand of the man is laid upon (the person,) but the whole work is of God, and it is His hand which toucheth the head of the one ordained, if he be duly ordained. “And the word of God,” it says, “increased: and the number of the disciples multiplied.” (Acts 6:7.) It is not for nothing that he says this: it shows how great is the virtue of alms and good order. And as he is about in the sequel to enlarge (αὔξειν) upon the affair of Stephen, he puts first the causes which led to it. “And many,” he says, “of the priests were obedient to the faith.” For[136] since they perceived such to be the mind of their ruler and teacher, they put the matter to the test of facts.—It is also a subject for wonder, how it was that the multitude was not divided in its choice of the men, and how it was that the Apostles were not rejected by them. But what sort of rank these bore, and what sort of office they received, this is what we need to learn. Was it that of Deacons? And yet this is not the case in the Churches. But[137] is it to the Presbyters that the management belongs? And yet at present there was no Bishop, but the Apostles only. Whence I think it clearly and manifestily follows, that neither Deacons nor Presbyters is their designation: but it was for this particular purpose that they were ordained.[138] And this business was not simply handed over to them without further ceremony, but the Apostles prayed over them, that power might be given to them. But observe, I pray you, if there were need of seven men for this, great in proportion must have been the sums of money that flowed in, great in proportion also the number of widows. So then the prayers were not made in an off-hand way, but with much deliberate attention: and this office,[139] as well as preaching, was thus brought to good effect; for what they did, they effected mostly by the means of these (their prayers.) Thus they were enabled to give their attention to things spiritual; thus were these also free to undertake long journeys; thus were these put in trust with the word. But the writer does not say this, nor extol them, but that it was “not reason” that they should leave the work given to them. Thus they had been taught by Moses’s example not to undertake the management of everything by themselves. (Num. 11:14.) “Only,” it is said, “that we should remember the poor.” (Gal. 2:10.) And[140] how did they bring these forward? They fasted. “Look you out seven men,” etc. (Acts 6:3.) It is not simply, spiritual men, but, “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” for it needed very great superiority of mind (φιλοσοφίας) to bear the complainings of widows. For what profits it, that the dispenser of alms steal not, if nevertheless he waste all, or be harsh and easily provoked? “And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 6:5.) And in this regard Philip also was admirable: for it is of him that the writer says: “And we entered into the house of Philip the Evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.”—(Acts 21:8.) Dost thou mark how matters are ordered quite otherwise than after the matter of men? “And the number of disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem.” (Acts 6:7.) In Jerusalem the multitude increased. Wonderful, where Christ was slain, there the preaching increased! And not only was it not the case that some were offended then in the manner of Ananias, but the awe became even greater: while these are scourged, those threatening, those tempting the Spirit, those murmuring. But I would have thee remark under what circumstances the multitude increased: after these trials, then it was that the multitude increased, and not before. Mark also how great the mercy of God. Of those chief-priests, of the very men who had indignation and sore displeasure and so cried out and said, “He saved others, Himself He cannot save;” of these same, “Many,” it says, “were obedient unto the faith.” (Matt. 27:42.)

Him therefore let us also imitate. He received them, and did not cast them out. So let us requite those our enemies, who have wrought us even numberless ills. Whatever good thing we may have, let us impart to them: let us not pass them by, in our acts of beneficence. For if we ought, by suffering ill, to sate their rage, much more, by doing them good: for this is a less thing than the other. For it is not all alike, to do good to an enemy, and to be willing to suffer greater wrongs than he wishes (to inflict):[141] from the one we shall come on to the other. This is the dignity of Christ’s disciples. Those crucified Him, when He had come for the very purpose of doing them good; His disciples they scourged; and after all this, He admits them to the same honor with His disciples, making them equally partakers of His gifts. I beseech you, let us be imitators of Christ: in this regard it is possible to imitate Him: this makes a man like unto God: this is more than human. Let us hold fast to Mercy: she is the schoolmistress and teacher of that higher Wisdom. He that has learnt to show mercy to the distressed, will learn also not to resent injuries; he that has learnt this, will be able to do good even to his enemies. Let us learn to feel for the ills our neighbors suffer, and we shall learn to endure the ills they inflict. Let us ask the person himself who ill-treats us, whether he does not condemn himself? would he not be glad to show a nobler spirit (φιλοσοφεἵν)? must he not own that his behavior is nothing but passion, that it is little-minded, pitiful? would he not like to be of those who are wronged and are silent, and not of those who do wrong, and are beside themselves with passion? can he go away not admiring the patient sufferer? Do not imagine that this makes men despicable. Nothing makes men so despicable, as insolent and injurious behavior: nothing makes men so respectable, as endurance under insolence and injury. For the one is a ruffian, the other a philosopher; the one is less than man, the other is equal to angels. For though he be inferior to the wrong-doer, yet, for all that, he has the power, if he had the mind, to be revenged. And besides, the one is pitied by all, the other hated. What then? The former will be much the better of the two: for everybody will treat the one as a madman, the other as a man of sense. He[142] cannot speak of him in evil sort: yea, thou fearest, says one, lest perchance he be not such (as thou wouldest represent). Best that thou speak not evil in thy thought even; next, that thou speak it not to another. Pray not then to God against this man: if thou hear him evil-spoken of, take his part: say, It was passion that spoke such words, not the man; say, It was anger, not my friend: his madness, not his heart. Thus let us account of each offence. Wait not for the fire to be kindled, but check it before it comes to that: do not exasperate the savage beast, rather do not suffer it to become exasperated: for thou wilt no longer be able to check it, if once the flame be kindled. For what has the man called thee? “Thou fool and simpleton.” And which then is liable to the name? the called, or the caller? For the one, be he ever so wise, gets the character of being a fool: but the other, even if he be a simpleton, gets credit for being wise, and of philosophic temper. Say, which is the simpleton? he who alleges against another what is untrue, or he who even under such treatment is unmoved? For if it be the mark of true philosophy to be unmoved however moved; to fall into a passion when none moves to anger—what folly is it! I say not yet, how sore a manner of punishment is in store for those who utter such reproaches and revilings against their neighbor. But how? has he called thee “a low fellow and low-born, a sorry creature and of sorry extraction?” Again he has turned the taunt against himself. For the other will appear worthy and respectable, but he a sorry creature indeed: for to cast up such things, that is to say, meanness of birth, as a disgrace, is little-minded indeed: while the other will be thought a great and admirable character, because he thinks nothing of such a taunt, and is no more affected by it than if he were told[143] that he had about him any other ordinary and quite indifferent circumstance. But does he call thee “adulterer,” and such like? At this thou mayest even laugh: for, when the conscience is not smitten, there can be no occasion for wrath. * * For when one has considered what bad and disgraceful disclosures he makes, still for all that, there is no need to grieve. He has but laid bare now, what everybody must be apprised of by and bye: meanwhile, as regards himself he has shown all men that he is not to be trusted, for that he knows not how to screen his neighbor’s faults: he has disgraced himself more than he has the other; has stopped up against himself every harbor: has made terrible to himself the bar at which he must hereafter be tried. For not the person (whose secrets are betrayed) will be the object of everybody’s aversion, but he, who where he ought not to have raised the veil, has stripped off the clothes. But speak thou nothing of the secrets thou knowest: hold thou thy peace if thou wouldest bear off the good fame. For not only wilt thou overthrow what has been spoken, and hide it: but thou wilt also bring about another capital result: thou wilt stop sentence being given against thyself. Does somebody speak evil of thee? Say thou: “Had he known all, he would not have spoken only thus much.”—So you admire what has been said, and are delighted with it? Aye, but you must follow it. For when we tell you all[144] these maxims of the heathen moralists, it is not because Scripture does not contain hundreds of such sayings, but because these are of more force to put you to the blush. As in fact Scripture itself is wont to use this appeal to our sense of shame; for, instance, when it says, “Do ye even as the heathen.” (Jer. 35:3.) And the prophet Jeremiah brought forward into public view the children of Rechab, how they would not consent to violate the command of their father.—Miriam and her company spake evil of Moses, and he immediately begged them off from their punishment; nay, would not so much as let it be known that his cause was avenged. (Num. 12.) But not so we: on the contrary, this is what we most desire; to have all men know that they have not passed unpunished. How long shall we breathe of the earth?—One party cannot make a fight. Pluck the madmen from both sides, you will exasperate them the more: but pluck from right or from left, and you have quenched the passion. The striker, if he has to do with one who will not put up with blows, is the more set on: but if with one who yields, he is the sooner unnerved, and his blow is spent upon himself. For no practised pugilist so unnerves the strength of his antagonist, as does a man who being injuriously treated makes no return. For the other only goes off ashamed, and condemned, first by his own conscience, and secondly by all the lookers on. And there is a proverb too, which says, that “to honor another, is to honor one’s self”: therefore also to abuse another is to abuse one’s self. None, I repeat, will be able to harm us, unless we harm ourselves; nor will any make me poor, unless I make myself such. For come, let us look at it in this way. Suppose that I have a beggarly soul, and let all lavish all their substance upon me, what of that? So long as the soul is not changed, it is all in vain. Suppose I have a noble soul, and let all men take from me my substance: what of that? So long as you do not make the soul beggarly, no harm is done. Suppose my life be impure, and let all men say just the contrary of me: what of that? For though they say it, yet they do not judge thus of me in their heart. Again, suppose my life be pure, and let all say of me just the reverse: and what of that? For in their own conscience they will condemn themselves: since they are not persuaded of what they say. Just as we ought not to admit the praise, so neither the criminations. And why say I these things? None will ever be able to plot against us, nor lay us under any evil charge, if we choose (that they shall not). For how now, I ask you? Let him drag me into a court of justice, let him lay vexatious informations, let him, if you will, have the very soul out of me: and what of that? for a little while, undeservedly to suffer these things, what does it signify? “Well,[145] but this,” say you, “is of itself an evil.” Well, but of itself this is a good, to suffer undeservedly. What? would you have the suffering to be deserved? Let me mention again a piece of philosophy, from one of the sages. A certain person, says the story, had been put to death. And one of the sage’s disciples said to him, “Woe is me, that he should have suffered unjustly!” The other turned upon him, “Why, how now?” said he, “would you have had him justly suffer?” (Socrates ap. Diog. Laert. and Xen. Mem. Socr.) John also, was not he unjustly put to death? Which then do you rather pity: them that justly suffer death, or [him?[146] Do you not count them miserable, while] him you even admire? Then what is a man injured, when from death itself he has got great gain, not merely no hurt? If indeed the man had been immortal, and this made him mortal, no doubt it would be a hurt: but if he be mortal, and in the course of nature must expect death a little later, and his enemy has but expedited his death, and glory with it, what is the harm? Let us but have our soul in good order, and there will be no harm from without. But thou art not in a condition of glory? And what of that? That which is true of wealth, the same holds for glory: if I be magnanimous (μεγαλοπρεπής), I shall need none; if vainglorious, the more I get, the more I shall want. In this way shall I most become illustrious, and obtain greater glory; namely, if I despise glory. Knowing these things, let us be thankful to Him Who hath freely given us such a life, and let us ensue it unto His glory; for to Him belongs the glory, forever. Amen.

Homily XV on Acts vi. 8.

Homily XV.

Acts 6:8

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

See how even among the seven one was preëminent, and won the first prize. For though the ordination was common to him and them, yet he drew upon himself greater grace. And observe, how he wrought no (signs and wonders) before this time, but only when he became publicly known; to show that grace alone is not sufficient, but there must be ordination also; so that there was a further access of the Spirit. For if they were full of the Spirit, it was of that which is from the Laver of Baptism. “Then there arose certain of them of the synagogue.” (Acts 6:9.) Again he uses the phrase of “rising up” (ἀνάστασιν, Hom. xiii. p. 81), to denote their exasperation and wrath. Here we have a great multitude. And observe the difference in the form of accusation: for since Gamaliel had stopped them from finding fault on the former plea, they bring in another charge. “And there rose up, it says, certain of them of the synagogue of those who are called (τὥν λεγομένων. Edd. τἥς λεγομένης) Libertines, and of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” (Acts 6:9–12.) That they may establish the charge, the phrase is, “he speaks against God, and against Moses.” And with this object too they disputed, that they might force him to say somewhat. But he now discoursed more openly, and perhaps spoke of the cessation of the Divine Law: or, spoke it not, but hinted as much: since had he spoken plainly, there had been no need of suborned men, nor yet of false witnesses.[147] The synagogues were diverse: [to wit, “Of the Libertines”]: “of the Cyrenians, i.e. those in the parts beyond Alexandria [“of the Alexandrians,” etc.]. There also they seem to have had synagogues according to their different nations; for many stayed behind there, that they might not be obliged to be continually travelling. The Libertines perhaps were freedmen of the Romans. As there were many foreigners dwelling there, so they had their synagogues, where the Law was to be read. “Disputing with Stephen.” Observe him, not taking upon him to teach, but forced to do so. The miracles once more brought him into ill-will; but when he overcame in argument, it was false-witness! For they did not wish to kill intolerable to them. “They could not resist, etc.: then they suborned men.” Everywhere out of hand, but by means of a sentence, that they might hurt their reputation also: and leaving those (the Apostles), they attack these (the disciples), thinking in this way to terrify those also. They say not, “he speaketh,” but, “he ceaseth not to speak. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law.” (Acts 6:12–13.) “Ceaseth not,” say they, as if he made this his business. “For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” (Acts 6:14.) “Jesus,” they say, “the Nazarene,” as a term of reproach, “shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs.” This is also what they said about Christ. “Thou that destroyest this Temple.” (Matt. 27:40.) For great was their veneration for the Temple (as indeed they had chosen to leave their own country (μετοικεἴν) in order to be near it) and for the name of Moses. The charge is twofold. If[148] He “shall change the customs,” He will also introduce others instead: observe how the charge is a bitter one, and fraught with perils. “And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” (Acts 6:15.) So possible is it even for one in a lower degree to shine. For what, I ask, had this man less than the Apostles? He lacked not miracles, and great was the boldness he exhibited.[149]—“They saw His face,” it is said, “as it had been the face of an angel.” (Exod. 34:30.) For this was his grace, this was the glory of Moses. God made him thus gracious (ἐπίχαριν) of visage, now that he was about to say somewhat, thus at once by his very look to awe them. For there are, yes, there are faces full-fraught with spiritual grace, lovely to them that love, awful to haters and enemies. It mentions also the reason, why they suffered his oration.—“Then,” it proceeds, “said the high-priest, Are these things so?” (Acts 7:1.) Observe, the question is put with mildness, that he may effect some great mischief. For this reason Stephen too begins his speech in a tone of gentleness, and says, “Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.” (Acts 7:2.) Immediately at the outset he overthrows their conceit, and makes it appear by what he says, that the temple is nothing, that the customs are nothing either, without their suspecting his drift: also that they shall not overcome the preaching; and that from powerless (ἀμηχάνων) things God evermore contrives Him powerful (εὐμήχανα) instruments. Mark then how these threads make the texture of the whole speech: and moreover that having evermore enjoyed exceeding goodness, they still requited their Benefactor with the opposite conduct, and that they are now attempting impossibilities. “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he came into Charran.” Both the temple was not, and sacrifice was not, and yet a vision of God was vouchsafed to Abraham, and yet had he Persians[150] for his ancestors, and was in a strange land. And he does well at the beginning of his speech to call Him, “the God of glory:” seeing that He hath made them that are without honor to be glorious. “Because” (says he) “it was He that made them glorious, He will make us also.” Observe how he leads them away from things of the body, from the place, in the first instance, as the place was in question. “The God of glory,” says he: implying again, that He needs not the glory which comes from us, which comes by the Temple: for Himself is the Fountain thereof. Think not, he would say, in this way to glorify Him. “And from thy kindred.” How[151] then saith the Scripture, that Abraham’s father was willing to go out? Hence we learn, that it was in consequence of Abraham’s vision, that his father was moved to join in the migration. (Gen. 11:31.) “And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I shall show thee.” (Acts 7:3.) It shows how far these men are from being children of Abraham, how obedient he was. “And[152] from thy kindred.” Uncomfortable (φορτικὰ) reflections, both, that he endured the labors, while ye reap the fruits, and that all your ancestors were in evil case. “Then came he out of the land of the Chaldæans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And He gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (Acts 7:4–5.) See how he raises their thoughts away from (their possession of) the land.[153] For if He said (that, He will give: clearly [all came from him], and nothing from themselves. For he came, having left both kindred and country. Wherefore then did He not give it to him? Truly it was a figure of another land. “And He promised to give it to him.” Do you perceive, that he does not merely resume the thread of his discourse? “He gave him not,” says he; “and He promised; and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” Again, what God can do: that out of impossibilities, He doeth all. For here is a man in Persia, so far away, and this man God saith He will make lord of Palestine. But let us look back to what was said before.

Whence, I pray you, did that grace bloom upon the countenance of Stephen? (Recapitulation.) The writer gives him this report above, that he was “full of faith.” (Acts 6:8). For it is possible to have a grace that does not consist in works of healing: “For to one is given the grace of the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:8–9) in such and such wise (τοιὣσδε). But here, it seems to me, it says that he was also gracious to look at: “They saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” “Full of faith and of power”: (Acts 6:15) which is also the character given of Barnabas “he was a good man, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 11:24.) Whence we learn that the sincere and innocent are, above all others, the[154] men to be saved, and that these same are also more gracious. “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words.” (Acts 6:11.) In the case of the Apostles they were annoyed that they preached the Resurrection, and that much people flowed unto them: but in this case, that they were getting their diseases healed. (Acts 4:2.) The things for which they ought to give thanks, they made matter of blame: O the madness! The men who overcame them by works, they expected to overcome by words! It is just what they did in the case of Christ, and always they forced them to words. For they were ashamed to seize them without more ado, having nothing to charge them with. And observe, not the persons themselves who bring them to judgment bear witness against them; for they would have been refuted: but they simply hire others, that it may not seem to be an act of mere violence. It is all of a piece with their proceeding in the case of Christ. And observe the power of the preaching, that, though they are not only scourged but stoned, it still prevails: not[155] only, private individuals as they are, dragged to the bar, but assailed from all quarters: and, their enemies themselves being witnesses, not only were these worsted, but “they were not able” even “to resist” (Acts 6:10), though they were exceeding shameless: so mightily did it overthrow them, for all that they could do with their preposterous figments (as the saying that He had a devil—He that cast out devils!). For the battle was not man’s, but God’s against men. And there were many combined together; not only they in Jerusalem, but others as well. (Acts 6:9.) For “we have heard him,” say they, “speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” (Acts 6:11.) O ye shameless ones! Ye work blasphemous deeds, and think nothing of it. This is why Moses is added—because the things of God were no great concern to them: and it is ever and always Moses that they make mention of: “This Moses, which brought us out.” (Acts 7:30.) “And they stirred up the people.” (Acts 6:12.) Fickleness[156] of the multitude! And yet how could a man who was a blasphemer have so succeeded? How could a blasphemer work such miracles among the people? But the undisciplined multitude made them strong who had the worst of it (in argument).—This was what most annoyed them. “We have heard him,” they say, “speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God” (Acts 6:13): and again, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law,” and with an addition, “the customs” “which Moses delivered to us” (Acts 6:14); Moses, not God. Upon the supposition of a design to overturn their manner of life (πολιτείας), they accused him of impiety also. But to show that it was not in the nature of such a man to speak such things, and harshly [“Then all,” it says, “which were in the council, looking steadfastly upon him, saw his face, as it had been the face of an angel”] (Acts 6:15): so mild was he even in countenance. For, in cases where persons were not falsely accused, Scripture mentions nothing of this kind: but as in this case it was all false accusation, with reason does God rectify it by the very look of the man. For the Apostles indeed were not falsely accused, but were forbidden: but this man is falsely accused: and therefore before all else his countenance pleads for him. This abashed even the priest. “And he said,” etc. (Acts 7:1.) He shows here, that the promise was made before the Place, before Circumcision, before Sacrifice, before the Temple, and that it was not of their merit that these received either Circumcision or Law, but that the land was the reward of obedience alone. Moreover, that neither on the giving of circumcision does the promise receive its fulfillment. Also, that these were figures, and (so was) both the leaving his country at God’s command—not[157] against the law (for home and country is where God shall lead): “Then came he out,” it says, “of the land of the Chaldeans” (Acts 7:4):—and that if one look closely into the matter, the Jews are of Persian origin: and that, without miracles, one must do as God bids, whatever hardships be the consequence; since the Patriarch left both the grave of his father and all that he had, in obedience to God’s command. But if Abraham’s father was not allowed to take part with him in the privilege of migrating to Palestine, because he was unworthy: much more shall the children (be excluded at last), for all that they may have gone a good distance on the way. “And He promised,” it says, “to give it to him, and to his seed after him.” (Acts 7:5.) Herein is shown the greatness both of God’s goodness and of Abraham’s faith. For the expression, “when as yet he had no child,” does show his obedience and faith. “Promised to give it to him and to his seed.” And yet the events showed the contrary: namely, after he came, he had not “so much as to set his foot on,” had not a child; which very things were contrary to his faith.

These things having seen, let us likewise, whatever God shall promise, receive the same, however contrary may be the events. And yet in our case, they are not contrary, but very suitable. For where the promises are, there, when the contraries turn out, they are really contrary; but in our case it is just the reverse: for He has told us that we should have tribulation here, but our rest there. Why do we confound the times? Why do we turn things upside down? Say, art thou afflicted, and livest in poverty, and in dejection? Be not troubled: for it were worth being troubled at, wert thou destined to be afflicted in that world: as for this present affliction, it is the cause of rest. “This sickness,” saith He, “is not unto death.” (John 11:4.) That affliction is punishment: this, schooling and correction. It is a contest, this life present: if so, to fight is our business now: it is war and battle. In war one does not seek to have rest, in war one does not seek to have dainty living, one is not anxious about riches, one’s care is not about a wife then: one thing only he looks at, how he may overcome his foes. Be this our care likewise: if we overcome, and return with the victory, God will give us all things. Be this alone our study, how we may overcome the devil: though after all it is not our own study that does it, but God’s grace does the whole business. Be it our one study, how we may attract His grace, how we may draw to ourselves that assistance. “If God be for us, who can be against us?” (Rom. 8:31.) Let us make one thing our study; that He be not our enemy, that He turn not away from us.

Not the being afflicted is an evil; the evil is, to sin. This is the sore affliction, however we may pass our days in luxury:—not to speak of the life to come, it is so even in this life present. Think how our conscience is stung with remorse, and whether this is not worse than any kind of torture! I should like to put the question searchingly to those who live in evil ways (ἐν κακοἵς), whether they never come to reflect upon their own sins, whether they do not tremble, and are in fear and anguish, whether they do not think those blessed who live in abstinence, them of the mountains, them of the strict rule? (τοὺς ἐν πολλῇ φιλοσοφί& 139·.) Dost thou wish to find rest in the life to come? Suffer affliction in this life for Christ’s sake: there is nothing equal to this rest. The Apostles rejoiced when scourged. Paul gives this exhortation, saying, “Rejoice in the Lord.” (Phil. 4:4.) And how can there be rejoicing, where there are bonds, where there are tortures; where there are courts of justice? There, most of all, is rejoicing. But[158] say, how can there be rejoicing, where these are not? For he who is conscious of no evil, will have a sort of exceeding delight, insomuch that in what degree you speak of tribulation, in the same you tell of his delight. The soldier who has received numberless wounds and is come home again, will he not return with exceeding delight, with his wounds[159] as his title for speaking up boldly, and as evidence of his glory and renown? And thou, if thou be able to exclaim as Paul does, “I bear the marks of Jesus” (Gal. 6:17), wilt be able to become great and glorious and renowned. “But there is no persecution.” Make thy stand against glory: and should any one speak anything against thee, fear not to be evil-spoken of for Christ’s sake: make thy stand against the tyranny of pride, against the fighting of anger, against the torment of concupiscence. These also are “marks,”[160] these also are torments. For, I ask, what is the worst in tortures? Is it not, that the soul is pained, and is on fire? For in the other case, the body too has its share: but in this, the whole belongs to the soul. On the soul alone comes all the smart, when one is angry, when one is envious, whatever else of this kind one does, or rather suffers. For, in fact, it is not action, but passion, not a doing, but a suffering—to be angered, to feel envy: therefore indeed they are called passions (or sufferings) (πάθη, perturbationes) of the soul, yea wounds, and bruises. For it is indeed a suffering, and worse than suffering. Bethink you, ye that are angry, that ye do such things in “passion,” in a state of suffering. Therefore he who is not angry suffers not. Do you mark that not he who is abused is the sufferer, but he that abuses, as I said above? For that he is a sufferer, is plain in the first place from the very fact, that such a thing is called by this name of passion: and it is also plain from the (effects on the) body: for these are the affections (πάθη) for “sufferings,” as we call them] engendered by anger, viz. dimness of vision, insanity, and numberless others. “But he insulted my boy,” say you; “but [he called him] clown.”[161] Deem it not weakness thy not doing the same thing thyself. For, I ask you, was it well done? You will not say that: then leave that undone which being done were not well done. I know what passions are engendered in such cases. “But,” say you, “how if he despise me, how if he say it again?” Show him that he is in the wrong: rebuke him, entreat him: by meekness anger is put down: go and expostulate with him. For though in cases of wrong done to ourselves it is right not to do even this, yet it is quite necessary to do it in behalf of others. Do not look on it as an insult to yourself that your boy has been insulted: annoyed you may be for his sake, yet not as if you were insulted: for it does not follow because your boy has been ill-treated, that you are disgraced, but he is disgraced that did the ill. Quench (thine anger) that sharp sword: let it lie in its scabbard. If we have it unsheathed, we shall be apt to use it even when the time is not proper, being drawn on by it: but if it be hidden, though a necessity should arise, yet, while we seek it in order[162] to draw it, the anger will be quenched. Christ would not have us be angry on his account: (hear what He saith to Peter: “Put up again thy sword into the sheath:”) (Matt. 26:52) and art thou angry on account of a boy? Teach thy boy also to be philosophical: tell him thy own sufferings: imitate (herein) thy Teacher. (Matt. 26:52.) When they too (His disciples) were about to be treated with dishonor, He said not, “I will avenge you:” but, “to Me also,” saith He, “they have done the same: bear it nobly, for ye are not better than I.” These words too do thou speak to thy son and thy boy: “Thou art not better than thy master.” But these words of philosophy are counted as the talk of a widow woman. Alas! that it is not in the power of words to bring it home to people in the way that it is possible to be taught it by actual experience! And that you may learn this; stand between two combatants, take part with the wronged, not with the wrong-doers [that you may learn][163] whether you shall not see the victory on your side, whether you shall not get splendid crowns.—See, how God is insulted, and how He answers; how gently, “Where,” saith He, “is Abel thy brother?” and what saith the other: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 6:9.) What could be more contumacious than this? Would any one have heard it (patiently) even from a son? and if from a brother, would he not have thought such conduct an insult? What then? See how again God gently answers, “The voice of thy brother’s blood,” saith He “crieth unto Me.” “But God,” it will be said, “is superior to wrath.” Yes, but for this reason the Son of God came down, that He might make thee a God as far as human power can go. “But I cannot,” says one, “seeing I am man.” Well then, let us give you men for instances. And do not suppose I speak of Paul or of Peter: no, but of some of inferior sort, yea, very much lower down. Eli’s menial insulted Hannah, saying, “Put away thy wine from thee.” (1 Sam. 1:14.) What could be more insulting than this? What then said she? “I am a woman of a hard lot.”[164] Indeed, there is nothing equal to affliction: she is the mother of true philosophy. But this same woman, though she has her rival, insulted her not: but what does she? She takes refuge with God, and in her prayer does not even make mention of her, nor say, “Avenge me, for such an one reproaches me:” so magnanimous was that woman (let us men be ashamed):—and yet ye know, that there is nothing like jealousy. The publican, when insulted by the Pharisee, insulted not in return, though, had he wished it, he might have done so: but he bore it like a philosopher, saying, “Be merciful to me a sinner.” (Luke 18:13.) Mephibosheth,[165] having been accused and calumniated by his servant, neither said, nor did, any evil to him, not even in the presence of the king himself. (2 Sam. 19:26.) Shall I tell you even of a harlot, what philosophic magnanimity she showed? Hear Christ saying, as she was wiping His feet with her hair, “The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom before you.” (Matt. 21:31.) Do you see her standing, and taking courage, and washing away her own sins? Observe, how she was not angry even with the Pharisee, when reproached by him: “for had He known,” says he, “that this woman is a sinner, He would not have suffered her (Luke 7:39): and how she said not to him, “What then? Say, art thou pure from sins?” but felt more, wept more, and let fall hotter tears. But if women and publicans and harlots play the philosopher, and that before grace (i.e. of Baptism), what pardon can they deserve, who, after so great grace, fight, and worry, and kick one another, worse than beasts? Nothing is more base than passion, nothing more disgraceful, nothing more frightful, nothing more odious, nothing more hurtful. These things I say, not only in order that towards men we may be gentle, but also if a wife be a talker, that thou mayest bear it: let thy wife be to thee a school for training and exercise (παλαίστρα καὶ γυμνάσιον). For how can it but be absurd, to submit to exercises which yield no profit, where we afflict the body, but not to practise exercises at home, which, even before the contest, present to us a crown? Does thy wife abuse thee? Do not thou become a woman: to be abusive is womanly: it is a disease of the soul, an inferiority. Think not that it is unworthy of thee, when thy wife abuses thee. Unworthy it is, when thou art abusive, but she bears patiently (φιλοσοφῇ): then dost thou act unseemly, then art thou disgraced: but if, having been abused, thou bear it, great is the proof of thy strength. I do not say this, to induce wives to be abusive: God forbid: but only in case it should so happen at the instance of Satan. It is the part of men that are strong, to bear the weak. And if thy servant contradict thee, bear it philosophically: not what he deserves to have said to him, do thou say or do, but that which it behooves thee both to do and to say. Never insult a girl by uttering some foul word against her: never call thy servant, scoundrel (μιαρὸν): not he is disgraced, but thou. It is not possible to be master of one’s self, being in a passion. Like a sea rolling mountains high, it is all hurly-burly: or even as a pure fountain, when mire is cast into it, becomes muddied, and all is in turmoil. You may beat him, you may rend his coat to rags, but it is you that sustain the greater damage: for to him the blow is on the body and the garment, but to you on the soul. It is your own soul that you have cut open; it is there that you have inflicted a wound: you have flung your own charioteer from his horses, you have got him dragging along the ground upon his back. And it is all one, as if one driver being in a passion with another, should choose to be thus dragged along. You may rebuke, you may chide, you may do whatever if be, only let it be without wrath and passion. For if he who rebukes is physician to him who offends, how can he heal another, when he has first hurt himself, when he does not heal himself? Say, if a physician should go to heal another person, does he first wound his own hand, first blind his own eyes, and so set about healing that other? God forbid. So also, however thou rebuke, however thou chide, let thine eyes see clearly. Do not make thy mind muddy, else how shall the cure be wrought? It is not possible to be in the same tranquillity, being in a passion, and being free from passion. Why dost thou first overturn thy master from his seat, and then discourse with him as he lies sprawling on the ground? Seest thou not the judges, how, when about to hold the assize, they seat themselves upon the bench, in their becoming attire? Thus do thou likewise dress thy soul with the judicial robe (which is gentleness). “But he will not be afraid of me,” say you. He will be the more afraid. In the other case, though you speak justly, your servant will impute it to passion: but if you do it with gentleness, he will condemn himself: and, what is of the first importance, God will accept thee, and thus thou wilt be able to attain unto the eternal blessings, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, dominion, and honor, now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

Notlar

  1. ↑ Œcumen. has preserved the true reading: ἀφ᾽ οὗ πάντες ἐκινήθησαν. Mss. and Cat. ἐκίνησεν. (N. in the margin, by a later hand, ἐνίκησε.) E. and Edd. ὃ δὲ τολλὴν εἶχε τὴν ἔκπληξιν καὶ πάντας ἐξένισε, τοῦτο λέγει.

  2. ↑ There is no evidence that Peter and John attended upon the Jewish worship simply “for expediency.” There is much to the contrary. The early Christians had no idea of ceasing to be Jews. Peter at this time supposed it to be necessary for the Gentile converts to be circumcised (Gal. 2.). It was incident to the gradual separation of Christianity from Judaism that those who had been zealous adherents of the latter should suppose that its forms were still to be the moulds of the new system. They were not for this reason less honestly and genuinely Christian, but had not yet apprehended the principle of Christian liberty as Paul afterward expounded it. The point of difficulty was not so much the entrance of the Gentiles into the Kingdom of God as the question whether they should enter through the gate of Judaism.—G.B.S.

  3. ↑ καὶ οἷον σημεῖον ἦσαν ποιήσαντες. E. “And a miracle such as they had not yet wrought.” So Edd.

  4. ↑ Œcumen. “That he leaped was either because he was incredulous of what had happened, or, by way of trying his power of stepping more surely and firmly, or, the man did not know how to walk.”

  5. ↑ E. and Edd. “But let us look over again what has been said. ‘They went up,’ he says, ‘at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour.’ Perhaps just at that time they carried and laid the lame man, when people,” etc. In the old text the clause αὐτὸν βαστάζοντες ἀπήνεγκαν (which should be οἱ βαστ. αὐτὸν) seems meant to explain καθ᾽ ἡμέραν: they bore him daily, and the same persons carried him away.

  6. ↑ E. and Edd. τοιοῦτοί τινες ἦσαν καὶ ᾽Ιουδαῖοι (for οἱ ᾽Ι.) χωλεύοντες…οἱ δὲ (for αὐτοὶ) μᾶλλον χρήματα αἰτοῦσι…οἳ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο…“Such sort of people were also [the] Jews, being lame (i e. like many beggars among ourselves): even when they have only to ask for health, yet they rather ask for money…who even for this reason beset the temple,” etc. But the meaning seems rather to be: “See here an emblem of the Jews. Lame, and needing but,” etc.

  7. ↑ οὕτω πᾶσι γνωριμὸς ἦν ὅτι ἐπεγίνωσκον, A. B. C. D. F. Sav. Morel. Ben. But Commelin. and Ed. Par. Ben. 2. after Erasm. adopt the reading of E. οὐ μὴν πᾶσι γνώριμος ἦν ὅθεν καὶ: because of the following comment on ἐπεγίνωσκον. But the meaning is: They were all acquainted with him (it could not be otherwise): but seeing him walking and leaping, they found it difficult to believe that it was he, and yet they could not doubt it. This is well denoted by ἐπεγίνωσκον: for we use this word, ἐπὶ τῶν μόλις γνωριζομένων: strange as it was, they were satisfied that it was he, the man whom they all knew so well.

  8. ↑ ῎Εδει πιστευθῆναι διότι, B. C. δί ὅτι A. This seems to be the comment on the remaining clause of Acts 3:10, which we have supplied: but the meaning is obscure. The modern text has ἔδει γοὖν π. ὅτι.

  9. ↑ οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν ἐψεύσατο, οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐπ᾽ ἄλλους τινὰς ἦλθεν. It is not clear who are the ἄλλοι τινὲς: and something is wanting. In fact, this part of the Homily is very defective. The next sentence seems to refer to the mention of the porch called Solomon’s, but evidently supposes something preceding: e.g. “The miracle was performed at the Beautiful Gate, beside which was the Porch called Solomon’s.”

  10. ↑ E. and Edd. Κορνήλιος ἄλλα νηστεύων ηὔχετο, καὶ ἄλλα ὁρᾷ. “Cornelius prayed with fasting, for one object: and sees a vision of something other than he thought for.”

  11. ↑ It can hardly be imagined that St. Chrysostom’s meaning is correctly reported here. ᾽Εν ἀρχῇ τοῦ διηγματος, can only mean, In the beginning of the narrative (of this miracle). It seems that the case of this man, who at first lies at the gate of the temple, unable to stir, and in the end, enters with the Apostles walking and leaping and praising God, furnished the theme for the ethical part of the discourse. “There is the like cure for our souls: let us not give over for want of success in the first attempt, but begin again after every failure.”

  12. ↑ Οὐδὲν μέγα ἐστὶ γεν. διδασκ. τῆς οἰκ. Οὐ μικρὸν κ. τ. λ. The passage is manifestly corrupt, and the mss. lend no assistance. Ben. conjecturally, Nihil majus est quam esse doctores orbis: nec parum, etc. Ed. Par. Ben. 2. Fortasse, οὐκοῦν μέγα. But it is more likely that something is wanting, e.g. “It is no great matter [to be free from the vice of swearing. But to set an example to others would be a great thing], to be teachers herein of the whole world,” etc.

  13. ↑ ᾽Αλλα ποῦ θέλεις ἰδεῖν. ἀγαπητὲ, ὅτι ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος κ. τ. λ. The modern text, ῾Ο πολὺς ὄχλος, ἀγαπητὲ, κ. τ. λ.

  14. ↑ ᾽Αλλ᾽ οὐδε τουτο· ού γὰρ, κ. τ. λ. This seems to refer to εὐσεβεία· “but not by our holiness any more than by our own power.” The modern text: Οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἡμέτερον, φησιν· οὐ γὰρ, κ. τ. λ. “Not even this is our own, he says; for not,” etc.

  15. ↑ or, Child, τὸν παιδα. Œcumen. seems to have considered this as a lowly title, for he says: “And of Christ he speaks lowly, τῷ προσθειναι, τὸν Παῖδα.” But to this remark he adds, “For that which in itself is glorified, can receive no addition of glory.”—Below καθὼς ἐν τῷ προοιμί& 251· may refer to the prefatory matter (after the citation from Joel) of the sermon in ch. ii.: see below, in the Recapitulation, whence we might here supply, ἀνωτέρω ἔλεγεν, “᾽Ιησοῦν τὸν Ναζ. κ. τ. λ.” “As in the opening address [above, he said: ‘Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God,’ etc.].” Or, “like as in the opening words of this discourse he speaks in lowly manner of themselves.” Œcumen. “He still keeps to lowlier matters, both as to themselves, and as to Christ. As to themselves, in saying that not by their own power they wrought the miracle. As to Christ,” etc.

  16. ↑ ἡ δευτέρα ἑτέρα, A. B. C (N. om. ἡ) Cat. Namely, the first, “Ye did it ignorantly, as did also your rulers.” The second, “It was ordered by the counsel of God:” as below, “And he puts this by way of apology,” etc. The Edd. have adopted the absurd innovation, “‘Through ignorance ye did it:’ this is one ground of excuse: the second is, ‘As did also your rulers:’” E. F. D.

  17. ↑ Εἰ πέποιθεν, A. C. F. D. N. Cat. and νῦν after καταβ. om. C. F. D. N. Cat.

  18. ↑ Πολέμοις attested by Cat. and Œc. but A. has πόνοις, E. and Edd. κακοῖς. In the following sentence, Πρὸς γὰρ τὸν καυσούμενον καὶ παραμυθίαν ἐπιζητοῦντα οὗτος ἂν ἁρμόσειεν ὁ λόγος, B. and Œc. read κλαυσόμενον, C. F. D. N. κλαυσούμενον, (“to him that shall weep,”) A. καυσάμενον, Cat. καυσούμενον, the true reading. The scribes did not perceive that Chr. is commenting on the word ἀναψύξεως, “refrigeration,” as implying a condition of burning: hence the alteration, κλαυσόμενον, or in the “Doric” form (Aristoph.) κλαυσούμενον. E. and Edd. Διὸ καὶ οὕτως εἶπεν εἰδὼς ὅτι πρὸς τὸν πάσχοντα καὶ παραμυθ. ζητοῦντα κ. τ. λ. “Wherefore also he speaks thus, knowing that it is to the case of one who is suffering,” etc.—In the text here commented upon, ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσι καιροὶ ἀναψ., E.V. makes ὅπως ἂν temporal, “When the times of refreshing,” etc. But here and elsewhere in the N.T. Matt. 6:5; Luke 2:35; Acts 15:17; Rom. 3:4; the correct usage is observed, according to which, ὅπως ἂν is nearly equivalent to “so (shall);” i.e. “that (ὅπως) they may come, as in the event of your repentance (ἂν) they certainly shall.” And so Chrys. took the passage: Εἶτα τὸ κέρδος ἐπάγει· & 169·Οπως ἂν κ. τ. λ. “Then he adds the gain: So shall the times,” etc.

  19. ↑ τὸν προκεχειρισμένον. Other mss. of N.T. read προκεκηρυγμένον, whence Vulg. E.V. “which was before preached.”

  20. ↑ E.V. has “all,” and so some mss. πάντων, and St. Chrys. gives it a little further on.

  21. ↑ Instead of this clause, “by the mouth.” etc. the Edd. have from E. “Still by keeping the matter in the shade, drawing them on the more to faith by gentle degrees.”

  22. ↑ Τέως κατασκευάζει ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐποίησαν τὸ θαῦμα. i.e. “by saying, Why marvel ye? he makes this good at the very outset: You see that a miracle has been wrought, and by us (as the instruments), not by some other man (this is the force of the αὐτοὶ here). This he will not allow them to doubt for a moment: he forestalls their judgment on the matter: you see that it is done by us, and you are inclined to think it was by our own power or holiness,” etc. There is no need to insert the negative, ὅτι οὐκ αὐτοὶ: Erasm. and Ben. Lat.

  23. ↑ Peter sharpens his accusation of them by the following contrasts: (1) This healing at which you wonder is to the glory of Christ, not of us. (2) God has glorified whom you have betrayed and denied. (3) This you did though Pilate himself would have released him. (4) You preferred to kill the holy and just one and let a murderer go free. (5) You sought to put to death the Author of Life. Acts 3:12–15.—G.B.S.

  24. ↑ The meaning of the following passage is plain enough, but the innovator has so altered it as to make it unintelligible. Yet the Edd. adopt his reading (E. D. F.) without notice of the other and genuine reading. “And yet if it was ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν πίστις that did all, and that (ὅτι) it was εἰς αὐτὸν that the man believed, why did (Peter) say, not Διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος, but ᾽Εν τῷ ὀνόματι? Because they did not yet,” etc.

  25. ↑ E. has ὅτι ὑγιὴς ἕστηκεν after οὐκ ᾔδεσαν instead of after τοῦτο ᾔδεσαν. So Commel. Erasm. Ed. Par. Hence D. F. have it in both places, and so Morel. Ben. All these omit ὅτιbefore ἐν τῷ ὀν. “And yet in His name they knew not that he stands whole: but this they knew, that he was lame, (that he stands whole).” Savile alone has retained the genuine reading.

  26. ↑ οὐδὲν προεῖπεν, A. B. C. N. i.e. foretold nothing concerning them. Edd. οὐδὲν περὶ ἑαυτῶν εἶπεν, “said nothing concerning (the hearers) themselves.”

  27. ↑ There is one extenuating circumstance: they did it in ignorance (Cf. Luke 23:34; 1 Cor. 2:8; Acts 13:27). This fact forms the transition-point to the presentation of a different side of the death of Jesus. It was their crime, but it was also God’s plan. They did it from motives of blindness and hate, but God designed it for their salvation. So that Peter, in effect, says: There is hope for you although you have slain the Lord, for his sacrificial death is the ground of salvation. To this view of the death of Christ he now appeals as basis of hope and a motive to repentance (οὖν Acts 3:19).—G.B.S.

  28. ↑ μεγάλην δείκνυσι τὴν βουλήν, meaning the determinate counsel of God above spoken of. Above, after καὶ πάλιν, some other citation is wanting, in illustration of his remark that the prophecies of the Passion are all accompanied with denunciations of punishment.

  29. ↑ ἢ γὰρ κατὰ ἄγνοιαν, ἢ κατὰ οἰκονομίαν. Edd. omit this interlocution, Sav. notes it in the margin. “Repent ye therefore.” Why repent? for either it was through ignorance, or it was predestinated. (Nevertheless, you must repent, to the blotting out of your sins, etc.)

  30. ↑ τοῦτο μόνον, B. C. N. “this is all:” i.e. no more than this: he does not impute that one great sin to them, in all its heinousness: he only speaks of their sins in general. A. and the other mss. omit these words.

  31. ↑ The reference is hardly to the resurrection, but to the Parousia. To the hope of this event, always viewed as imminent, all the expressions: “times of refreshing,” “times of restitution” and “these days” (Acts 3:19–24) undoubtedly refer. So Olshansen, Meyer, Alford, Hackett, Gloag, Lechler and most recent critics.—G.B.S.

  32. ↑ The modern text; “Saying this, he does not declare, Whence, but only adds,” etc.—᾽Ακμὴν δεξασθαι. Ben. Utique suscipere. Erasm. adhuc accipere. It means, Is this still to take place, that he should say ὃν δεῖ δέξασθαι, as if the event were yet future? And the answer is, “He speaks in reference to former times, i.e. from that point of view. (So Œcumen. in loc. τὸ δεῖ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔδει.) And then as to the necessity; this δεῖ is not meant in respect of Christ’s Divine Nature (for of that he forbears to speak), but the meaning is, So it is ordered,” etc. The report, however, is very defective, especially in what follows. He is commenting upon the words, “Until the time of restitution (or making good) of all that God spake,” etc. πάντων ὧν ἐλάλησεν ὁ Θεὸς, which expression he compares with what is said of the Prophet like unto Moses, πάντων ὅσα ἂν λαλησῃ. Christ is that Prophet: and what He spake, the Prophets, obscurely indeed, spake before. He adds, that Peter’s mention of the yet future fulfilment of all that the Prophets have spoken is calculated also to alarm the hearers. See the further comment on these verses at the end of the recapitulation.

  33. ↑ Οὗ οὐδὲν νεώτερον. Meaning perhaps, that as Christ was from the first designed for the Jews, the Gospel is no novelty, as if nothing had been heard of such a Saviour before. E. D. F. ὥστε οὐδὲν νεώτερον, which is placed before the citation τὸν προκεχ.—Below, A. B. C. N. ᾽Επλήρωσεν ἃ ἔδει παθεῖν; ᾽Επληρώθη ἅ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐχρὴν οὐδέπω, which is manifestly corrupt. We restore it thus: ᾽Επλήρωσεν;῝Α ἔδει παθεῖν ἐπληρώθη, ἃ δὲ γενέσθαι ἐχρῆν οὐδεπω. The modern text: ᾽Επλήρωσεν ἃ ἔδει παθεῖν; ᾽Επλήρωσεν, εἶπεν, οὐκ ἐπληρώθη· δεικνυς ὅτι ἃ μὲν ἐχρῆν παθεῖν, ἐπλήρωσεν· ἅ δὲ (δέοι add. F. D.) γενέσθαι λείπεται ἔτι, οὐδέπω.

  34. ↑ C. N. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ κατὰ Μωσέα ἦν, εἰ γὰρ πᾶς ὁ μὴ ἀκ. ἐξολοθρευθήσεται, μυρία δὲ εἶπεν τὰ δεικνύντα ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι κατὰ Μωσέα. B. omits οὐ γὰρ.…ἦν, inadvertently passing from ἦν· οὐ γὰρ to the subsequent ἦν· εἰ γάρ. A. omits the words μυρία.…ὅτι, which disturb the sense of the passage. In the translation we have rejected the second γάρ. For εἶπεν, Sav. marg. gives εἴποι τις ἄν, which we have adopted. The modern text substitutes τὸ, καὶ, ἔσται for εἰ γὰρ, and inserts καὶ ἄλλα after μυρία δέ.

  35. ↑ Ταῦτα ὅλα ἐπαγωγὰ is strangely rendered by Ben. hæc omnia adjecta sunt. But this is the comment, not upon the threatening in Acts 3:23, but upon the matters contained in the following verses, Acts 3:24–26.

  36. ↑ Μὴ γὰρ ὡς ἀπερριμμένοι διακεῖσθε, B. N. οὐκοῦν μὴ γὰρ, A. πάλιν μὴ γὰρ, C. μὴ οὖν, F. D. καὶ γὰρ, Cat. οὐκοῦν μὴ. E. and Edd., which also add at the end of the sentence, ἢ ἀποβεβλημένοι, where the other mss. have, Πάλιν ἡ ἀνάστασις, as comment on ἀναστήσας.

  37. ↑ Τὸ δὲ, ῾Ως ἐμὲ οὐδαμοῦ λόγον ἂν ἔχοι. He had before said, that in the very description of “the Prophet like unto Moses,” it is shown that He is more than like Moses: for instance, “Every soul which will not hear,” etc. would not apply to Moses. Having finished the description, he now adds, You see that the ὡς ἐμὲ nowhere holds as the whole account of the matter: to be raised up (from the dead) and sent to bless, and this by turning every one from his iniquities, is not to be simply such as Moses. The modern text adds, “Unless it be taken in regard of the manner of legislation:” i.e. Christ is like unto Moses considered as Deliverer and Lawgiver, not in any other respect.

  38. ↑ E. and Edd. “that they shall hear all things which Christ shall say: and this not in a general way, but with a fearful menace.” It is a powerful connection, for it shows that for this reason also they ought to obey Him. What means it, “Children of the Prophets,” etc.

  39. ↑ λέγω δὴ τὸ μὴ ὀργίζεσθαι, as the explanation of εἰς τοῦτο. The other text confuses the meaning by substituting καὶ τὸ μὴ ὀργ. “Not to swear, and not to be angry, is a great help to this.” Which increases the “intricacy” of which Ben. complains in the following passage, where oaths are first said to be the wings of wrath, and then are compared to the wind filling the sails. Here instead of, ὥσπερ γὰρ πνεῦμα τῆς ὀργῆς ὁ ὅρκος, φησὶν, ἐστί, (cited as an apothegm), the modern text gives, ὥσπερ γὰρ πν. ἡ ὀργὴ καὶ ὁ ὅρκος ἐστι. “For wrath and swearing is as a wind.” The imagery is incongruous: oaths, the wings of wrath: oaths the wind, and wrath (apparently) the sails: but the alterations do not mend the sense.

  40. ↑ κἂν γὰρ μὴ ἐπιορκῆτε, ὀμνύντες ὅλως οὐκ ἴστε. The modern text, καὶ οὔτε ἐπιορκήσετε, οὔτε ὀμόσεσθε ὅλως. Οὐκ ἴστε. Which does not suit the context. “Make it a law with the passionate man, never to swear.…The whole affair is finished, and you will neither perjure yourselves, nor swear at all.” He seems to be speaking of oaths and imprecations, by which a man in the heat of passion binds himself to do or suffer some dreadful thing. “Suppose you do not perjure yourself, yet think of the misery you entail upon yourself: you must either study all sorts of expedients to deliver your soul, or, since that cannot be without perjury, you must spend your life in misery, etc. and curse your wrath.”—᾽Ανάγκῃ τινὶ καὶ δεσμῷ, with comma preceding: so Sav. but A. B. C. ἀνάγκη nom. preceded by a full stop: “For needs must you, binding yourselves as with a cord,” etc: and so the modern text, with other alterations (adopted by Sav.) which are meant to simplify the construction, but do not affect the sense. Below, ᾽Επειδὴ γὰρ ἠκόυσατε, καὶ τὸ πλέον ὑμῖν κατώρθωται. Ben makes this a sentence by itself, Quia enim audistis, magna pars res a vobis perfecta est. Savile connects it with the following, φέρε δὴ κ. τ. λ. See p. 53, where he alludes to some who laughed at him, perhaps even on the spot.

  41. ↑ Τοῦτο γὰρ ὅρκος ἐστὶ, τρόπων ἀπιστουμένων ἐγγύη.

  42. ↑ πιστουμένων ἑαυτοὺς, A. B. C. N. as in the phrase πιστοῦσθαί τινα (ὅρκῳ), “to secure a person’s good faith by oath.” Edd. ἀπιστουμένων ἑαυτοῖς, “being objects of distrust to each other.”

  43. ↑ ὁμόδουλον. So the mss. but we should have expected δεσπότην, “the master.”

  44. ↑ ᾽Αλλ᾽ ἐγὼ οὐ βούλομαι, φησί. “I do not wish [so to insult God].—Then do not oblige the other to do so: [nay, do not suffer him:] just as, should he pretend to name as his surety some person with whom he has no right to take such a liberty, σὺ οὐκ ἀνέχῃ you would not allow him.” That this is the meaning, is shown by what follows: ὅτι τὸν Θεὸν ὑβρίσαι ἀνέχῃ: “he insults God, and you suffer him to do it.”

  45. ↑ Τοὺς περιττοὺς, καὶ πάντας ἐμοὶ ἀγάγετε. E. and Edd. for τοὺς περιττοὺς καὶ have τοὺς δὲ μὴ πειθομένους. The following passage relates to a practice of swearing by touching, the Sacred Volume on the Holy Table. Against this custom he inveighs in one of his Sermons ad Pop. Antioch. xv. §. 5. (t. ii. 158. E.) “What art thou doing, O man? On the Holy Table, and where Christ lies sacrificed, there sacrificest thou thy brother?…. sacrificest him in the midst of the Church, and that, with the death to come, the death which dieth not? Was the Church made for this, that we should come there to take oaths? No, but that we should pray there. Does the Table stand there, that we should make men swear thereby? No, it stands there that we may lose sins, not that we may bind them. But do thou, if nothing else, at least reverence the very Volume which thou holdest forth to the other to swear by: the very Gospel which thou, taking in thine hands, biddest the other make oath thereby,—open it, read what Christ there saith concerning oaths, and shudder, and desist.”—Here, he forbids the sacristans to admit persons for any such purpose. “Let such be brought to me, since I must needs be the person to be troubled with these things, as if you were little children, needing to be taught such a simple matter as this.”

  46. ↑ i.e. to take an oath by the head of your child. So in the Tract. de Virgin. t. i. 309 D. it is remarked, that “men of rude and dull minds, who do not scruple to swear by God in great matters and small, and break their oath without remorse, would not for a moment think of swearing by the head of their children: although the perjury is more heinous, and the penalty more dreadful, in the former than in the latter case, yet they feel this oath more binding than that.”

  47. ↑ καὶ χαίροντας ἑκατέρους ἀποπέμψω. i. e. “both of them glad (to be rid of the quarrel):” unless it is a threat, in the form of an ironical antiphrasis. In a law-suit one party comes off rejoicing (χαίρων): here let both exult—if they can.

  48. ↑ Matt. 5:34. “Swear not at all:” which St. Chrysostom (as the surest remedy) would enforce literally, and without any exception.

  49. ↑ A. B. C. N. Sav. Ben. ῾Οδὸς ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίαν εὐλαβείας εἰσάγουσα· (Ν. ἄγουσα·) παλαίστρα τίς ἐστι. E. F. D. omit εὐλαβείας, and so Commel. Morel. It would be better transferred (as remarked by Ed. Par.) to the next clause: “a training-school for piety.”

  50. ↑ It is more likely that καταγγέλειν ἐν τῶ ᾽Ιησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν κ. τ. λ. means “to declare in (the case of) Jesus the resurrection,” i.e. that the reference is specifically to the resurrection of Jesus instead of (as Chrys.) to the resurrection generally.—G.B.S.

  51. ↑ So A. C. N. Cat. but B. omits οὐκ. Edd. “They had their hands still reeking with the blood of their former victim and they were not chilled (ἐνάρκων), but again laid them upon others, to fill them with fresh blood. Or perhaps also they feared them as having now become a multitude, and for this reason the captain,” etc. But the statement, οὐκ ἔδεισαν τὸ πλῆθος is explained in the Recapitulation: they led Christ to trial immediately, for fear of the multitude; but not so here.

  52. ↑ C. D. E. F. ῎Εἰ γὰρ ὁ σταυρωθεὶς, φησὶ τοιαῦτα ἐργάζεται, καὶ τὸν χωλὸν ἀνέστησεν, οὐ φοβούμεθα οὐδὲ τούτους. A. B. N. ἐργάζεται, οὐδὲ τούτους φοβούμεθα· τὸν χωλὸν ἀνέστησε, and so Cat. which however has ἔστησαν. The meaning is obscure, especially the emphatic οὐδὲ τούτους: but perhaps it may be explained: “He was crucified; they did their worst to Him, to how little purpose! therefore neither need we fear these men, what they can do to us.” But the report is otherwise so defective and confused, that perhaps what Chrys. actually said here was meant of the priests: “We were able to crucify the Master, therefore we do not fear these common men, His followers, though, as they say, it is He that does these works, that made the lame man walk.”

  53. ↑ Something is wanting here: perhaps a remark on the mention of Annas as the high-priest, whereas elsewhere Caiaphas appears to have been high-priest shortly before.

  54. ↑ ἀπὸ τοῦ προοιμίου διεκωμῴδησεν, i.e. “You, the rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,—to make it a crime,” etc. For this, which is the reading of the other mss. and the Catena, E. alone has καὶ διεκωδώνισε, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ ἀνέμνησεν κ. τ. λ. “And he rung them, nay, rather also reminded them,” etc. Διακωδωνίζειν is a word elsewhere used by St. Chrys., and would suit the passage very well, either as “he put their unsoundness to the proof (like false metal, or cracked earthenware),” or “he sounded an alarm in their ears:” but the other is equally suitable, and better accredited here. Below, ᾽Επειδὴ δὲ καὶ κρινόμεθα κ. τ. λ.—Cat. ἐπεὶ δέ. Edd. νῦν δέ.

  55. ↑ ῞Οταν γὰρ μὴ ᾖ τι κατορθῶσαι. Quando enim non est aliquid præclare agendum. Ben. Non est corrigendum aliquid, Erasm. But see the comment in the recapitulation. “Where need was to teach, they allege prophecies; where, to show boldness, they affirm peremptorily.” κατορθῶσαι, “to carry their point,” “to come off in the right;” viz. here, to convince by argument.

  56. ↑ ἀνατρέψαι (φησὶν) τὸ γενόμενον οὐκ ἔνι, A. B. C. Cat. A proverbial expression. Edd. ἀνατρέψαι τὸ γενόμενον οὐκ ἴσχυσαν, “Since then they had not power to undo,” etc.

  57. ↑ We have supplied the text, instead of which C. inserts, “What shall we do to these men?” adopted by E. and Edd. Below, after the text 5. 28. E. inserts the latter part of Acts 4:17. “Let us straitly threaten them,” etc.

  58. ↑ All our mss. and Cat. πεισθέντος ὅτι ἀνέστη, καὶ τοῦτο (A. C. N. τούτου, Cat. τὸ) τεκμ. λαβ., ὅτι ἐστὶ Θεὸς, except that B. reads ὅτι ἂν ἔστη Θεός. Hence we read, ὅτι ἀνέστῃ. The repetition of these words may have led to the alteration.

  59. ↑ The modern text adds, “And marvel not that they again attempt what had been vainly essayed before.”

  60. ↑ Καὶ μὴν ἄνω καὶ κάτω ἔλεγον. E. F. D. for the sake of connection insert διὰ τοῦτο before ἔλεγον, adopted in Edd.

  61. ↑ The same mss. and Edd. “And that in the Name of Jesus, this man stands before you whole.” And below: “And besides, they themselves held, etc.…: but now they disbelieve and are troubled, taking counsel to do something to them.” Again, after “the wickedness of the many:”—“And pray why do they not deliver them up to the Romans? Already they were,” etc. All these variations are due to the innovator, who did not perceive that the recapitulation began at the place marked above.

  62. ↑ The modern text inserts Καὶ τί δήποτε οὐ παραδιδόασιν αὐτοὺς ῾Ρωμαίοις; “And why do they not deliver them over to the Romans? Already they were,” etc. And after ὥστε μᾶλλον ἑαυτοὺς ἐκακιζον, the same adds, ὑπερτιθέμενοι τὴν αὐτῶν ἔνδειξιν· and below, “But concerning these, they neither were bold, nor yet do they take them to Pilate.”

  63. ↑ πῶς ἔχει καὶ τὸ βαρὺ τὰ ῥ& 208·ματα; καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἐγυμνάζοντο. i.e. “how their words have the rhetorical quality of τὸ βαρύ—grave and dignified impressiveness. Even in these, i.e. in the use of words,” etc.

  64. ↑ Chrys. rightly remarks upon the great boldness and force of Peter’s answer to the Sanhedrin (Acts 4:8–12). The ἐι ἀνακρινόμεθα, κ. τ. λ. (Acts 4:9) is ironical: “If for doing a good deed a man must make answer.” Then follow the bold declarations which are almost of the nature of a challenge (Acts 4:10) “Be it known to you all,” etc., and the assertion that it was in the name which they despised—the “Nazarene”—that the miracle had been wrought and all this is pointed by the contrast: “Ye crucified” but “God raised” and the charge of opposition to the divine plan in that they had rejected the stone which God had made the head of the corner.—G.B.S.

  65. ↑ Οὐ γὰρ τὰ ῥ& 208·ματα μόνον, καὶ τὰ σχήματα ἐδείκνυντο τὸ ἀφροντίστως εστάναι περὶ τοιούτων κρινομένους. A. C. but the former has ἐδείκνυον, N. ἐδείκνυ. Our other mss. have, οὐ γὰρ τοῖς ῥ& 208·μασι μόνον ἐδείκνυντο ἀφροντιστοῦντες π. τ. κρινόμενοι: which is only an attempt to make the passage grammatical. The comment is on the word θεωροῦντες: they beheld the boldness, for not words only, their gestures also, declared it.—Below, τὴν παρρησίαν ἐνέφαινον τὴν κατὰ τοῦ λαοῦ. ᾽Εξ ὧν ἐφθέγγοντο ἐθαύμαζον ἴσως. Edd. τὴν παρρ. ἐνέφαινον ἐπὶ τοῦ λαοῦ ἐξ ὧν ἐφθέγγοντο. ᾽Εθαύμαζον δὲ ἴσως.

  66. ↑ ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔλεγον; Edd. and Erasm. take this affirmatively: but this can hardly be the Author’s meaning; as he has just said that “from the things they uttered, they marvelled” that the speakers should be illiterate and common men. Something perhaps is wanting: e.g. “Not from the matter, but from the dialect, or from the brevity and abruptness of Peter’s style, or, from the appearance of the men.—In the mss. the next sentence is, ὥστε ἐπέσκηψαν ἂν αὐτοῖς, Extrema auctoritate mandassent iis, Erasm. Acrius in eos egissent, Ben. Here and in what follows we have endeavored to restore the proper order. In the mss. in consequence, as it seems, of a confusion between the two clauses, οὐ δυνάμεθα ἀρνήσασθαι, and οὐ δυνάμεθα γὰρ…μὴ λαλεῖν, the order of the comments is deranged: viz. “So that they would—been with them.” “And they recognized—stopped their mouths:” “‘Whether it be right—judge ye.’ When the terror—mere bravery. ‘Whether it be right,’ he says, and, ‘We cannot deny it.’ So that they would—better to let them go. ‘Whether it be right—more than unto God.’ Here by God—His Resurrection.”

  67. ↑ The author seems to give two different interpretations of the statement: “They recognized them that they had been with Jesus.” (1) They perceived that these were the men whom they had before seen in company with Jesus. (2) They saw that their words and acts betokened association with Jesus. It is evident that the former only is meant in this place.—G.B.S.

  68. ↑ Καίτοι πανταχοῦ αἱ ἀρχαὶ δειναὶ καὶ δύσκολοι. “If at the beginning you failed, how can you expect to succeed now? for the beginning being always the hardest part of any difficult undertaking, if you could not stop it then, much less afterwards.” The modern text unnecessarily alters it to οὕπω π. αἱ ἀ. χαλεπαί τε καὶ δυσκ.

  69. ↑ Πολλῷ μᾶλλον αὐτοῖς βέλτιον ἦν αὐτοὺς ἀφεῖναι. N. has a colon at αὐτοῖς, which perhaps is better; then the first clause may be the comment on τὸ καθόλου μὴ φθέγγεσθαι: “not to speak at all: much more to them. It had been better to dismiss them (at once).” For this sentence E. alone has, Πάνυ γε, τοὺς οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς ἡγουμένους καὶ ἀπειλοῦντας: “Aye, men who make nothing of you for all your threatening:” which is adopted by Edd.

  70. ↑ E. and Edd. “That a notable miracle is done, we cannot deny:” and below “Here they say, of God, for, ‘of Christ.’ Do you see how that is fulfilled which He said unto them, ‘Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves; fear them not.’ Then once more they confirm,” etc. For τοῦ Θεοῦ, A. B. have τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

  71. ↑ The various readings are ᾀσμάτων for δραμάτων, and μέρη for μέλη. Below, τῶν δὲ ἐκεῖσε λεγομένων καὶ κηρυγμάτων καὶ ῥημάτων μέμνηται πάντων. The mod, omits καὶ κηρ. The meaning is, “He cannot carry away in his memory the preaching which he hears in Church: but the preachments (proclamations) which he hears in the theatre he remember, every word.”

  72. ↑ A description of the attire of a philosopher. Lucian mentions the long beard and the staff, but as the vestment, the τριβώνιον or tritum pallium. The ἐξωμὶς elsewhere denotes (in opposition to ἐπωμὶς) a tunic without sleeves, forming part of the dress of old men, and slaves, and also used in comedy. Here it seems to mean a cope, perhaps (Doun. ap. Savil.), the original of the academic hood, caputium.

  73. ↑ Tertull. de Corona militum. “Ad omnem progressum atque promotum, ad omnen aditum et exitum, ad calceatum, ad lavacra, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubilia, ad sedilia, quæcunque nos conversatio exercet, frontem crucis signaculo terimus.”

  74. ↑ ὑπὲρ τῶν φυγαδευσάντων αὐτόν. When the “intercession” of Moses is spoken of, it is natural to suppose that the reference is to Exod. 32:11 ff. But Sav. and Ben. refer this to Num. 12:13, perhaps because of ἐβόα (LXX. ἐβόησε). But the addition, “for those who had driven him into banishment,” does not suit the latter and less memorable occasion: for Miriam and Aaron did but “speak against Moses,” not attempt to banish or expel him. More fully expressed, the meaning may be, “For a people who began by making him a fugitive, Exod. 2:15, Acts 7:29, and now had put the finishing stroke to their ingratitude.” Comp. Exod. 17:4; Num. 14:10; Num. 14:13, etc.

  75. ↑ ἂν μὲν τὸν βίρρον ἐναλλὰξ περιβάλῃ. A. N. βίρον. B. C. βίον (the word βίρρος, birrhus having perhaps become obsolete). Mod. τὴν ἐσθῆτα.

  76. ↑ The various readings are: ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν διὰ Πνεύματος ῾Αγίου στόματος Δ. παιδός σου, Α. Ν. τοῦ π. ἡμῶν, om. C. ὁ ἐκ στόματος τοῦ π. ἡμῶν Δ. καὶ παιδός σου, Β. ὁ διὰ στόμ. Δ. τοῦ παιδὸς σοῦ, D. F. τοῦ, om. E.

  77. ↑ ᾽Επὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, At the same, as interpreted in a former Homily, vii. §. 2. For the next sentence, E. has Πάλιν ἐνταῦθα δηλῶν τὸ αὐτὸ λέγει, ὅτι τοῦ πλήθους, κ. τ. λ. “Here again explaining the ‘τὸ αὐτὸ,’” etc.—It is in allusion to the same expression that he says a little further on, ᾽Ιδοὺ καρδία καὶ ψυχὴ τὸ αὐτό.

  78. ↑ i.e. the ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ is not local, but moral, the union of all believers in one heart and soul: q.d. “Do not object that it is impossible for all believers to be together now.”

  79. ↑ The Catena has preserved the true reading, τέως, for which A. C. N. have ἅτε ὡς, B. F. D. ἅτε. E. substitutes υἱοί.

  80. ↑ A. B. C. N. τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων. ὅρα τὸ ἄτυφον. & 173·Ιδωμεν λοιπὸν ἄνωθεν τὰ εἰρημένα. Καὶ τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων τὴν φιλοσοφίαν. The clause ὅρα τὸ ἄτυφον is to be restored to its place after the second τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων, as in the modern text, ὅρα τῶν ᾽Α. τὸ ἄ. και τὴν φ.

  81. ↑ Against the Arians, who from such texts as Matt. 12:28, inferred the inferiority of the Son, Chrys. says, “Observe, the Father Himself is here said to speak by the Holy Ghost.” This is lost in the modern text, which substitutes Σωτὴρ for Πατήρ. The text is given in our mss. with these variations. Comp. note a. A. C. Δέσποτα ὁ Θεὸς (ὁ Cat.) τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν (ὁ Ν.) διὰ Πν. ῾Α στόματος Δ. Β. Δεσπ. ὁ Θ. τῶν πάτρων ἡμῶν ὁ διὰ Πν. ῾Α διὰ στομ. Δ. E. F. D. Δεσπ. ὁ Θ. ὁ διὰ στομ. Δ.omitting διὰ Πν. ῾Α., but recognizing this clause in the comment. “Observe how they say nothing idle, but speak of His power only: or rather, just as Christ said to the Jews, If I by the Spirit of God do speak, so these also say, ‘By the Holy Ghost.’ Behold, the Saviour also speaks by the Spirit. And hear what it is that they say, ‘Lord, the God Who by the mouth of David,’” etc.

  82. ↑ In the mss. this clause of Acts 4:27, with the following comment, ὅρα πῶς, κ. τ. λ. is set in the midst of the comment on Acts 4:29: viz. before the sentence which (in the old text) also begins with ὅρα πῶς. It is certainly misplaced there. See note 5.—Διαιροῦσι τὸ πάθος seems to refer to the mention of Herod and Pontius Pilate.

  83. ↑ ὁ ἐπιτρέψας, ὁ καὶ ἐγκαλῶν καὶ εἰς πέρας ἀγαγών. The meaning seems to be, that though permitting, He calls to account, and though holding men responsible, yet brought it to pass. The modern text omits ὁ καὶ ἐγκαλῶν, and adds εἰργάσω at the end.

  84. ↑ τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν τὴν δύναμιν καὶ βουλήν. i.e. “hand” means “power,” and “hand” (or, power) and “purpose,” or, “will” here make one notion, “Thy will which is also power,” for to Thee to will is to prevail: not two notions, for we do not say that power determines, but only the will.—The Edd. however, adopt from E. τὴν χεῖρα for τὸ αὐτὸ, which spoils the sense. “By the hand he means the power and the purpose.”—Below, B. C. have ὅτι τῇ χειρὶ διέταττεν (A. omits the clause), we retain from E. F. D. διέπραττεν.—Œcum. “The hand and the counsel mean the same thing: for where there is power, there is no need of counsel. What Thou didst order from the beginning is done.”

  85. ↑ Here the mss. insert, ῝Ον ἔχρισας, φησίν. & 169·Ορα πῶς, κ. τ. λ. “Observe how, even in prayer, they circumstantially describe the Passion, and refer all to God,” etc. And then: “Observe how they ask all,” etc. See note 2.—Here for the latter ὅρα or ὁρᾷς πῶς of the old text, E. has εἶδες πῶς.

  86. ↑ Edd. καὶ εἰς παρρησίαν πλείονα ἀλείφων, as the conclusion of the preceding sentence before the (omitted) text. “And anointing them (as wrestlers) unto greater boldness.” Then, “For since it was the beginning (of their work), they besought also a sensible sign in order that they might be believed (πρὸς τὸ πιστευθῆναι αὐτοὺς, but after this, etc.). Great was the encouragement they thus received from their prayer. And with good reason they crave the grace of signs, for they had no other means,” etc.

  87. ↑ ᾽Επεὶ τότε ξένως γέγονεν. Καὶ γὰρ ὅτε ἐσταυρώθη, ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ. Edd. ᾽Επὶ δὲ τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους ξένως καὶ παρὰ φύσιν γέγονε· καὶ γὰρ τότε πᾶσα ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ. “But at the Passion of our Saviour it happened in an unusual manner and preternaturally: for then all the earth was shaken.” Instead of the next sentence, “And the Lord Himself,” etc. E. has, “to the intent the power of Him that was crucified should everywhere be known, and that the Sufferer was God, and not simply man. But further: although it was a token of wrath, yet was it of His wrath against the adversaries,” etc., but Edd. follow the old text here.

  88. ↑ A. B. C. omit the text: D. F. Edd. insert from Acts 4:33–34. “And great grace was upon them all, neither was there any among them that lacked:” E. “And with great power, etc. and great grace,” etc. Τοῦ πράγματος ἡ δύναμις, i.e. of the having all things common, as below, p. 163. C. has πνεύματος, which Saville adopts.

  89. ↑ The innovator, mistaking the meaning of τὸ δεύτερον (viz the reference to Acts 2:44), has, Saying above (Acts 4:32), Neither said any of them, etc., and here (Acts 4:34), “Neither was there any among them that lacked.” So Edd.

  90. ↑ The strong expressions of Chrys. concerning the community of goods at Jerusalem are quite different from the guarded and limiting statements of most modern commentators who seem bent upon showing that it was only a case of remarkable liberality, e.g. Hackett in loco: “Common in the use of their property, not necessarily in their possession of it.” Our author’s statements agree better with the New Test. notices on the subject. The main facts are these. (1) There was a real and general community of property. The statements in Acts on this point are clear and strong: καὶ εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά (Acts 2:44); They were selling and distributing their real and personal property—τὰ κτήματα καὶ τὰς ὑπάρξεις (ii. 45). Nor did any one say that anything of his possessions was his own, ἀλλ ἦν αὐτοῖς ἅπαντα κοινά, (Acts 4:32); “As many as (ὅσοι) were possessors of lands or houses,” sold them, brought the money and distribution was made to the needs of each (Acts 4:34–35). This is more than distinguished liberality or mere prevailing willingness to give. (2) This peculiar phenomenon was connected with the habit of living together as a group or family, on the part of the Jerusalem Christians (Acts 1:13; Acts 2:42–44). It was an evidence that they were peculiarly one in heart and soul, that no member of this closely-knit community was allowed to suffer while others could supply him (Acts 4:32–34). (3) The arrangement was purely voluntary. There was no law or demand in the case. Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11) were not punished for contributing to the common treasury only a part of the price of the land but as Acts 5:4 clearly shows, for falsely presenting it as the whole. Yet the fact that they wished to have it thought that they had brought all seems to show that to bring all was customary and expected. (4) This community of goods was both local and temporary. It seems to have been confined to Jerusalem. There is no allusion to it in the Epistles. It sprang out of the ardor of brotherly love in the early years of the Christian community at Jerusalem and in view of the special needs of many of its members. The special poverty of the church at Jerusalem which made contributions from other churches necessary, may have resulted in part, as Meyer suggests, from the working of this plan. (5) The custom can hardly be explained apart from the expectation of the nearness of the Parousia. In the Thessalonian church all labor for self-support was upon the point of ceasing for the same reason. 1 Thess. 3:10, sq.—G.B.S.

  91. ↑ εἰς πόσον ἰούγων ἀριθμὸν συντείνει; The word here used perplexed the scribes of later times when it had become obsolete, and N. has ἰούλων, B. ἰούγγων, C. όγγων(sic), only A. ex corr. ἰούγων. The innovator substitutes μιγάδων and συντελεῖ. The meaning is, At what number of juga is our city assessed to the imperial tributes? Justinian Novell. xvii. c. 8. prescribes that the imperial πράκτορες, exactores, shall be compelled to insert in their returns (ἀποχαί) the exact quantity “of zygocephala or juga or jugalia or whatever else be the term used in different localities:” τὸ πόσον τῶν ζυγοκεφάλων ἢ ἰο ύγων ἢ ἰουγαλίων, ἢ ὅπως δήποτε ἂν αὐτὰ κατὰ χῶραν καλοῖεν. See Du Fresne Gloss. s. vv. It seems that each holding of land was rated or assessed at so many juga or yokes of oxen; moreover the term jugum is equivalent to a measure of land, as Varro remarks that land is measured in some places by juga, in others by jugera.

  92. ↑ i.e. People now are more afraid of this (the cenobiticals way of life), than they are of launching into the sea of this world’s temptations: whereas if we had made trial of this, we should boldly venture upon the practice so happily adopted by the first Christians. (τοῦ πράγματος as above, p. 73, note 3.)

  93. ↑ ᾽Εὰν ὁδῷ προβαίνωμεν. B. unnecessarily inserts ταύτῃ, which Ben. adopts. “Si hac via progrediamur.” ῾Οδῷ προβαίνειν (or ὁδῷ βαδίζειν) is a common phrase in St. Chrys. Applied to persons, it means “to be fairly started and getting on:” to things, “to be in train,” as in Hom. i. ὁδῷ καὶ τὰ ἅλλα προὔβαινεν, “the rest would follow in course.”

  94. ↑ Chrys. evidently regards the death of Ananias and Sapphira as a miracle wrought by Peter (so Meyer). All that the narrative states is that Peter disclosed the sin of Ananias and foretold the fate of his wife (Lechler). The middle position seems preferable: Peter acted as the instrument of God, the agent of the divine retribution. His will acted in conscious harmony with the divine purpose of which it was the organ (so Gloag).—G.B.S.

  95. ↑ Εἰ οὐδεὶς ἐτόλμα κολλᾶσθαι αὐτοῖς τ. ἀποστ. For εἰ, which is the reading of A., and seems to be the true reading, B. C. N. have ἤ. The passage is corrupt, but the sense may be restored by inserting the words of the sacred text as above: i.e. To them, the Apostles, none durst join himself, but believers were the more added to the Lord, etc. Then ὁ γὰρ Πετρὸς κ. τ. λ. falls into its natural place as the comment on Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκία. But with the other reading, ἢ, the sense may be completed as below, p. 78, viz. “or, no man durst,” etc., [so that they were allowed to remain undisturbed in Solomon’s porch.] The modern text, after “the people magnified them,” substitutes: Εἰκότως· καὶ γὰρ ὁ Π. κ. τ. λ. “With reason. For indeed Peter was henceforth terrible, inflicting punishment, exposing even the thoughts of the mind: to whom also they gave more heed by reason of the miracle,” etc.

  96. ↑ The modern text inserts here: “But not so Ananias: he secretes a part of the price of the field which he sold: wherefore also he is punished as one who did not manage his business rightly, and who was convicted of stealing what was his own.”

  97. ↑ Edd. from E., omitting this and the following sentence, insert Acts 5:14–15, and below, John 14:12, both of which are wanting in the old text.

  98. ↑ Edd. from E. “But not only for this reason, but because, being exceedingly humane and beneficent, they succored some with money, some with healing of their bodies. Why hath Satan filled thine heart? Peter,” etc.

  99. ↑ E. Edd. “therefore both in the case of the man himself, and in that of the wife, he makes the judgment terrible.”

  100. ↑ Our author touches upon the difficulty which has so often been found in this narrative on account of the apparent disproportion of the penalty to the offence. But it is to be remembered that: (1) The narrative presents the sin as the most heinous—lying to God—trying to deceive the Holy Spirit whose organs the Apostles were. It was a deliberate conspiracy for this purpose. (2) These persons were members of the church who professed to possess and should have possessed the Holy Spirit. Instead they had been overcome by a Satanic principle which here makes its manifestation in pride and hypocrisy. The selfishness of the deed is the more grievous because of the great piety and sacrifice of the act which was counterfeited. Pride is the greater evil, the higher the virtue which it simulates. (3) Such a retributive miracle, besides being just in itself, may have been specially necessary in this early stage of the church’s life to warn against deception and fraud and to emphasize the principles of honor in the early church. “So terrible was this judgment in order to guard the first operations of the Holy Spirit” (Neander).—G.B.S.

  101. ↑ Edd. from E. “Now if, their sin being inexcusable, he had not inflicted such punishment on them both, what contempt of God would thence have arisen! And that this was the reason, is evident from the fact, that he did not immediately,” etc.

  102. ↑ E. Edd. “There will be none to war upon us: just as, if we be put asunder one from another, on the contrary all will set upon us. Hence it was that they henceforth were of good courage, and with boldness attacked,” etc.

  103. ↑ Εὔκαιρον καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Παλαιᾶς δεῖξαι τὸ χαλεπὸν τῆς ἐπιορκίας τήμερον. Meaning perhaps that this had occurred in one of the Scripture Lessons for the day. Below, Καθάπερ γὰρ δρέπανον ὅπουπερ ἂν ἐμπεσῃ οὐκ ἂν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ ἀνελκυσθείη μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀποτεμνομένης τῆς κεφαλῆς. So A. B. N. Savil. and C., which last however has ἀπὸ for ἀποτεμνομένης. Hales ap. Sav. suggests, that ἀποτεμν. τῆς κεφ. ought to be rejected: it is better however to supply εἰς τράχηλον before ἐμπέσῃ as in the translation. The meaning is explained in Serm. ad. Pop. Antioch. xv. t. ii. 158. D. “A flying sword, one might manage to escape from, δρεπάνην δὲ εἰς τὸν τράχηλον ἐμπεσοῦσαν καὶ ἀντὶ σχοινίου γενομένην, οὐδεὶς ἂν διαφύγοι, but from a sickle darted round the neck and catching it as a halter would, there can be no escape.” Hence it appears that the innovator has quite mistaken the Author’s meaning. He reads, Καθάπερ γὰρ δρέπανον εἰς τράχηλον ἐμπεσὸν οὐκ ἂν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸ ἀνελκυσθείη, μένει δὲ πῶς ἔτι καὶ ἀποτεμνομένης τῆς κεφαλῆς: i.e. “having cut off one head, it still remains, that it may cut off more:” which is irrelevant to the matter in hand, viz. how τὸ δρέπανοειδὲς denotes τὸ ἄφυκτον τῆς τιμωρίας. Of the Edd. Savile alone retains the old and genuine reading. Montf. strangely remarks, “Savilianam lectionem esse Morelliana quam sequimur obscuriorem.”

  104. ↑ Œcumenius has in part preserved the true reading, τ. ἐ. διεγερθεὶς, κινηθεὶς, ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις [text omitted] σφοδρότερον αὐτοῖς ἐπιτίθεται. A. B. C. Cat. τ. ἐ., διηγέρθη, κινηθεὶς ἐπὶ τοῖς γεν. “Καὶ ἐθ. αὐτοὺς ἐν τ. δ.” Νῦν σφοδρ. αὐτοῖς ἐπιτίθενται. And again after πράους ἔσεσθαι,—Καὶ σφοδρ. ἐπιτίθενται (Cat. ἐπιτίθεται): ἔθεντο αὐτοὺς, φ., ἐν τ. δ. ῎Αγγελος δὲ κ. τ. λ.—E. D. F. Edd. “Nothing more reckless than wickedness, nothing more audacious. Having learned by experience the courage of these men, from the attempts they had made before, they nevertheless attempt, and again come to the attack. What means it, ‘And having risen up, the high-priest and they that were with him?’ He was roused, it says, being excited at what had taken place. ‘And laid their hands on the Apostles, and put them in the common prison.’ Now they assault them more vigorously: but did not forthwith, etc. And whence is it manifest that they assaulted them more vigorously? From their putting them in the common prison. Again they are involved in danger, and again they experience succor from God. And in what manner, hear from what follows.”

  105. ↑ ῞Οτι οὕτω μᾶλλον ἢ ἐκείνως ἐπιστεύθησαν· οὕτω καὶ οὐκ ἂν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐρωτῆσαι ἦλθον, οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρως ἐπίστευσαν. If it be meant that the Apostles were more believed because the miracle itself was not seen, than they would have been if the Angel had brought them out in open day, this may be understood in a sense which St. Chrys. expresses elsewhere, viz. with reference to the nature of faith: “in the latter case there could have been no room for doubt; people would have been forced to acknowledge the claims of the Apostles.” Thus Hom. vi. in 1 Cor. “Put the case that Christ should come this moment with all the Angels, reveal Himself as God, and all be subject unto Him: would not the heathen believe? But will this be counted unto the heathen for faith? No: this were no faith; for a compulsory power from without—the visible appearance—would have effected this. There is no free choice in the matter: οὐκ ἐστι τὸ πρᾶγμα προαιρέσεως.” But then the next sentence ought to be, ᾽Εκείνως γὰρ οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἐπὶ τὸ ἐρ. ἦλθον· εἰ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, οὐκ ἂν ἑτέρως ἐπ., or to that effect.—Perhaps, however, the meaning is rather: “It was so plain to common sense that a miracle must have been wrought, that had the Angel brought them out in the sight of all men (οὕτω), they could not have been more believed than they had a right to be as the case was (ἐκείνως). Had the miracle been performed openly (οὕτω), people would have had no occasion even to ask, How is this? And they who, as it was, were not brought to ask such a question, would certainly not have believed under any other circumstances. So in the Old Testament, Nebuchadnezzar, when he sees the Holy Men praising God in the furnace, is brought to ask in amazement, Did we not cast three men, etc.: but these priests are so hardened, that instead of asking as they ought to have done, How came ye out? they only ask, as if nothing had happened, Did we not straitly charge you, etc. And observe, they have no excuse for their wilful apathy: for they have had a full report of the circumstances from the officers: the prison shut, the guards at their posts.” If this be the meaning, we must replace οὐκ ἂν or οὐδ ἂν in the sentence ὅτι οὕτω μᾶλλον κ. τ. λ. But the text is too corrupt to be restored by any simple emendation.—Edd. “Because in this way, etc. especially as they would not have been brought to ask the question, nor yet in another case would they themselves have believed;” ἄλλως τε καὶ ὅτι οὐκ ἂν, and οὔτε μὴν ἑτέρως ἂν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐπίστευσαν.

  106. ↑ Here the mss. insert Acts 5:21–23, inconveniently; for it interrupts the connection. Chrys. here deviates from his usual method, not following the narrative point by point, but reflecting first upon the conduct of the priests. Of course it is to be understood, that the whole text, at least to Acts 5:28, had been first read out.

  107. ↑ In the mss. this comment is placed before Acts 5:24.

  108. ↑ Here A. B. C. N. insert Acts 5:29 omitted above by the two first. The following sentence, omitted here by D. E. F. and inserted after v. 31, is there repeated by A. B. C.

  109. ↑ E. Edd. “Observe the excess of their wickedness. When they ought to have been struck with alarm at what they heard, here they are cut (to the heart), and take counsel in their temerity (βουλεύονται εἰκῇ) to slay (them).” The innovator did not perceive the reference to Acts 2:37 in οἱ ἄλλοι “ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες κατενύγησαν.”

  110. ↑ E. and Edd. “‘Having brought them forth.’ He does not himself bring them away, but lets them go: that in this way also their intrepidity might be known; which also they showed, in that by night they entered into the temple and taught.” In the following sentence perhaps the purport of what St. Chrys. said was, that “if, as the priests supposed, the guards had let them out, the guards themselves would have absconded, and the Apostles would not have stood in the temple, but would have escaped.” Εἴ γε πεισθέντες may have been said of the guards, “if they had been bribed or otherwise induced to let them out;” but all the mss. have εἴ γε π. ἐξῆλθον, in the sense, “supposing, which is not likely, that the Apostles had been induced to come forth at the request of the guards.” Savile gives this clause to the latter part, beginning as E. and Edd. with μᾶλλον δὲ εἰ ἐξέβ. for καὶ εἰ ἐξέβ. “Supposing they had been induced to come out, or rather if those had put them out:” Ben. refers it to what precedes; “they would have fled, if they had come out at their request: nay, if those had put them out,” etc.

  111. ↑ The meaning of the council’s statement: “Ye intend to bring this man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:28) probably is: You would cause an insurrection against us and thus be avenged for the crucifixion of Jesus (Meyer): others take it to mean: You would carry the idea that we had murdered an innocent man in crucifying Jesus (Hackett). The strong language of Peter in reply (Acts 5:29) which seems to imply: We cannot help consequences; we must obey God in our preaching and healing, favors the former view. The confusion of the text of Chrys. here (see note in loco) makes his view on this point uncertain.—G.B.S.

  112. ↑ φονικὰς λοιπὸν βούλονται δεῖξαι τὰς προαιρέσεις τῶν ’Ιουδαίων. As the latter part of the sentence, ὡς οὐ δι᾽ ἀλήθειαν ταῦτα ποιοῦντων ἀλλ᾽ ἀμύνασθαι βουλομένων, seems inapplicable to the Jews, and to be meant for the Apostles, it may be conjectured that the true reading is τῶν ᾽Αποστόλων: “that the Apostles were bent upon having blood.” But all the mss. have τῶν ᾽Ιουδαίων, and the sense so far is satisfactory: viz. They want to make it appear now indeed what bloody-minded men the Jews are: now, not when Christ was crucified.

  113. ↑ The modern text: “So artlessly did they preach the Gospel of life. But when he says, ‘He hath exalted,’ he states for what purpose, namely, ‘to give repentance’ he adds, ‘to Israel, and remission of sins.’ But, it will be said, these things seemed incredible. How say you? And why not rather credible, seeing that neither rulers,” etc.

  114. ↑ Here begins a second recapitulation or rather gleaning, partly of matter not touched upon before, partly of further remarks on what has been said.—῾Ως εὐδοκιμοῦντες ἐγγὺς τῶν προφητῶν ἔμελλον ἵστασθαι: This relates to Acts 5:13–16, as the reason why they were “filled with indignation.” The innovator (E. F. D. Edd.) not perceiving this, alters ὡς εὐδοκιμοῦντες to ἢ ὡς εὐδοκιμοῦντας, which he joins to the former sentence, “How else could any one have persuaded them than (by treating them) as persons in high repute?” and adds, “And mark their malignity: they set on them the Sadducees who were most sore on the subject of the Resurrection: but they got nothing by their wickedness. But perchance,” etc.

  115. ↑ St. Chrysostom frequently contends against the common excuse, “We cannot attain to the holiness of the first Christians, because there are no miracles now.” Thus, he urges, Hom. in Matt. xlvi., that it was not their miracles that made the saints, both of the Old and of the New Testament, great and admirable, but their virtues: without which, no miracles would have availed for themselves or others: that if they wrought miracles, it was after they, by their noble qualities and admirable lives had attracted the Divine grace: for miracles proceed from a holy life, and this is also their goal: only he that lives a holy life receives this grace; and he that receives it, receives it only that he may amend the life of others…Let no man therefore wait for miracles. It afflicts the evil spirit when he is expelled from the body, much more when he sees the soul set free from sin: for in this lies Satan’s great power, and to destroy this, Christ died. In expelling this from thyself, thou hast performed a miracle greater than all miracles. This is not my doctrine; it is the doctrine of the Apostle Paul. 1 Cor. 12:31, the “more excellent way” is not miracles, but Charity, the root of all good. If we practise this we need no miracles; and if we practise not from miracles we shall get no good.

  116. ↑ ταῦτα τῆς ἀναστάσεως πιστότερα. E. omits this, and inserts ἀπήγγειλαν ὑποστρέψαντες ἅπερ εἶδον. “They reported on their return just what they had seen:” so Edd. except Savile, who retains the reading of E. and adds to it as above (from N.)

  117. ↑ ἔθνεσι τοσούτοις ὁμιλῶν ὑπὲρ μεταστάσεως πολιτείας μόνης.

  118. ↑ Edd. “And why,” you will ask, “is poverty thought a thing to be fled from!” Why, because other good things are, in the judgment of many, things to be fled from, not because they are to be deprecated, but because hard of attainment.

  119. ↑ The Epigram is preserved in the Palatine Anthology, 7. 676. Δοῦλος ᾽Επίκτητος γενόμην, καὶ σώματι πηρὸς, καὶ πενίαν ῏Ιρος, καὶ φίλος ἀθανάτοις. But our mss. except E., for ῏Ιρος have ἱερὸς, “sacred.”

  120. ↑ Something is wanting in the old text to complete the sense: the matter in the brackets is supplied from E. D. F. Below, the same have: “to swear not at all: a haven, that one be not drowned by the storm bursting. For though wrath, though (sense of) insult, though passion boil over, yea though anything, be what it may, the soul is in security, so that it will not even utter aught that should not be spoken: for one has laid himself,” etc.

  121. ↑ Διαρρήξωμεν τὰ σχοινία· ἐν εὐκολί& 139· καταστήσωμεν ἑαυτούς· πάσης ἀπορίας ἀπαλλαγῶμεν καὶ τῆς σατανικῆς παγίδος. i.e. “The cords of this snare are, the ties of worldly business in the possession or pursuit of wealth: there is a condition, as was said above, in which it is full easy not to swear; let us bring ourselves into that condition: all that makes us say, ‘We cannot help swearing,’ (πάσης ἀπορίας), let us have done with it, and break loose from the snare of the devil.” The exhortation connects both parts of the “Morale”—the commendation of voluntary poverty, and the invective against swearing. In the modern text (E. F. D. Edd.) this is lost sight of: it reads: διαρρ. τὰ σχ. καὶ ἐν εὐκ. καταστήσομεν (al. -σωμεν) πάσης φυλακῆς· ἀπαλλαγῶμεν τῆς σατ. παγ. “Let us burst the cords, and we shall bring ourselves into a facility of all watchfulness: let us break loose,” etc.

  122. ↑ In the Clementine Recogn. i. 65, Gamaliel is spoken of as having been early a Christian in secret. Lucian the Presbyter a.d. 415, writes an account of the discovery in consequence of a vision in which Gamaliel himself appeared to him, of the reliques of St. Stephen, together with those of Nicodemus and Gamaliel. See note on St. Augustin Comm. on St. John, p. 1048. Photius, Cod. 171, p. 199 read in a work of Eustratius how Gamaliel was baptized by St. Peter and St. John. (According to the Jewish tradition, Wolf. Bibl. Hebr. ii. 882. he died President of the Sanhedrim, eighteen years after the fall of Jerusalem.)

  123. ↑ The modern text: “As if he had said, Forbear; and if these men came together of themselves, nothing will hinder them also to be overthrown.” C. reads ἡμᾶς, “What to hinder us?” Catena, as above.

  124. ↑ οὔτε γὰρ ἑλληνιστὶ διελέγοντο. So A. B. C. N. but Cat. οὗτοι, and E. D. F. add ῾Εβραῖοι ὄντες. “For these used the Greek language, being Hebrews.” There is no need to adopt this reading: the comment seems to belong to the words, against the Hebrews: viz. “they murmured against them, seeing they were overlooked, etc., for neither could these Hebrews converse with them in the Greek language.”

  125. ↑ ἄρα(Cat. ὅρα) καὶ ἐκεῖνοι πλήρεις πίστεως ἦσαν (E. D. F. add οὓ καὶ ἐξελέξαντο). ἵνα μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ κ. τ. λ. The meaning seems to be: “If Stephen was a man full of faith, so were the others: (they were careful to choose only such,): in order that,” etc.

  126. ↑ Omitted in the old text: supplied by E.—Below, E. omits, “for, saith the Scripture, in the mouth of two witnesses:” and amplifies the rest, adding, “even a third, superabundantly: both showing how well he himself speaks, and leading them away from their sanguinary purpose.”

  127. ↑ Edd. from E. “Saying this, he speaks nothing blasphemous against Christ, but what he most wishes, he effects. ‘If,’ says he, ‘it be of men, it will come to naught.’ Here he seems to me to put it to them by way of syllogism, and to say: Consequently, since it has not come to naught, it is not of man. ‘Lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.’ This he said to check them,” etc.—Below, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο δηλοῖ, might be rendered, “but he is declaring this work” (viz. “if this work be of men,” etc.): the modern text, τὸ γάρ ἔργον τοῦτο ἐδήλου.

  128. ↑ Meyer finds in the expression of Gamaliel (Acts 5:38–39): “if it be of men—ἔαν ἦ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων” and “if it is of God—ἐι δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστίν” an indication that he leaned to the latter opinion. While this distinction is grammatically valid it can scarcely be justified as intentional. Gamaliel, although tolerant toward Christianity, as the Pharisaic party in general were at this time, was not a Christian in secret, but an orthodox Jew. His advice was politic even from a Jewish point of view. He saw, as the more bitter party did not, that this sort of opposition would only serve to rouse all the energy and perseverance of the Christian disciples and thus indirectly tend to the increase and spread of their doctrines among the people.—G.B.S.

  129. ↑ E. F. D. and Edd. (except Savile) add, μᾶλλον δὲ μονονουχὶ τοιαῦτα δικαιολογούμενος τρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀποτείνεται. “Or rather he all but with just remonstrance thus expostulates with them: “Ye were persuaded,” etc. Below, ᾽Εκεῖ τετρακόσιοι, ἐκεῖ τετρακισχίλιοι· καὶ ὧδε κ. τ. λ. But the mention of the four thousand, here referred to the second instance (Judas of Galilee), is in fact derived from the case of the Egyptian, Acts 21:38, being the third instance which “he might have cited.” Accordingly the modern text substitutes, “There four hundred stood up, and after this a great multitude.”

  130. ↑ E. and Edd. omit the following sentence, substituting the first two clauses of Acts 5:40 and after “the character of the man,” add, “wherefore also they desist from their purpose of killing the Apostles, and having only scourged they dismiss them.”

  131. ↑ Standing here by itself, this last clause of Acts 6:7 is quite out of its place. It is best explained as marking the conclusion of the text Acts 6:1–7 here again read out. In the old text it is followed by the comment, ᾽Εκεῖνο γὰρ τὸ γένος ἐδόκει τιμιώτερον εἶναι· as if “this description of people” meant the priests: and then, “And there arose,” it says, “a murmuring,” Acts 6:1. We have restored the comment to its proper place.—The innovator adds as comment on Acts 6:7: Τοῦτο αἰνιττομένου ἐστὶ καὶ δεικνύντος ὅτι ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὁ κατὰ Χριστοῦ θάνατος ἐσκευάσθη, πολλοὶ ἀπὸ τούτων πιστεύουσιν. “This is by way of hint, to show that of those very persons, by whose machinations the sentence of death against Christ was procured, of those same many believe. “There arose,” it says, “a murmuring,” etc. And so Edd.

  132. ↑ The murmuring arose from the “Hellenists” who are not mentioned by Chrys. (probably because of a defect of the text). These Hellenists are distinguished from the “Hebrews” and were probably Greek-speaking Jews resident in Jerusalem who had become Christians and who are here distinguished by their language from the great mass of the Jewish Christians who spoke the vernacular.—G.B.S.

  133. ↑ The neglect here referred to was doubtless, as Chrys. says, unintentional (vs. Meyer) and arose from the increasing difficulties of administering the affairs of so large a society as the Christian community at Jerusalem had now become, on the plan of a common treasury. The narrative gives the impression that the complaint was not unfounded. It is not unlikely that the natural jealousy between the Greek and Palestinian Jews may have sharpened the sense of neglect. This is the first record of dissension in the Christian Church. We may note thus early the conditions which tended to develop a Jewish and a Gentile party in the church; the germs of dissenting sects of Ebionites and Gnostics which developed into so many dangerous and harmful forms in the apostolic, and especially in the post-apostolic age.—G.B.S.

  134. ↑ ῾Θρᾷς τὰ ἔξω διαδεχόμενα τὰ ἔσω; E. omits this and so Edd. The antithesis here seems to be, not, as before, of evils from without and from within the Church; but of the concerns of the body and of the soul.

  135. ↑ E. D. F. Morel. Ben. omit this sentence, and go on with, “Now when Matthias,” etc. Savile: “And a very good decision this is. And they present seven, not now twelve, full,” etc.

  136. ↑ ᾽Επειδὴ γὰρ εἶδον τὸν ἄρχοντα καὶ διδάσκαλον τοιαῦτα ἀποφηνάμενον, ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων λοῖπον τὴν πεῖραν ἐλάμβανον. Meaning, perhaps, that these priests, acting upon the counsel of Gamaliel, put the question to the test of facts and experience, and learned that it was of God.—In the next sentence, a covert censure seems to be implied: q.d. “Would it be so now? Would there not be parties and factions in the choosing of the men? Would not the Bishop’s overture be rejected, were he to propose a plan for ridding himself of the like distracting demands upon his time?”

  137. ↑ ἀλλὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἐστὶν ἡ οἰκονομία, interrogatively (so in Conc. Quinisext. Can. xvi., see below), but in the Edd. this is put affirmatively; Ben. Sed presbyterorum erat œconomia. Atqui nullus adhuc erat episcopus. Erasm. Sed presbyterorum est hæc dispensatio, tametsi nullus adhuc esset episcopus.” But to say that the οἰκονομία, i.e. stewardship and management of Church funds (in Chrysostom’s time), was vested in the presbyters, would be contrary to facts. Therefore we take it interrogatively: the answer not expressed, being, “No: it belongs to the Bishops.” Perhaps, however, the passage may be restored thus; ᾽Αλλὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων; ᾽Αλλὰ τῶν ἐπισκόπων (or Οὐδὲ τῶν πρεσβ.) ἐστὶν ἡ οἰκ. Καίτοι κ. τ. λ. “Well, was it that of presbyters? Nay, this stewardship belongs to Bishops. (Or, No, neither does it belong to presbyters.) And yet,” etc.—The following sentence, “῞Οθεν οὔτε διακόνων οὔτε πρεσβυτέρων οἶμαι (Cat. om.) τὸ ὄνομα εἶναι δῆλον καὶ φανερόν, as the text stands, might seem to mean, “Whence I think that neither of deacons nor of presbyters is the name clearly and manifestly expressed:” i.e. “there is no express and clear mention in this narrative either of deacons or of presbyters: and I account for this circumstance by the fact, that there were no Bishops.” Ben. Unde puto nec diaconorum nec presbyterorum tunc fuisse nomen admissum nec manifestum. But transposing οἶμαι and εἶναι, or indeed even as the words stand, we get the sense expressed in the translation, which is more suitable. So Erasmus: Unde neque diaconorum neque presbyterorum nomen esse opinor quod clarum ac manifestum. St. Chrys. says, “Their appellation and office is neither deacons nor presbyters: they were ordained upon a special emergency.”—It seems to have been commonly held in earlier times, that Acts 6:1–6 is the history of the first institution of the Diaconate. Thus the Council of Nicocæsarea ordains (a.d. 314) that in each city, however large, the number of deacons according to the Canon ought to be seven, and for proof appeals to this history, πεισθήσῃ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς βίβλου τῶν πράξεων. In the third century, Cornelius Ep. ad Fab. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 43 states, that the clergy of Rome consisted of one Bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, etc. (Accordingly St. Jerome, Ep. 146 al. 101 ad Evang. remarks: Diaconos paucitas honorabiles facit. Comp. Sozomen. vii. 19.) But the rule which assigned to each Bishop seven deacons, neither more nor less, was not always followed in large cities, as appears even from the Canon above cited: how greatly that number was exceeded in later times, may be seen in the Novellæ of Justinian, when it is enacted (iii. c. 1.) that the number of deacons in the metropolitan Church at Constantinople should be a hundred. The Council or Councils commonly called the fifth and sixth General (Conc. Quinisextum, or Trullanum,) held under the same Emperor, a.d. 692, sanctioned this departure from the earlier rule, in the following Canon (xvi). “Whereas the Book of Acts relates that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles, and the Council of Neocæsarea in its Canons determines that “The number of deacons in each city,” etc. (as above): we, having applied the sense of the Fathers to the Apostolic text, find that the said history relates not to the deacons who minister in the mysteries, but to the service of tables, etc.: the history in the Acts being as follows, “And in those days,” etc. (Acts 6:1–6.) The doctor of the Church, John Chrysostom, expounding the same, thus speaks: “It is a subject for wonder…….neither deacons nor presbyters is their designation,” (as above.) Hereupon therefore do we also publish, that the aforesaid seven deacons be not taken to mean those which minister in the mysteries, as in the doctrine above rehearsed: but that these are they which were charged with the service of the common need of the people then gathered together; albeit herein these be unto us a pattern of humane and diligent attendance on them that be in necessity.

  138. ↑ There is no sufficient ground to doubt that this narrative describes the formation of the diaconate which we find existing later in the apostolic age (Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8–12). Although the word διάκονος does not here occur, we have the corresponding verb διακονεῖν and abstract noun διακονία (Acts 6:1–2). The chief grounds of this opinion are: (1) the substantial identity of the duties here described and those of the later diaconate; (2) the almost universal testimony of patristic tradition to their identity: (3) the continuance for centuries of the number seven in the diaconate of churches (like that at Rome) where more than seven would naturally be required, out of deference to the apostolic mode. See Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, pp. 187–9.—G.B.S.

  139. ↑ καὶ τοῦτο, ὥσπερ τὸ κήρυγμα, οὕτως ἠνύετο·—τοῦτο, the “serving of tables” itself: οὕτως, by this arrangement. Τὰ γὰρ πλείω ταύταις ἤνυον· the more time the Apostles had for prayer, the better for the Church: so much depended on their prayers. Therefore the plan was every way beneficial: οὕτω τὰ πνευματικὰ ἐπελέγοντο, (Erasm. adnumerabantur, Ben. præferebantur, but the meaning is, “they chose to themselves,”) οὕτω καὶ ἀποδημίας ἐστέλλοντο, οὕτως ἐνεχειρίσθησαν οὗτοι τὸν λόγον: “by this arrangement, the Apostles were free to give their undivided attention to spiritual matters; to leave Jerusalem, if need were, on journeys to distant places: by this arrangement, in short, the Word was their proper charge—not secular matters, such as Bishops are now burdened with, in addition to their proper duties,” Comp. note 1, p. 90. He adds: The writer, indeed, does not say all this, nor extol the devotion with which the Apostles gave themselves up to their work, and how beneficial the arrangement proved: but it is said, “It is not reason,” etc. Moses had set the example in this regard: and in token of their concern for the poor, observe the charge which they afterwards gave to Paul and Barnabas, to “remember the poor.”

  140. ↑ Πῶς δὲ προῆγον τούτους; ᾽Ενήστευον. Edd. from E., “But how they also brought these forward, learn thou. They fasted, they continued in prayer. This ought also to be done now.”—As there is no mention of fasting in Acts 6:1–6 perhaps this refers to the history xiii. 2, 3 of the mission of Paul and Barnabas, to which he has just alluded.—Below, καὶ ταύτῃ δὲ θαυμαστὸς ἦν ἁ Φ. The clause to which this refers is misplaced in the old text, viz. before the sentence, “In Jerusalem,” etc. where E. and Edd. restore the proper clause of Acts 6:7 καὶ ἐπληθύνετο, κ. τ. λ. The connection is: “The Apostles desired seven men full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom:” and such was Stephen, “a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost:” such doubtless were the others likewise; (supra, p. 88) certainly Philip was eminent in this regard, for [besides the history of his preaching at Samaria, ch. viii.] he is afterwards conspicuous in the history as Philip the Evangelist.

  141. ↑ καὶ μείζονα θελῆσαι παθεῖν ἢ βούλεσθαι: so all our mss. Erasm. “Et majora voluisse pati, vel velle.” Ben. Et majora velle pati.” But the meaning is, “To be ready to suffer greater wrongs than an enemy chooses to inflict:” alluding to Matt. 5:39–41. Comp. Hom. xviii. in Matt. p. 238. D. τὸ καὶ παρασχεῖν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ παθεῖν κακῶς·…τὸ καὶ πλἐον παρασχεῖν ἢ ἐκεῖνος βούλεται ὁ ποιήσας. If for βούλεσθαι we read βούλεται, the sense is clearer: ἢ βούλεσθαι, “than that he should wish it,” is somewhat abrupt.

  142. ↑ Οὐ δύναται εἰπεῖν αὐτὸν κακῶς· καὶ δέδοικας μήπως ουκ ἦν, φησὶν, τοιοῦτος. Here and in the following sentences we seem to have a string of apothegms from heathen moralists: τὰ ἔξωθεν εἰρημένα, as he says below. But in this sentence the text appears to be corrupt, and the mss. lend no real assistance for the reading adopted by Edd. from E. F. D. is only meant for restoration: viz. “Therefore, when any would compel thee to speak evil of some person (κακηγορῆσαί τινα, Sav. marg. ἀπεχθῶς πρός τινα ἔχειν) say to him, ‘I cannot speak evil of him: for I fear lest perchance he were not (ἦν, Sav. εἴη) such.’”—A. as usual in cases of difficulty, omits the passage as unintelligible. Whether φησὶν denotes a citation or an interlocution, and whether ἦν is the first or the third person, must be left doubtful; but the words might be rendered, “Lest perchance I, says he, (i.e. the person attacked), be not such.” Below, μὴ ἐντύχῃς κατὰ τούτου τῷ Θεῷ is strangely rendered by Erasm. Ne in hoc cum Deo pugnes: “Lest herein thou fight against God.”

  143. ↑ ὅτι ἔχοι τι τῶν ἄλλων τῶν ἀδιαφὸρων. E. D. F. Edd. διαφέρον “something about him, better than other men.” Below, for ἐννοήσαντα γὰρ “for when one has considered,” Edd. have ἐννοήσαντας δὲ καὶ, “but when you consider also:” i.e. “but if the case be not so,” etc. In fact something is wanting: for the case here supposed is that the charge is true: the person has been guilty of some immorality, which the other publicly exposes.

  144. ↑ τὰ λεγόμενα συνάγομεν, B. C. N. omiting ἔξωθεν, which Sav. supplies. A. E. D. F. Ben. τὰ ἔξωθεν εἰρημένα λέγομεν.—Below, for καθὼς τὰ ἔθνη (φησὶν) ποίησατε, which is not found in Scripture, E. Edd. have, Οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; Matt. 5:47.

  145. ↑ Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ κακὸν, φησίν. Αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο καλὸν τὸ μὴ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν παθεῖν. Morel. from E. κακὸν for καλὸν: which supposes it to be put interrogatively: “this thing itself an evil, say you?”—The philosopher, whose apothegm is here referred to, is Socrates: of whom Diog. Laert. in Vit. relates: “His wife having said, Thou art unjustly put to death: σὺ δὲ, ἔφη, δικαίως ἐβούλου; wouldst thou rather it were justly?” But Xenophon, in Apol. relates a similar answer made to Apollodorus, “a simple-minded but affectionate disciple of Socrates. This, said he, O Socrates, is what hurts me most, that I see thee unjustly put to death. And he, stroking the head of his disciple, replied: And wouldest thou, my friend, rather see me justly than unjustly put to death?” Down. ap. Sav.

  146. ↑ We supply this from the modern text, which, however, has τὸν οὐχ οὕτως; But ἐκεινονis better, as this will account for the omission. Our mss. have: τοὺς δικαίως ἀποθανόντας, ἢ ἐκεῖνον καὶ θαυμάζεις

  147. ↑ The accusations against Stephen were probably true in part and false in part. He had doubtless spoken against Jewish legalism and narrowness and had perhaps shown the bearing of O.T. prophecy and of Jesus’ doctrine of fulfilment upon the fate of the Jewish system. The charge that he had spoken “against Moses” had, then, a certain verbal truth which made its moral falseness all the more subtle. The perversion of his words was due in part to their utter incapacity to apprehend Christianity as the fulfilment of their own religion which necessarily involved the passing away of the latter, and partly from their bitter jealousy and hatred of the Christian “sect” and the determination to find some excuse to bring against it all the legal and social forces of the whole Jewish people. In his preaching Stephen had doubtless sought to set forth the distinctive character of Christianity as a religion historically founded in Judaism, but not to be limited and bound by its forms. He but developed germs of truth found in the teaching of Jesus concerning the Sabbath, ceremonial purifications, etc. He was the forerunner of Paul, who brought upon himself the same accusations (Acts 18:13; Acts 21:21).—G.B.S.

  148. ↑ E. “And observe how the charge is twofold. ‘Shall destroy,’ say they, ‘the place,’ and, ‘shall change the customs.’ And not only twofold, but bitter,” etc. So Edd. but Savil. adds, “and shall introduce others instead.”

  149. ↑ A. B. C. N. Οὐχὶ σημεὶων ἐδεήθη, καὶ (A. B. οὐ) πολλὴν ἐπεδείξατο την παρρησίαν. Cat. has πολλῶν for σημείων, and reads it affirmatively. Edd. οὐχὶ σημεῖα ειργάσατο; οὐ (D.F. καὶ) πολλὴν κ. τ. λ. Perhaps the passage may be restored thus: “Did he not work miracles—though he needed not many—and show great boldness?”

  150. ↑ Chrys. commonly denotes the oriental nations, generally, by the name “Persians.” Ben.

  151. ↑ Edd. from E. “And how, it may be asked, doth the Scripture say this concerning Abraham’s father? Because it does not trouble itself about matters that are not very essential. What was useful for us to learn, this only it has taught us, that in consequence of his son’s vision, he went out with him: the rest it leaves untold, by reason that he died soon after settling in Charran. ‘Get thee out of thy kindred.’ Here he shows that these men,” etc.

  152. ↑ E. Edd. “but these disobedient: or rather, we learn from what he does, as he was bidden, that he endured,” etc.

  153. ↑ A. C. N. Εἰ γὰρ εἶπεν, δώσει, δῆλον ὅτι, καὶ οὐδὲν παῤ αὐτῶν Cat. Οὐ γὰρ κ. τ. λ. Β. Οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν, δώσει, ἀλλ᾽, Οὐκ ἔδωκε, δῆλον ὅτι τὰ παῤ ἐκείνου, καὶ οὐδὲν παῤ αὐτῶν. So E. D. F. Edd. except that for δῆλον ὅτι τὰ these have δηλῶν ὅτι πάντα. The meaning seems to be: “They boasted of their possession of the land, as the token of God’s favor to themselves. See how Stephen will not allow them to rest in this conceit. Abraham was ‘the friend of God,’ yet to him ‘He gave none inheritance,’ etc. True ‘He promised to give it’: but if God said (that) He will give it (spoke of giving it at some future time); this very circumstance shows that the Jews had it from Abraham, in consequence of God’s favor to him; not as deserved by themselves.”

  154. ↑ τοὺς σωζομένους. Edd. from E. τοὺς θαυμαζομένους, “they that are admired.”—Below, all our mss. and the Catena have ᾽Επὶ μὲν τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔλεγον, “In the case of the Apostles, they said.” We read, conjecturally, ἤλγουν.

  155. ↑ C. N. have οὐχὶ ἰδιωτῶν ὄντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλαυνομένων πάντοθεν: B. F. D. E. Edd. οὐδὲ ἐς δικαστήριον ἀγομένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐλ. π. In the translation we assume the full reading to be, οὐχὶ, ἰδιωτῶν ὄντων, ἐς δ. ἀγομένων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐ. π. In the next sentence E. alone (followed by Edd.) has the unnecessary alteration, ᾽Εντεῦθεν καὶ ψευδομαρτυρούντων αὐτῶν, οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἐκράτουν, ἀλλ᾽ κ. τ. λ. Α. οὐχὶ ἰδ. ὄντων ἀλλὰ καὶ ῥητόρων, οὐ μόνον [οὐχ?] ἡττῶντο, ἀλλὰ καὶ [κατὰ?] κράτος ἐνίκων, καίτοι κ. τ. λ. i. e. [“their adversaries”] being not private individuals, but public speakers too, they not only were [not] worsted, but mightily conquered: [so that ‘they were not able to resist’] though,” etc.—Below, for πλάττοντας: A. E. πράττοντας C. we read πράττοντας καὶ πλάττοντας: after which, Edd. have (from E. alone): “As also in the case of Christ: who did everything to compass His death: insomuch that it became manifest to all men that the battle,” etc. And, instead of the next sentence; “And mark what say the false-witnesses, who were got up by those who murderously dragged Him before the council: ‘We have heard,’” etc.

  156. ↑ τὸ εὐρίπιστον τοῦ ὄχλου. Edd. add ἀνερεθίζοντες, “irritating the fickle-minded multitude.” Below, for ᾽Αλλ᾽ ὁ ὄχλος ὁ ἄτακτος κ. τ. λ., Α. has ᾽Αλλ᾽ οὐχ ὁ ὄχλος ταῦτα ἀλλ᾽ οἱ γραμματεῖς. ῾Ημεῖς ἀκ. κ. τ. λ. “But not the multitude (said) this, but the scribes: We have heard,” etc. Edd. from E., “But such is envy: it makes them demented whom it possesses, so that they do not so much as consider the meaning of the words they utter.”

  157. ↑ οὐ παρὰ τὸν νὁμον. For this, E. alone has καὶ συγγένειαν, and instead of the text, “Then came he out,” etc. καὶ τὸ κληρονομίαν ἐνταῦθα μὴ λαβεῖν: so Morel. Ben. Savile retains the reading of E., but adds οὐ παρὰ τὸν νόμον after συγγένειαν.

  158. ↑ E. F. D. Edd. “And how there may be rejoicing where these are, learn (thus). He who in nothing is conscious of evil,” etc.

  159. ↑ παρρησίας ὑπόθεσιν ἔχων τὰ τραύματα. Ben “argumentum audaciæ.” Erasm. “testimonium libertatis.”

  160. ↑ στίγμάτα, i.e. “the marks of Jesus may be gained in these encounters also, and the spirit of a confessor may be exhibited under these tortures likewise.”

  161. ↑ ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀγροῖκον. Edd. from E., ἀλλὰ τὸν οἰκέτην: which is idle, for it appears below that the παῖς here is a servant. We supply ἐκάλεσε or εἶπεν: and indeed ἂν πάλιν εἴπῃ below shows that the insult spoken of was some contumelious speech.—Also before Μὴ νομίσῃς, something needs to be supplied, e.g. Μὴ σὺ μιμήσῃ τοῦτον, “Do not thou imitate him.” And perhaps indeed τὸν ἀγρ. may belong to this: “He insulted my boy.” But do not thou imitate the rude, uncivil man: deem it not, etc.

  162. ↑ ὡς ζητοῦμεν σκεπάσαι. A.B.C. The other mss. omit the clause, and Edd. except Savile who reads from N. οὐ ζητοῦμεν αὐτὴν σπάσαι, “we do not seek to draw it.” We adopt σπάσαι.—Below, E. F. D. Edd. τοῦ Δεσπότου, “thy Master’s sufferings,” for σαυτοῦ, which the context shows to be the true reading.

  163. ↑ ἂν μὴ παρὰ σαυτῷ τὰ νικητήρια ἴδῃς ἂν μὴ λαμπροὺς λάβῃς στεφάνους. This depends on ἵνα μάθῃς at the beginning of the sentence. Erasmus wrongly, “Si non videas:” Ben. “Si non videbis.”

  164. ↑ γυνὴ ἐν σκληρᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἰμὶ, Chrys. γυνὴ ἡ σκληρὰ ἡμερὰ (or ἡμέρᾳ) LXX.

  165. ↑ Memphibaal, Chrys. here and Synops. Sacr. Script. t. vi. 349. and Theodoret Quæst. 31, in lib. 2. Reg. Μεμφιβοσθέ, LXX. Elsewhere he is called Meribbaal, 1 Chr. 8:34. So Jerubbaal, Judg. 6:32. Jerubbesheth, 2 Sam. 11:21. Memphibaal is compounded of the two forms. Ben.

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. 51–100. Christian Classics Ethereal Library: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111

2
Sayfa oluşturma tarihi: 2026-10-21, Güncelleme: 2026-10-21
Düzeltmek veya yorum yapmak mı istiyorsunuz? Bize sohbette anlatın: https://bibleox.com/tr/chat