Homily V

Acts II. 14

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

[“Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem,”] whom the writer above described as strangers. Here he directs his discourse to those others, the mockers,¹²³¹²³    The ἐκεῖνοι, if the old text be correct, are the mockers, but these are not “the devout men out of every nation under heaven,” therefore οὕς ξένους εἶπεν ἀνωτέρω can hardly be meant to refer to the following clause, ἐνταῖθα πρὸς ἐκείνους κ. τ. λ. The omission of the text-words, and the seeming antithesis ofἀνωτέρω and ἐνταῦθα, caused a confusion which the modern text attempts to remedy by transposing τοὺς διαχλ. to the place of τούτους. “Whom the writer above called strangers, to those Peter here directs his speech, and he seems indeed to discourse with those, but corrects the mockers.” This just inverts Chrysostom’s meaning, which is clear enough from the following context. He says: “The ‘dwellers in Jerusalem’ are especially the devout men out of every nation mentioned above, and to instruct these (τούτους) is the real aim of the discourse, which however is addressed in the first instance to the others (ἐκείνους), whose mockery gave occasion to it. St. Peter stands up apparently for the purpose of defending himself and his brethren: but this is in fact quite a secondary object, and the apology becomes a sermon of doctrine.” and while he seems to reason with those, he sets these right. For indeed it was divinely ordered that “some mocked,” that he might have a starting-point for his defence, and by means of that defence, might teach. [“And all ye that dwell in Jerusalem.”] It seems they accounted it a high encomium to dwell in Jerusalem too.¹²⁴¹²⁴    Καὶ τὸ ἐν ῾Ι. οἰκεῖν. Below he explains ἄνδρες ᾽Ιουδαῖοι to mean, “dwellers in Judea:” therefore the καὶseems to mean, “to be not only such, but dwellers in Jerusalem also.” “Be this,” says he, “known unto you, and hearken unto my words.” In the first instance he made them more disposed 32to attend to him. “For not as ye¹²⁵¹²⁵    Here our leading ms. after οὐ γαρ ὡς ὑμεῖς, has ἀποπληροῦται, φησὶ, καὶ ὑπολαμβάνεται ὅτι μεθύουσιν. “For not as ye.”—It is fulfilled (he says) and it is supposed that they are drunken!” which may have been said by Chrys., but certainly not in this place. suppose,” says he, “are these drunken.” Do you observe the mildness of his defence? (v. 15.) Although having the greater part of the people on his side, he reasons with those others gently; first he removes the evil surmise, and then he establishes his apology. On this account, therefore, he does not say, “as ye mock,” or, “as ye deride,” but, “as ye suppose;” wishing to make it appear that they had not said this in earnest, and for the present taxing them with ignorance rather than with malice. “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” And why this? Is it not possible at the third hour to be drunken? But he did not insist upon this to the letter; for there was nothing of the kind about them; the others said it only in mockery.¹²⁶¹²⁶    There is no reason to doubt that the company who witnessed the scenes at Pentecost really supposed the Christians to be intoxicated. To this opinion they were, of course, the more readily inclined because of their prejudice against the new sect. The force of Peter’s refutation of the charge of drunkenness: “Seeing it is but the third hour, etc.,” lies partly in the fact that 9 a.m. was too early for any such general intoxication, and still more in the fact that the third hour was the first hour of prayer, at which time it would have been sacrilege to drink to excess.—G.B.S. Hence we learn that on unessential points one must not spend many words. And besides, the sequel is enough to bear him out on this point: so now the discourse is for all in common. “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord God. (v. 16, 17. Joel ii. 28.) Nowhere as yet the name of Christ, nor His promises but the promise is that of the Father. Observe the wisdom: observe the considerate forbearance: (συγκατάβασιν.) He did not pass on to speak at once of the things relating to Christ; that He had promised this after His Crucifixion; truly that would have been to upset all. And yet, you will say, here was sufficient to prove His divinity. True, it was, if believed (and the very point was that it should be believed); but if not believed, it would have caused them to be stoned. “And I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh.” He offers even to them excellent hopes, if they would have them. And so far, he does not leave it to be regarded as the exclusive advantage of himself and his company; which would have made them be looked upon with an evil eye; thus cutting off all envious feeling. “And your sons shall prophesy.” And yet, he says, not yours this achievement, this distinction; the gift has passed over to your children. Himself and his company he calls their sons, and those [whom he is addressing] he calls his and their fathers. “And your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; and on My servants and on My handmaidens I will pour out in those days of My Spirit; and they shall prophesy.” So far he shows that he and his have found favor, in that they had received (καταξιωθέντας) [the Spirit]; not so they whom he is addressing; for that they had crucified [the Lord]. So Christ also, willing to mitigate their wrath, said, “By whom do your sons cast out devils?” (Matt. xii. 27.) He did not say, My disciples; for indeed it seemed a flattering mode of expression. And so Peter also did not say, ‘They are not drunk, but speak¹²⁷¹²⁷    Here the innovator, again mistaking his author’s meaning, as if it were—Peter did not say, “These are not drunk,” but what he did say was, “They speak by the Spirit”—finds it necessary to add, Καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς, And not merely so, but, etc. by the Spirit:’ but he takes refuge with the prophet, and under shelter of him, so speaks. As for the accusation [of drunkenness], he cleared himself of that by his own assertion; but for the grace, he fetches the prophet as witness. “I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh.” [“And your sons,” etc.] To some the grace was imparted through dreams, to others it was openly poured forth. For indeed by dreams the prophets saw, and received revelations.

Then he goes on with the prophecy, which has in it also something terrible. “And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs” [“in the earth beneath”]. (v. 19.) In these words he speaks both of the judgment to come, and of the taking of Jerusalem. “Blood and fire, and vapor of smoke.” Observe how he describes the capture. “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood.” (v. 20.) This results from the (διαθέσεως) internal affection of the sufferers. It is said, indeed, that many such phenomena actually did occur in the sky, as Josephus attests. At the same time the Apostle strikes fear into them, by reminding them of the darkness which had lately occurred, and leading them to expect things to come. “Before that great and notable day of the Lord come.” For be not confident, he means to say, because at present you sin with impunity. For these things are the prelude of a certain great and dreadful day. Do you see how he made their souls to quake and melt within them, and turned their laughter into pleading for acquittal?¹²⁸¹²⁸    ἀπολογίαν, as in 2 Cor. vii. 11. “Yea, what clearing of yourselves.” For if these things are the prelude of that day, it follows that the extreme of danger is impending. But what next? He again lets them take 33breath, adding, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” (Rom. x. 13.) This is said concerning Christ, as Paul affirms, but Peter does not venture as yet to reveal this.

Well, let us look over again what has been said. It is well managed, that as against men laughing and mocking, he starts up and begins with, “Be this known unto you all and hearken unto my words.” But he begins by saying, “Ye men of Judea.” By the expression ᾽Ιουδαἵοι, I take him to mean those that lived in Judea.—And, if you please, let us compare those expressions in the Gospel, that you may learn what a sudden change has taken place in Peter. “A damsel,” it is written, “came out unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” And, says he, “I know not the Man.” And being again questioned, “he began to curse and to swear.” (Matt. xxvi. 69–72.) But see here his boldness, and his great freedom of speech.—He did not praise those who had said, “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God;” but by his severity towards those others, he made these more earnest, and at the same time his address is clear from all appearance of adulation. And it is well to remark, on all occasions, however the Apostles may condescend to the level of their hearers (συγκατάβασις), their language is clear from all appearance both of adulation and of insolence: which is a difficult point to manage.

Now that these things should have occurred at “the third hour,” was not without cause. For¹²⁹¹²⁹    i.e. The brightness of the miraculous fire appears at a time when there would be many to see it, people not being engaged in their works, nor within their houses at their noontide meal. Œcumenius evidently had the old text before him, for he gives the same sense with the slightest verbal alterations. In the Catena the sense is altered by omission of the negatives. “When people are about their work, when about their dinner,” etc. The innovator (followed by Edd.) makes it “For when the brightness of the light is shown, then men are not occupied in the business of dinner (οὐ περὶ ἔργα…τὰ περὶ ἄριστον), then the day is cheerful (φαιδρὰ, the brisk and stirring time of day), then all are in the market.” By τὸ λαμπρὸν τοῦ φῶτος he seems to mean bright daylight. the brightness of this fire is shown at the very time when people are not engaged in their works, nor at dinner; when it is bright day, when all are in the market-place. Do you observe also the freedom which fills his speech? “And hearken to my words.” And he added nothing, but, “This,” says he, “is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days.” He shows, in fact, that the consummation is nigh at hand, and the words, “In the last days,” have a kind of emphasis. [“I will pour out,” etc.] And then, that he may not seem to limit the privilege to the sons only, he subjoins, “And your old men shall dream dreams.” Mark the sequence. First sons; just as David said, “Instead of thy fathers, were begotten thy sons.” (Ps. xlv. 17.) And again Malachi; “They shall turn the hearts of the fathers to the children. And on my handmaidens, and on my servants.” (Mal. iv. 6.) This also is a token of excellence, for we have become His servants, by being freed from sin. And great is the gift, since the grace passes over to the other sex also, not as of old, it was limited to just one or two individuals, as Deborah and Huldah.¹³⁰¹³⁰    Here, after εἰς δευτέραν, C. has᾽Ολδὰν (marg. γρ. καὶ Λοβνὰν. οἷον Δεβ. καὶ Λοβνάν. B. after Δεβ. καὶ ᾽Ολδὰνadds ἢ Λοβνάν) It does not appear who is meant by this Lobna, unless it originates in some strange misconception of 2 Kings xxiii. 31, “daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah,” LXX. Θ. ῾Ι. ἐκ Λοβνά. Clem. Alex. Str. i. §. 136. has no such name in his list of Old Testament prophetesses. He did not say that it was the Holy Ghost, neither did he expound the words of the prophet; but he merely brings in the prophecy to fight its own battle. As yet also he has said nothing about Judas; and yet it was known to all what a doom and punishment he had undergone; for nothing was more forcible than to argue with them from prophecy: this was more forcible even than facts. For when Christ performed miracles, they often contradicted Him. But when Christ brought forward the prophet, saying, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand,” they were silent, and “no man,” we read, “was able to answer Him a word.” (Ps. xc. 1.) And on all occasions He Himself also appealed to the Scriptures; for instance, “If he called them gods to whom the word of God came.” (John x. 35.) And in many places one may find this. On this account here also Peter says, “I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh;” that is, upon the Gentiles also. But he does not yet reveal this, nor give interpretations; indeed,¹³¹¹³¹    Edd. “For it was not expedient, because this also was obscure. I will show, etc. For it frightened them more, being obscure. But if he had interpreted, it would even have offended them more.” it was better not to do so (as also this obscure saying, “I will show wonders in heaven above,” put them the more in fear because it was obscure.) And it would have been more an offence, had it been interpreted from the very first. Then besides, even as plain, he passes over it, wishing to make them regard it as such. But after all, he does interpret to them anon, when he discourses to them upon the resurrection, and after he has paved the way by his discourse. (infra v. 39.) For¹³²¹³²    What follows in the edited text is obscure and perplexed. The original text seems to labor under some defects, besides the omission of the passages commented upon. since the good things were not sufficient to allure them, [it is added, “And I will show wonders,34etc.”]. Yet¹³³¹³³    Something seems wanting here: e.g. as above, “There were signs in heaven, as Josephus relates. This however, in the full sense, has never been fulfilled.” And then, a reference to the Babylonian compared with the Roman judgment. this has never been fulfilled. For none escaped then [in that former judgment], but now the faithful did escape, in Vespasian’s time. And this it is that the Lord speaks of, “Except those days had been shortened, not all flesh should be saved.”—[“Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.”] (Matt. xxiv. 22.) The worst to come first;¹³⁴¹³⁴    First blood, i.e. the taking and slaughter of the inhabitants: then, fire, etc., i.e. the burning of the city. namely, the inhabitants to be taken, and then the city to be razed and burnt. Then he dwelt upon the metaphor, bringing before the eyes of the hearers the overthrow and the taking. “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood.” What means, the moon turned into blood? It denotes the excess of the slaughter. The language is fraught with helpless dismay. (supra p. 32.) “And it shall come to pass, every one who shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Every one,” he says: though he be priest (but he does not vet reveal the meaning), though bond, though free. For¹³⁵¹³⁵    As B. has this sentence, which is in fact necessary to the sense, the omission of it in C. A. may be referred to the homœoteleuton, ἐλεύθερος. there is no male nor female in Christ Jesus, no bond, no free. (Gal. iii. 28.) Well may it be so, for all these are but shadow. For if in king’s palaces there is no high-born nor low-born, but each appears according to his deeds; and in art, each is shown by his works; much more in that school of wisdom (φιλοσοφια). “Every one who shall invoke.” Invoke: not any how, for it is written, “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord:” but with (διαθέσεως) inward earnest affection, with a life more than commonly good, with the confidence which is meet. Thus far, however, he makes the discourse light, by introducing that which relates to faith, and that terrible which relates to the punishment.¹³⁶¹³⁶    καὶ (=καίπερ, or εἰ καὶ?) φοβερὸν τὸ τῆς κολάσεως. i.e. he alleviates the severity of his discourse by speaking of the effects of faith, at the same time that he shows the fearfulness of the punishment. Edd. καὶ οὐ φοβ. κρύπτων τὸ τῆς κολάσεως, i.e. light…and not fearful, by withdrawing out of sight what relates to the punishment: which however Ben. renders as if it were οὐ τὸ φοβ. And not concealing the fearfulness, etc.” For in the invocation is the salvation.

What, I pray you, is this you say? Do you talk of salvation for them after the Cross? Bear with me a little. Great is the mercy of God. And this very fact does, no less than the resurrection, prove him to be God, yea, no less than His miracles—the fact that He calls these to Him. For surpassing goodness is, above all things, peculiarly God’s own. Therefore also He says, “None is good save one, that is, God.” (Luke xviii. 19.) Only let us not take this goodness for an occasion of negligence. For He also punishes as God. In fact, the very punishments here spoken of, He brought them to pass, even He who said, “Every one who shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” I speak of the fate of Jerusalem;¹³⁷¹³⁷    It is extremely doubtful if Peter understood by “the great and terrible day of the Lord” (20) the destruction of Jerusalem. (Chrys.) It probably refers to the Parousia which is thought of as imminent. The “last days” then would be the days preceding the Messianic age which is to begin at the Parousia. This view harmonizes with the Jewish conception and with the Christian expectation that the then existing period (αἴων οὕτος) was soon to pass into a new age (αἰ& 241·ν μέλλων). The scenes of Pentecost were thought to be the harbingers of this consummation and were so significant both of the joys and woes of the impending crisis, that the bold imagery of the prophet Joel is applied to them. Cf. the prophetic terms in which the destruction of Jerusalem is foretold—an event closely associated with the personal return of our Lord in Matt. xxiv.—G.B.S. that intolerable punishment: of which I will tell you some few of the particulars, useful to us in our contest, both with the Marcionites and many other heretics. For, since they distinguish between Christ a good God, and that evil God [of the Old Testament], let us see who it was that effected these things. The evil God, taking vengeance for Christ? or not so? How then alien to Him? But was it the good God? Nay, but it is demonstrated that both the Father and the Son did these things. The Father in many places; for instance, when He says in the parable of the vineyard,¹³⁸¹³⁸    ὡς ὅταν λέγῃ ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι πέμπειν τὰ στρατεύματα αὐτοῦ. Chrys. is misreported here, for the sending forth of the armies belongs to the parable of the marriage of the king’s son. [“He will miserably destroy those wicked husbandmen” (Matt. xxi. 41); again in the parable of the marriage feast, the King is said] to send His armies (ib. xxii. 7): and the Son, when He says, “But those Mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before Me.” (Luke xix. 27.) * * *.¹³⁹¹³⁹    Something must have been omitted here: viz. a brief exposition of the parable here referred to. The innovator endeavors to mend the text, by leaving out the following sentence. And they sent, saying, We will not have Thee to reign over us. Would you like then to hear the things which actually came to pass? Moreover, Christ Himself also speaks of the future tribulations, than which never any thing more dreadful came to pass; never any thing more ruthless, my beloved, than the deeds then done!¹⁴⁰¹⁴⁰    ῟Ων οὐδὲν ὠμότερον γέγονεν, ἀγαπητοὶ, τῶν τότε πεπραγμένων πραγμάτων. This may be explained as a negligent construction, but perhaps some words are omitted. The next sentence,Καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεφήνατο (which phrase is repeated below), refers to Matt. xxiv. 21. “There shall be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world to this time.” And He Himself declared it. For what could you wish to see more grievous than these? * * *—probed them with their 35daggers!¹⁴¹¹⁴¹    ᾽Οβεγίσκοις (dagger-blades, or spear-heads, or spits) αὐτοὺς διέπειραν. In Hom. vi. p. 43. infra, we have the phrase τίνες ὀβελίσκοι πεπυρωμένοι διέπειραν σῶμα. It is evident that something is omitted, and no more probable supposition presents itself, than that Chrys. here read out from Josephus or Eusebius the description of the famine among the besieged (which the reporter of the sermon omitted at the time, intending to insert it at his leisure); and that the short sentence in the text is the preacher’s own parenthetical explanation of some part of the description. Thus, B. J. vi. 3. 3. speaking of the cruelties practised upon dying wretches suspected of having food concealed about their persons, Josephus says: ᾽Αλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐκπνέοντας οἱ λῄσται διηρεύνων, μήτις ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔχων τροφὴν σκήπτοιτο τὸν θάνατον αὑτῷ. Perhaps ὀβελίσκοις αὐτοὺς διέπειραν is C.’s comment uponδιηρεύνων.—Or, in like manner, it may refer to the description in B. J. v. 12. 3. how the λῃσταὶ, after ransacking the bodies of the dead, tried the edges of their swords upon them, etc. Τάς τε ἀκμὰς τῶν ξιφῶν ἐδοκιμάζον ἐν τοῖς πτώμασι, καί τινας τῶν ἐρριμμένων ἔτι ζῶντας διήλαυνον ἐπὶ πείρᾳ τοῦ σιδήρου. Perhaps, however, the expression may be taken in a metaphorical sense as in the phrase above cited: “they pierced themselves (ἑαυτοὺς for αὐτοὺς) as with spits or lancets.”— * * * But shall I relate to you the shocking case of the woman, that tragic tale? * * * (Joseph. B. J. vi. 3. 4.) Did not the actual events cast all misery into the shade? But shall I tell you of famines and pestilences? One might speak of horrors without number: nature was unknown; law unknown; they outdid wild beasts in ferocity. True, these miseries came by the fate of wars; but because God, because Christ so willed it to be. These facts will apply both against the Marcionites and against those who do not believe that there is a hell: for they are sufficient to silence their impudence. Are not these calamities more severe than the Babylonian?¹⁴²¹⁴²    Against the Marcionites, he says: You say that the God of the Old Testament is a cruel God; whereas Christ, the good God, is all mildness. Yet was not the Roman judgment upon the Jews inflicted by Him? And was it not beyond comparison more ruthless (ὠμότερον, above) than the Babylonian or any former judgment, inflicted, as you say, by the God of the Old Testament? Are not these sufferings more grievous than the famines of that time? Yes, for [“never was the like from the beginning of the world”] “no, nor ever shall be such.” (Matt. xxiv. 21.) And this was Christ’s own declaration. In what sense then, think ye, is it said that Christ remitted them their sin?¹⁴³¹⁴³    Πῶς οὖν φατὲ φησίν, i.e. as it is said in the text, “Every one that calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The question is the same as was put in the beginning of this section: “What? do you speak of salvation for them after crucifying the Lord? And this, when you have shown us how fearfully that sin was visited?” This question, as a very simple one, he leaves the hearers to answer for themselves, by distinguishing between believers and unbelievers, the penitent and the hardened.—The innovator quite alters the sense; “How then say some that Christ remitted them their sin?” which makes the next sentence idle. Perhaps it seems a commonplace question: but do ye solve it.—It is not possible to show anywhere, even in fiction, any thing like what the reality was here. And had it been a Christian that wrote this history, the matter might be regarded with suspicion: but if he was a Jew, and a Jewish zealot, and after the Gospel, how can the meaning of the facts be otherwise than palpable to all men? For you will see the man, how, everywhere, he always extols the concerns of the Jews.—There is therefore a hell, O man! and God is good.—Aye, did you shudder at hearing these horrors? But these, which take place here, are nothing in comparison with what shall be in that world. Once more I am compelled to seem harsh, disagreeable, stern. But what can I do? I am set to this: just as a severe schoolmaster is set to be hated by his scholars: so are we. For would it not be strange indeed, that, while those who have a certain post assigned them by kings do that which is appointed them, however disagreeable the task may be, we, for fear of your censure, should leave our appointed task undone? Another has a different work. Of you, many have it for their work, to show mercy, to act humanely, to be pleasant and agreeable to the persons to whom you are benefactors. But to those to whom we do good, we seem stern and severe, troublesome and disagreeable. For we do good, not by the pleasure we give, but by the pain we inflict. So it is also with the physician: though he indeed is not excessively disagreeable, for the benefit afforded by his art is had immediately; ours hereafter. So again the magistrate is odious to the disorderly and seditious; so the legislator is vexatious to them for whom he makes laws. But not so he that invites to enjoyment, not so he that prepares public festivities and entertainments, and puts all the people in garlands: no, these are men that win acceptance, feasting, as they do, whole cities with all sorts of spectacles; contributing largely, bearing all the cost. And therefore those whom they have treated, requite them for these enjoyments with words of welcome and benediction, with hanging (παραπετάσματα) of tapestries, and a blaze of lamps, and with wreaths, and boughs, and brilliant garments. Whereas, at the sight of the physician, the sick become sad and downcast: at sight of the magistrate, the rioters become subdued: no running riot then, no gambolling, except when he also goes over into their ranks.¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁴    Πλὴν ὅταν κἀκεῖνος εἰς ἐκείνην μεταστῇ τὴν τάξιν The meaning is obscure: for it may be either, that he is displaced from office (μεταστῆναι, μετάστασις are common in this sense), and makes one of the στασιάζοντες; or, that he lays aside the magistrate and demeans himself to take part in their excesses. (Τάξις is the expression for the attendants of any high official, and may perhaps be taken in that sense here). Erasmus goes wide of the text: nec exultant eo quod et ille ad hoc opus ordinatus est: and so Montf. nec exultantes quod ille ad hoc officium sit constitutus. Let us see, then, which render the best service to their cities; those who provide these festivities, and banquetings, and expensive entertainments, and manifold rejoicings; or those who restrain all those doings, bearing before them stocks, scourges, executioners, dreaded soldiers, and a voice fraught with much terror: and issuing orders, 36and making men hang down their heads, and with the rod dispersing the idlers in the market-place. Let us see, I say; these are the disagreeable, those the beloved: let us see where the gain rests. (λήλει.) What comes then of your pleasure-givers? A kind of frigid enjoyment, lasting till the evening, and to-morrow vanished; mirth ungoverned, words unseemly and dissolute. And what of these? Awe, sobriety, subdued thoughts; reasonableness of mind, an end of idleness; a curb on the passions within; a wall of defence, next to God,¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁵    μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν, omitted in the modern text.against assailants from without. It is by means of these we have each our property but by those ruinous festivities we dissipate it. Robbers indeed have not invaded it, but vainglory together with pleasure acts the part of robber. Each sees the robber carrying off everything before his eyes, and is delighted at it! A new fashion of robbery, this, to induce people to be glad when one is plundering them! On the other part, there is nothing of the kind: but God, as the common Father, has secured us as by a wall against all [depredators], both seen and unseen.¹⁴⁶¹⁴⁶    Hom. in Matt. lxxi. p. 699. C. Chrys. describes κενοδοξία (vainglory) in almsgiving, as the thief that runs away with the treasure laid up in heaven. And something of this sort seems to have been in his thoughts here, where however his meaning is evidently very imperfectly expressed. The texts cited show that ἐκεῖ, ἐκεῖθεν, refer to something more than, as above, good laws and government in general; for here he speaks of the Gospel discipline of the inner man. “Where this restraint is, no dissipation of our temporal or spiritual wealth has place: for God, as common Father, has raised a wall to keep out all robbers both seen and unseen, from all our possessions: from the former He guards us, by law and good government; from the latter, by the Gospel prohibition of all vainglory: “Take heed that ye do not your alms,” etc. For, “Take heed,” saith He, “that ye do not your alms before men.” (Matt. vi. 1.) The soul learns from the one, [excess;¹⁴⁷¹⁴⁷    Μανθάνει ψυχὴ ἐντεῦθεν, opp. toἐκεῖθεν as in the following sentences:ἐκεῖθεν σωφροσύνην μανθάνει, ἐντεῦθεν ἀκολασίαν—& 157·κ. ἐπιείκειαν, ἐντ. τῦφον—& 157·κ. κοσμίοτητα, ἐντ. ἀσχημοσύνην. Therefore either something is wanting: e.g. πλεονεξίαν· ἐκεῖθεν, or for ἐντ. we must read ἐκεῖθεν. from the other] to flee injustice. For injustice consists not merely in grasping at more wealth than belongs to us, but in giving to the belly more than its needful sustenance, in carrying mirth beyond its proper bounds, and causing it to run into frantic excesses. From the one, it learns sobriety; from the other, unchastity. For it is unchastity, not merely to have carnal intercourse with women, but even to look upon a woman with unchaste eyes. From the one, it learns modesty; from the other, conceited self-importance. For, “All things,” says the Apostle, “are lawful for me, but not all things expedient.” (1 Cor. vi. 12.) From the one, decent behavior; from the other unseemliness. For, as to the doings in the theatres, I pass these. But to let you see that it is not even a pleasure either, but a grief, show me, but a single day after the festival, both those who spent their money in giving it, and those who were feasted with spectacles: and you shall see them all looking dejected enough, but most of all him, your (ἔκεἵνον) famous man that has spent his money for it. And this is but fair: for, the day before, he delighted the common man, and the common man indeed was in high good humor and enjoyment, and rejoiced indeed in the splendid garment, but then not having the use of it, and seeing himself stripped of it, he was grieved and annoyed; and wanted to be the great man, seeing even his own enjoyment to be small compared with his.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁸    The old text καὶ ἐβούλετο ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἀναλίσκων καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν εὐπραγίαν μικρὰν ὁρᾷν τρὸς τὴν ἐκεῖνου, evidently requires correction, and the emendation assumed in the translation is, καὶ ἐβ. ἐκεῖνος εἶναι (ὁ ἀναλ. may perhaps be rejected as a gloss) καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν εὐπρ. μ. ὁρῶν π. τ. ἐκείνου. Thus the whole passage, from καὶ ὁ μὲν ἰδιωτὴς, refers to the ἰδ. or person feasted, and ἐκεῖνοςthroughout is the entertainer. The edited text has: ᾽Εκεῖνος δὲ ὁ ἀναλ. καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν εὐπρ. μικρὰν ὁρᾷν ἐδόκει π. τ. ἐκείνου: of which Erasm. makes, Ille autem qui sumptus impendit et suam felicitatem parvam cum ea quam ex sumptu habebat conspicere putabat. But even if this sense lay in the words, it is not easy to see the connection of the following sentence, Διὰ τοῦτο, etc., Montf. translates, Qui vero sumptus fecit, suam præ illius felicitate parvam putabat, as ifἐκεῖνος and ἐκείνου in the same sentence referred to two different and contrasted persons. The meaning of the passage is, As, on the day before, the entertainer hadτὸ πλέον τῆς εὐθυμίας, it is but fair that on the following day τὸ πλέον τῆς ἀθυμίαςshould be transferred to him. This is expressed by Διὰ τοῦτο τῇ ὑστ. ἀντιδιδόασιν: which however, Erasmus renders, Ideireo sequenti die reddunt sibi vestes iterum: Montf. redduntur vestes.(Perhaps there is an allusion to the legal phrase ἀντίδοσις. v. Isocrat. περὶ ἀντιδ).Therefore, the day after, they change places, and now he, the great man, gets the larger share in the dejection.

Now if in worldly matters, amusements are attended with such dissatisfaction, while disagreeable things are so beneficial, much more does this hold in things spiritual. Why is it that no one quarrels with the laws, but on the contrary all account that matter a common benefit? For indeed not strangers from some other quarter, nor enemies of those for whom the laws are made, came and made these orders, but the citizens themselves, their patrons, their benefactors: and this very thing, the making of laws, is a token of beneficence and good-will. And yet the laws are full of punishment and restraint, and there is no such thing as law without penalty and coercion. Then is it not unreasonable, that while the expositors of those laws are called deliverers, benefactors, and patrons, we are considered troublesome and vexatious if we speak of the laws of God? When we discourse about hell, then we bring forward those laws: just as in the affairs of the world, people urge the laws of murder, highway robbery, and the like, so do we the penal laws: laws, which not man enacted, but the Only-Begotten Son of God Himself. Let him that hath no mercy, He says, be punished (Matt. xviii. 23);37for such is the import of the parable. Let him that remembereth injuries, pay the last penalty. Let him that is angry without cause, be cast into the fire. Let him that reviles, receive his due in hell. If you think these laws which you hear strange, be not amazed. For if Christ was not intended to make new laws, why did He come? Those other laws are manifest to us; we know that the murderer and adulterer ought to be punished. If then we were meant only to be told the same things over again, where was the need of a heavenly Teacher? Therefore He does not say, Let the adulterer be punished, but, whoso looketh on with unchaste eyes. And where, and when, the man will receive punishment, He there tells us. And not in fine public monuments, nor yet somewhere out of sight,¹⁴⁹¹⁴⁹    Εἰς ἀναθήματα οὐδὲ εἰς κρύβδην. The modern text has εἰς ἄξονας οὐδὲ εἰς, κύρβεις, alluding to the peculiar form of tables on which the laws of Athens were written. On critical grounds we retain the reading of the old text, which, as being the more difficult one, is not likely to have been substituted for the other. Οὐκ εἰς ἀναθήματα; “not on public monuments for display.” Laws of an Emperor, for instance, engraved on handsome monuments, may be called ἀναθήματα Οὐδὲ εἰς κρύβδην, (also an unusual expression), ‘nor yet where no one would see them.’ did He deposit His laws; not pillars of brass did He raise up, and engrave letters thereon, but twelve souls raised He up for us, the souls of the Apostles, and in their minds has He by the Spirit inscribed this writing. This cite we to you. If this was authorized to Jews, that none might take refuge in the plea of ignorance, much more is it to us. But should any say, “I do not hear, therefore have no guilt,” on this very score he is most liable to punishment. For, were there no teacher, it would be possible to take refuge in this plea; but if there be, it is no longer possible. Thus see how, speaking of Jews, the Lord deprives them of all excuse; “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin:” (John xv. 22): and Paul again, “But I say, have they not heard? Nay, but into all the earth went forth their sound.” (Rom. x. 18.) For then there is excuse, when there is none to tell the man; but when the watchman sits there, having this as the business of his life, there is excuse no longer. Nay, rather, it was the will of Christ, not that we should look only upon these written pillars, but that we should ourselves be such. But since we have made ourselves unworthy of the writing, at least let us look to those. For just as the pillars threaten others, but are not themselves obnoxious to punishment, nor yet the laws, even so the blessed Apostles. And observe; not in one place only stands this pillar, but its writing is carried round about in all the world. Whether you go among the Indians, you shall hear this: whether into Spain, or to the very ends of the earth, there is none without the hearing, except it be of his own neglect. Then be not offended, but give heed to the things spoken, that ye may be able to lay hold upon the works of virtue, and attain unto the eternal blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom to the Father and Holy Ghost together be glory, power, honor, now and ever, world without end. Amen.

Homily IV

Acts II. 1, 2

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

Dost thou perceive the type? What is this Pentecost? The time when the sickle was to be put to the harvest, and the ingathering was made. See now the reality, when the time was come to put in the sickle of the word: for here, as the sickle, keen-edged, came the Spirit down. For hear the words of Christ: “Lift up your eyes,” He said, “and look on the fields, for they are white already to harvest.” (John iv. 35.) And again, “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few.” (Matt. ix. 38.) But as the first-fruits of this harvest, He himself took [our nature], and bore it up on high. Himself first put in the sickle. Therefore⁹²⁹²    i.e. in reference to the harvest. The modern text has, “therefore He calls this the harvest:” missing the author’s meaning, i.e. the allusion to the parable of the sower. also He calls the Word the Seed. “When,” it says, “the day of Pentecost was fully come” (Luke viii. 5, 11): that is, when at the Pentecost, while about it, in short.⁹³⁹³    τουτέστι, πρὸς τῇ πεντηκοστῇ περὶ αὐτὴν ὡς εἰπεῖν Πρὸς, as in the phrase,εἶναι v. γίνεσθαι πρός τινι. Hom. in Matt.289. B. Field, not. and similarly περὶ as inεἶναι περί τι. Only Œcumen. has preserved the true reading, in his commentπρὸς τῇ π.; περὶ αὐτὴν ἤδη τὴν ἑορτήν. A. B. C. read, πρὸ τῆς πεντηκοστῆς περὶ αὐτὴν ὡς εἰπεῖν: so Cat. but with περὶ forπρὸ. The others, οὐ πρὸ τῆς π., ἀλλὰ περὶ αὐτὴν, ὡς εἰπεῖν. For it was essential that the present events likewise should take place during the feast, that those who had witnessed the crucifixion of Christ, might also behold these. “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven.” (v. 2.) Why did this not come to pass without sensible tokens? For this reason. If even when the fact was such, men said, “They are full of new wine,” what would they not have said, had it been otherwise? And it is not merely, “there came a sound,” but, “from heaven.” And the suddenness also startled them, and⁹⁴⁹⁴    In the mss. and Edd. the order of the following sentences is confused. It is here restored by bringing the clause, καὶ πάντας ἐκεῖ συνήγαγεν into what appears to be its proper connection, and supplying the text to the comment πολλὴν τὴν ῥυμην λέγει τοῦ Πνεύματος.brought all together to the spot. “As of a rushing mighty wind:” this betokens the exceeding vehemence of the Spirit. “And it filled all the house:” insomuch that those present both believed, and (Edd. τούτους) in this manner were shown to be worthy. Nor is this all; but what is more awful still, “And there appeared unto them,” it says, “cloven tongues like as of fire.” (v. 3.) Observe how it is always, “like as;” and rightly: that you may have no gross sensible notions of the Spirit. Also, “as it were of a blast:” therefore it was not a wind. “Like as of fire.” For when the Spirit was to be made known to John, then it came upon the head of Christ as in the form of a dove: but now, when a whole multitude was to be converted, it is “like as of fire. And it sat upon each of them.” This means, that it remained and rested upon them.” For the sitting is significant of settledness and continuance.

Was it upon the twelve that it came? Not so; but upon the hundred and twenty. For Peter would not have quoted to no purpose the testimony of the prophet, saying, “And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith the Lord God, I will pour out of My spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” (Joel ii. 28.) “And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.” (v. 4.) For, that the effect may not be to frighten only, therefore is it both “with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. And began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” (Matt. iii. 11.) They receive no other sign, but this first; for it was new to them, and there was no need of any other sign. “And it sat upon each of them,” says the writer. Observe now, how there is no longer any occasion for that person to grieve, who was not elected as was Matthias, “And they were all filled,” he says; not merely received the grace of the Spirit, but 26“were filled. And began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” It would not have been said, All, the Apostles also being there present, unless the rest also were partakers. For were it not so, having above made mention of the Apostles distinctively and by name, he would not now have put them all in one with the rest. For if, where it was only to be mentioned that they were present, he makes mention of the Apostles apart, much more would he have done so in the case here supposed.⁹⁵⁹⁵    i.e. if the gift descended only upon the Twelve, there would have been specific and distinctive mention of them in this narrative, as there was in the former chapter; and with much more reason here than there. The writer would not have said merely, They were all together: it sat upon each one of them: they were all filled: if he had meant that the Spirit came only upon the Apostles. Observe, how when one is continuing in prayer, when one is in charity, then it is that the Spirit draws near. It put them in mind also of another vision: for as fire did He appear also in the bush. “As the Spirit gave them utterance, ἀποφθέγγεσθαι (Exod. iii. 2.) For the things spoken by them were ἀποφθέγματα, profound utterances. “And,” it says, “there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men.” (v. 5.) The fact of their dwelling there was a sign of piety: that being of so many nations they should have left country, and home, and relations, and be abiding there. For, it says, “There were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded. (v. 6.) Since the event had taken place in a house, of course they came together from without. The multitude was confounded: was all in commotion. They marvelled; “Because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were amazed,” it says, “and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?” (v. 7–13.) They immediately turned their eyes towards the Apostles. “And how” (it follows) “hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene:” mark how they run from east to west:⁹⁶⁹⁶    i.e. Mark how the enumeration, “Parthians, and Medes,” etc., goes from east to west. This comment having been transposed to the end of v. 12, was misunderstood: and E. has instead of it, “Do you see how it was, that, as if they had wings, they sped their way through the whole world?”“and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And, they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.” O the excessive folly! O the excessive malignity! Why it was not even the season for that; for it was Pentecost. For this was what made it worse: that when those were confessing—men that were Jews, that were Romans, that were proselytes, yea perhaps that had crucified Him—yet these, after so great signs, say, “They are full of new wine!”

But let us look over what has been said from the beginning. (Recapitulation.) “And when the day of Pentecost,” etc. “It filled,” he says, “the house.” That wind πνοὴ was a very pool of water. This betokened the copiousness, as the fire did the vehemence. This nowhere happened in the case of the Prophets: for to uninebriated souls such accesses are not attended with much disturbance; but “when they have well drunken,” then indeed it is as here, but with the Prophets it is otherwise.⁹⁷⁹⁷    Τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα νηφουσῶν μὲν ψυχῶν προσπίπτοντα, οὐ πολὺ* ἔχει τὸν θόρυβον· ὅταν δὲ μεθύσωσιν τότε μὲν οὕτως, τοῖς προφή* ταις δὲ ἑτέρως. In the modern text, which here also is followed by Erasm. and Edd. it is, ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὕτως ἐκείνοις, τοῖς προφήταις δὲ ἑτέρως. “But here indeed it is on this wise with them (the disciples), but with the Prophets otherwise.”—The expression “uninebriated” relates to the Old Testament: no such fire there, no mighty rushing wind, no vehement commotion: this comes of “the new wine” of the Spirit;ὅταν μεθύσωσιν, with allusion to John ii. 10.(Ez. iii. 3.) The roll of a book⁹⁸⁹⁸    So de Sancta Pentecoste, Hom. i. t. ii. 465. “Why does Ezekiel receive the gift of prophecy not by the likeness of fire, but by a book, while the Apostles receive the gifts by fire? For concerning him we read, that one gave him in his mouth a roll of a book, etc.: but concerning the Apostles not so, but “there appeared unto them tongues as of fire.” Why is it a book and writing there, here tongue and fire? Because there the Prophet went his way to accuse sins, and to bewail Jewish calamities: whereas these went forth to consume the sins of the whole world: therefore he received a writing, to call to mind the coming calamities: these fire, to burn up the sins of the world, and utterly abolish them. For as fire falling among thorns will with ease destroy them, even so the grace of the Spirit consumed the sins of men.” is given him, and Ezekiel ate what he was about to utter. “And it became in his mouth,” it is said, “as honey for sweetness.” (And⁹⁹⁹⁹    This, which we have marked as parenthesis, seems to be out of its place: it interrupts what is said about Ezekiel, and besides is not relevant to the matter immediately in hand, ᾽Ενταῦθα δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ Πν. τὸ ῞Α. κ. τ. λ. would come in more suitably after the mention of the fire in the bush, in which God appeared to Moses. And so Œcumenius seems to have taken it. “But it is in the likeness of fire, because the Spirit also is God, and to prove by this also that the Spirit is of one Nature (ὁμοφυὲς) with the Father, Who appears in this manner to Moses at the bush.” again the hand of God touches the tongue of another Prophet; but here it is the Holy Ghost Himself: (Jer. i. 9) so equal is He in honor with the Father and the Son.) And again, on the other hand, Ezekiel calls it “Lamentations, and mourning, and woe.” (Ez. ii. 10.) To them it might well be in the form of a book; for they still needed similitudes. Those had to deal with only one nation, and with their own people; but these with the whole world, and with men whom they never knew. Also Elisha 27receives the grace through the medium of a mantle (2 Kings xiii.); another by oil, as David (1 Sam. xvi. 13); and Moses by fire, as we read of him at the bush. (Exod. iii. 2.) But in the present case it is not so; for the fire itself sat upon them. (But wherefore did the fire not appear so as to fill the house? Because they would have been terrified.) But the story shows, that it is the same here as there.¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰    ῞Οτι τοῦτο ἐκεῖνό ἐστι: i.e. The Spirit here given to the disciples, is the same that was given to those: but more intense in operation; therefore it appears not merely under the emblem of cloven tongues, but as tongues of fire. For you are not to stop at this, that “there appeared unto them cloven tongues,” but note that they were “of fire.” Such a fire as this is able to kindle infinite fuel. Also, it is well said, Cloven, for they were from one root; that you may learn, that it was an operation sent from the Comforter.¹⁰¹¹⁰¹    Chrys. seems to understand byδιαμεριζόμεναι (v. 3), divided, distributed among the members of the company, rather than of a cloven form, a forked appearance, as indicating the shape of the fire-like tongues. The former is the preferable interpretation. (So the Rev. Vers. vs. A.V.). The latter view cannot explain the singular verb which follows,ἐκάθισεν.—G.B.S.

But observe how those men also were first shown to be worthy, and then received the Spirit as worthy. Thus, for instance, David:¹⁰²¹⁰²    ἵνα δειχθῇ αὐτοῦ γυμνὴ ἡ πίστις. Not, ut palam fieret fides ejus, fides ejus,Ben. but,quo ipsius nuda simplexque fides declararetur,” Erasm. The meaning seems to be: David after the victory over Goliath, when the hearts of the people were turned to him, and he might have taken possession of the kingdom to which he was anointed, yet did not seek worldly greatness, but chose rather to suffer persecutions, etc.: as developed in the Homilies de Davide et Saule, t. iv. 752. Below, for ἀνατρεφόμενον (“Samuelbrought up in the temple,”) A. hasἀναστρεφόμενον, which we have adopted. what he did among the sheepfolds, the same he did after his victory and trophy; that it might be shown how simple and absolute was his faith. Again, see Moses despising royalty, and forsaking all, and after forty years taking the lead of the people (Exod. ii. 11); and Samuel occupied there in the temple (1 Sam. iii. 3); Elisha leaving all (1 Kings xix. 21); Ezekiel again, made manifest by what happened thereafter.¹⁰³¹⁰³    So C and Cat. B. transposes Elisha and Ezekiel, A. omits the clause. Chrys. elsewhere makes it a special praise of Ezekiel, that he chose rather to accompany his people into captivity, than to remain in his own land: Interp. in Isai. i. t. 1. 2. and ad Stagyr. ii. t. ii. 228. In this manner then (he would say here), Ez. “left all,” and having thus given proof of his worth, received the gift of prophecy. The modern text reads: “Ezekiel again. And that the case was thus, is manifest from what followed. For indeed these also forsook all that they had. Therefore they then received the Spirit, when they had given proof of their own virtue.”—By these(οὗτοι) we must understand the Old Test. saints just mentioned. It should rather have been ἐκεῖνοι, but Chrys. is negligent in the use of these pronouns. See Hom. in Matt.Field. Adnot. p. 709, B. In this manner, you see, did these also leave all that they had. They learnt also what human infirmity is, by what they suffered; they learnt that it was not in vain they had done these good works. (1 Sam. ix. and xi. 6.) Even Saul, having first obtained witness that he was good, thereafter received the Spirit. But in the same manner as here did none of them receive. Thus Moses was the greatest of the Prophets, yet he, when others were to receive the Spirit, himself suffered diminution.¹⁰⁴¹⁰⁴    ᾽Ηλαττοῦτο. Alluding to Numb. xi. 17. “I will take of the Spirit that is upon thee, and will put it upon them.” But here it is not so; but just as fire kindles as many flames as it will, so here the largeness of the Spirit was shown, in that each one received a fountain of the Spirit; as indeed He Himself had foretold, that those who believe in Him, should have “a well of water springing up into everlasting life.” (John iv. 14.) And good reason that it should be so. For they did not go forth to argue with Pharaoh, but to wrestle with the devil. But the wonder is this, that when sent they made no objections; they said not, they were “weak in voice, and of a slow tongue.” (Exod. iv. 10.) For Moses had taught them better. They said not, they were too young. (Jer. i. 6.) Jeremiah had made them wise. And yet they had heard of many fearful things, and much greater than were theirs of old time; but they feared to object.—And because they were angels of light, and ministers of things above [“Suddenly there came from heaven,” etc.] To them of old, no one “from heaven” appears, while they as yet follow after a vocation on earth; but now that Man has gone up on high, the Spirit also descends mightily from on high. “As it were a rushing mighty wind;” making it manifest by this, that nothing shall be able to withstand them, but they shall blow away all adversaries like a heap of dust. “And it filled all the house.” The house also was a symbol of the world. “And it sat upon each of them,” [etc.] and “the multitude came together, and were confounded.” Observe their piety; they pronounce no hasty judgment, but are perplexed: whereas those reckless ones pronounce at once, saying, “These men are full of new wine.” Now it was in order that they might have it in their power,¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁵    ῞Ινα δὲ ἐξῇ. (Cat. ἵνα δείξῃ.) Œcumen. ἵνα ἔχωσι, “that they may have it in their power, according to the law of their fathers, to appear thrice in the year, etc.” The modern text has, ἐπεὶ ἐξῆν…διὰ τοῦτο. “Because it was permitted…therefore.” in compliance with the Law, to appear thrice in the year in the Temple, that they dwelt there, these “devout men from all nations.” Observe here, the writer has no intention of flattering them. For he does not say that they pronounced any opinion: but what? “Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded.” And well they might be; for they supposed the matter was now coming to an issue against them, on account of the outrage committed against Christ. 28Conscience also agitated their souls, the very blood being yet upon their hands, and every thing alarmed them. “Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?” For indeed this was confessed. [“And how hear we”] so much did the sound alarm them. [“Every man in our own tongue,” etc.] for it found the greater part of the world assembled there. [“Parthians and Medes,” etc.] This nerved the Apostles: for, what it was to speak in the Parthian tongue, they knew not but now learnt from what those said. Here is mention made of nations that were hostile to them, Cretans, Arabians, Egyptians, Persians: and that they would conquer them all was here made manifest. But as to their being in those countries, they were there in captivity, many of them: or else, the doctrines of the Law had become disseminated [among] the Gentiles in those countries.¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁶    ᾽Εκεῖ δὲ ἐν αἰχμαλωσία ἦσαν πολλοὶ ἢ καὶ ἐκεῖ διέσπαρτο τὰ ἔθνη τὰ τῶν δογμάτων. A. B. C. N. As τὰ τῶν δtaken as apposition to τὰ ἔθνη yields no satisfactory sense, we adopt from the modern text πρὸς before τὰ ἔθνη, and make, as there, τὰ τῶν δ. the nom. toδιέσπαρτο. And as in the next sentence Chrys. distinguishes citizens, foreign (Jews), and proselytes, and there is no mention of the last, unless it be in the clause ἢ καὶ ἐκεῖ διέσπαρτο, we infer thatτὰ τῶν δ. means the Law of Moses. “Or also in those countries (Parthia, Media, etc. in consequence of the dispersion of the Jews) the Law and its religion had been disseminated among the Gentiles. So that from all quarters, etc.” Thus it is explained how there came to be present at Jerusalem “devout men” from Parthia and those other countries: there were many Jews there in captivity, and also proselytes of the Law from among the Gentiles.—In the modern text the passage is thus altered: “But, inasmuch as the Jews were in captivity, it is likely that there were then present with them many of theGentiles: ἢ ὅτι καὶ πρὸς τὰ ἔθνη τὰ τῶν δογμάτῶν ἤδη κατέσπαρτο, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πολλοὶ καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν παρῆσαν ἐκεῖ. Or, because τὰ τῶν δ. had become disseminated among the Gentiles also, and therefore many also of them were there present, κατὰ μνημὴν ὦν ἤκουσαν. Hereτὰ τῶν δογμάτων is taken to mean ‘the doctrines of the Christian Faith:’ as Erasmus renders the passage, Sive quod ad gentes quoque fidei dogmata seminata fuerint, et hanc ob causam complures ex iis aderant ut memorarent quæ audierant.It can hardly be supposed that St. Chrysostom meant to represent that some of these Parthians, Medes, etc. were Gentiles who had heard in their own country the tidings of the Faith of Christ, and therefore were present at Jerusalem: yet this is what he is made to say in this text. So then the testimony comes from all quarters: from citizens, from foreigners, from proselytes. “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” For it was not only that they spoke (in their tongues), but the things they spoke were wonderful.¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁷    It is impossible to gain from this language any clear view of the author’s opinion of the gift of tongues. The uncertainty of the text here still further embarrasses the subject. That the narrative means that they received at Pentecost a miraculous gift of speaking foreign languages, is now almost unanimously maintained by modern scholars. The difficult question as to the gift of tongues as referred to in 1 Cor. xiv. should not lead to a weakening or explaining away of such unmistakable expressions as ἑτέραις γλώσσαις (4), ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις (11), and τῇ ἰδί& 139· διαλέκτῳ (6, 8). Cf. Mark xvi. 17.—G.B.S. Well then might they be in doubt: for never had the like occurred. Observe the ingenuousness of these men. They were amazed and were in doubt, saying, “What meaneth this?” But “others mocking said, ‘These men are full of new wine’” (John viii. 48), and therefore mocked. O the effrontery! And what wonder is it? Since even of the Lord Himself, when casting out devils, they said that He had a devil! For so it is; wherever impudent assurance exists, it has but one object in view, to speak at all hazards, it cares not what; not that the man should say something real and relevant to the matter of discourse, but that he should speak no matter what. [“They are full of new wine.”] Quite a thing of course (is not it?),¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁸    Πάνυ γε (οὐ γάρ;) ἄνθρωποι κ. τ. λ. See above, p. 47. note u. and 66, note c. The modern text has, Πάνυ γε· ὅτι ἄνθρωποι κ. τ. λ. Below, “Since this was improbable, therefore, to impose upon the hearers, and show that the men are drunken, they ascribe, etc.” But in the old text it is, ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἐμεθύσθησαν, meaning, “because [so early in the day] they would not have been drinking much,” (this is the force of the tense μεθυσθῆναιas in John ii. 10) “therefore they ascribe all to the quality (of the wine);” because as Œcumen. says, explaining this remark of Chrys., the fumes of γλεῦκος mount more quickly to the brain, etc. Erasmus, seemingly referring this to μεμεστωμένοι, translates hebetudini crapulæque rem totam ascribunt: Ben. even more strangely, ‘agendi et loquendi modo totum ascribunt. that men in the midst of such dangers, and dreading the worst, and in such despondency, have the courage to utter such things! And observe: since this was unlikely; because they would not have been drinking much [at that early hour], they ascribe the whole matter to the quality (of the wine), and say, “They are full” of it. “But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them.” In a former place¹⁰⁹¹⁰⁹    ᾽Εκεῖ: referring to ch. i. as expounded in Hom. iii. So Œcumen, in loc.῎Ανω μὲν τὴν κηδεμονίαν ἐπιδείκνυται, ἐν οἷς τῷ πλήθει ἐπιτρέπει τὴν ἐκλογὴν κ. τ. λ. you saw his provident forethought, here you see his manly courage. For if they were astonished and amazed, was it not as wonderful that he should be able in the midst of such a multitude to find language, he, an unlettered and ignorant man? If a man is troubled when he speaks among friends, much more might he be troubled among enemies and bloodthirsty men. That they are not drunken, he shows immediately by his very voice, that they are not beside themselves, as the soothsayers: and this too, that they were not constrained by some compulsory force. What is meant by, “with the eleven?” They expressed themselves through one common voice, and he was the mouth of all. The eleven stood by as witnesses to what he said. “He lifted up his voice,” it is said. That is, he spoke with great confidence, that they might perceive the grace of the Spirit. He who had not endured the questioning of a poor girl, now in the midst of the people, all breathing murder, discourses with such confidence, that this very thing becomes an unquestionable proof of the Resurrection: in the midst of men who could deride and make a joke of such things as these! What effrontery, think you, must go to that! what impiety, what 29shamelessness!¹¹⁰¹¹⁰    Here the modern text (Edd.) enlarges by the additions “to account the wonder of the tongues the work of drunkenness? But not a whit did this annoy the Apostles; nor did it make them less bold at hearing such scoffing. By the presence of the Spirit they were now transformed, and were become superior to all bodily considerations.” For wherever the Holy Spirit is present, He makes men of gold out of men of clay. Look, I pray you, at Peter now: examine well that timid one, and devoid of understanding; as Christ said, “Are ye also yet without understanding?” (Matt. xv. 16) the man, who after that marvellous confession was called “Satan.” (Ib. xvi. 23.) Consider also the unanimity of the Apostles. They themselves ceded to him the office of speaking; for it was not necessary that all should speak. “And he lifted up his voice,” and spoke out to them with great boldness. Such a thing it is to be a spiritual man! Only let us also bring ourselves into a state meet for the grace from above, and all becomes easy. For as a man of fire falling into the midst of straw would take no harm, but do it to others: not he could take any harm, but they, in assailing him, destroy themselves. For the case here was just as if one carrying hay should attack one bearing fire: even so did the Apostles encounter these their adversaries with great boldness.

For what did it harm them, though they were so great a multitude? Did they not spend all their rage? did they not turn the distress upon themselves? Of all mankind were ever any so possessed with both rage and terror, as those became possessed? Were they not in an agony, and were dismayed, and trembled? For hear what they say, “Do ye wish to bring this man’s blood upon us?” (Acts v. 28.) Did they¹¹¹¹¹¹    The change of subject (from the Jews to the Apostles) is not expressed in the original. To remedy the confusion occasioned by this negligence, the modern text (Edd.) transposes this part: viz. after the sentence ending, “so great a multitude:” it has, “For tell me: did they not fight—in a picture?” And then, “What? I pray you; did they not exhaust, etc.” Clearly the other is the original order. It is shown, first, how the Jews were utterly worsted, and how awfully the whole posture of affairs was reversed for them; and then, how victoriously the preachers of the new Faith maintained their ground against the whole world. (the Apostles) not fight against poverty and hunger: against ignominy and infamy (for they were accounted deceivers): did they not fight¹¹²¹¹²    Edd. “Were they not subjected to the ridicule and mockery of those present? For in their case both these befel together: for some derided them, others mocked.” Which is weak enough; but the original text could not be retained, because on the supposition that all this relates to the Jewsthen present, the mention of “wrath” and “punishment” would be irrelevant. against ridicule and wrath and mockery?—for in their case the contraries met: some laughed at them, others punished them;—were they not made a mark for the wrathful passions, and for the merriment,¹¹³¹¹³    Εὐθυμίαις, i.e. “bursts of self-complacent mirth” (e.g. at Athens), opposed to θυμοῖς “explosions of wrath.” Ben. without specifying the authority, notes a various reading, ἀθυμίαις, which is found in none of the Paris copies, and is quite unmeaning. Edd. μανίαις. of whole cities? exposed to factions and conspiracies: to fire, and sword, and wild beasts? Did not war beset them from every quarter, in ten thousand forms? And were they any more affected in their minds by all these things, than they would have been at seeing them in a dream or in a picture?¹¹⁴¹¹⁴    Ben. interprets: “So unlooked for were these trials, that the Apostles seemed to themselves to be dreaming or beholding these things in a picture.” But when the true order of the text is restored, no such far-fetched comment is needed. With bare body they took the field against all the armed, though against them all men had arbitrary power [against them, were]: terrors of rulers, force of arms, in cities and strong walls:¹¹⁵¹¹⁵    The text is defective here, ἀρχόντων φόβοι, ὅπλων ἰσχύς· πόλεσι καὶ τείχεσιν ὀχυροῖς. The text of the Edd. has: “And the wonder is, that with bare body they took the field against armed men, against rulers having power over them: without experience,” etc. without experience, without skill of the tongue, and in the condition of quite ordinary men, matched against juggling conjurors, against impostors, against the whole throng of sophists, of rhetoricians, of philosophers grown mouldy in the Academy and the walks of the Peripatetics, against all these they fought the battle out. And the man whose occupation had been about lakes, so mastered them, as if it cost him not so much ado as even a contest with dumb fishes: for just as if the opponents he had to outwit were indeed more mute than fishes, so easily did he get the better of them! And Plato, that talked a deal of nonsense in his day, is silent now, while this man utters his voice everywhere; not among his own countrymen alone, but also among Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and in India, and in every part of the earth, and to the extremities of the world. Where now is Greece, with her big pretentions? Where the name of Athens? Where the ravings of the philosophers? He of Galilee, he of Bethsaida, he, the uncouth rustic, has overcome them all. Are you not ashamed—confess it—at the very name of the country of him who has defeated you? But if you hear his own name too, and learn that he was called Cephas, much more will you hide your faces. This, this has undone you quite; because you esteem this a reproach, and account glibness of tongue a praise, and want of glibness a disgrace. You have not followed the road you ought to have chosen, but leaving the royal road, so easy, so smooth, you have trodden one rough, and steep, and laborious. And therefore you have not attained unto the kingdom of heaven.

Why then, it is asked, did not Christ exercise His influence upon Plato, and upon Pythagoras? Because the mind of Peter was 30much more philosophical¹¹⁶¹¹⁶    St. Chrysostom’s habitual use of the term philosophy is thus explained in the index of Mr. Field’s edition of the Com. on St. Matt. “Philosophy, according to the custom of Chrys. is not Christian piety, not the exercise of any virtue, not a pious and chaste life, not virtue in general, but that part of virtue, which consists in subduing the carnal appetites and affections. Thus to Christian philosophy are to be referred: forbearance and long suffering; humblemindedness; contempt of wealth; an austere and monastic life; every other mortification (ἀπάθεια). Its contraries are: emulation (ζηλοτυπία, see below), envy and vainglory, and all other passions.” than their minds. They were in truth children shifted about on all sides by vain glory; but this man was a philosopher, one apt to receive grace. If you laugh at these words, it is no wonder; for those aforetime laughed, and said, the men were full of new wine. But afterwards, when they suffered those bitter calamities, exceeding all others in misery; when they saw their city falling in ruins, and the fire blazing, and the walls hurled to the ground, and those manifold frantic horrors, which no one can find words to express, they did not laugh then. And you will laugh then, if you have the mind to laugh, when the time of hell is close at hand, when the fire is kindled for your souls. But why do I speak of the future? Shall I show you what Peter is, and what Plato, the philosopher? Let us for the present examine their respective habits, let us see what were the pursuits of each. The one wasted his time about a set of idle and useless dogmas, and philosophical, as he says,¹¹⁷¹¹⁷    καὶ φιλόσοφα, φησὶν, ἵνα: “And ‘philosophical,’ forsooth:” but perhaps it should be καὶ ἐφιλοσόφησεν ἵνα: “this was the upshot of his philosophizing.” ῾Ητοῦ φιλοσόφου ψυχή: “the soul of the philosopher himself (Α τοῦ διδασκάλου), viz. equally with the souls of other men, becomes, for instance, a fly,” etc. Comp.infra: “our soul passes into flies and dogs,” etc. and Hom. in Ev. Joann. t. viii. 8. D. “they say that the souls of men become flies, gnats, shrubs.”—Edd. “For what is the benefit from learning that the soul of the philosopher,” etc. The next sentence (ὄντως μυῖα—οὐκ εἰς μυῖαν μετέπιπτεν(sc. ἡ ψυχὴ), ἀλλ᾽ ἐπέβαινε (sc. μυῖα τῇ ἐν Πλατ. οἰκόυσῃ) ψυχῇ seems to mean, ‘He talks of the soul becoming a fly: and truly the soul in Plato might be claimed by a fly:’ ἐπεβ. τῇ ψ. as e.g. is ἐπιβαίνειν τῇ ἐπαρχί& 139· to step into possession of, etc. Ποίας γὰρ ταῦτα οὐ μυίας; Edd.ματαιολογίας; adding, Πόφεν δὴ τοιαῦτα ληρεῖν ἐπεβάλετο; “What could put it into his head to rave in this fashion?” that we may learn that the soul of our philosopher becomes a fly.¹¹⁸¹¹⁸    The author’s depreciation of Plato contrasts unfavorably with the more generous estimates of a long line of Church Fathers from Justin to Augustin.—G.B.S. Most truly said, a fly! not indeed changed into one, but a fly must have entered upon possession of the soul which dwelt in Plato; for what but a fly is worthy of such ideas! The man was full of irony, and of jealous feelings against every one else, as if he made it his ambition to introduce nothing useful, either out of his own head or other people’s. Thus he adopted the metempsychosis from another, and from himself produced the Republic, in which he enacted those laws full of gross turpitude. Let the women, he says, be in common, and let the virgins go naked, and let them wrestle before the eyes of their lovers, and let there also be common fathers, and let the children begotten be common. But with us, not nature makes common fathers, but the philosophy of Peter does this; as for that other, it made away with all paternity.¹¹⁹¹¹⁹    ᾽Επεὶ ἐκεῖνό γε καὶ ἀνῇρει. Erasmus translates, Quandoquidem et illud quod Plato docuit, sustulit: whence Ben. Nam illud Platonis hic (Petrus) sustulit: i.e. for Peter’s doctrine (of chastity) has made an end of that lewd dogma of Plato’s. But the following sentence rather implies that the meaning is as above given. For Plato’s system only tended to make the real father next to unknown, while the false one was introduced. It plunged the soul into a kind of intoxication and filthy wallowing. Let all, he says, have intercourse with the women without fear. The reason why I do not examine the maxims of poets, is, that I may not be charged with ripping up fables. And yet I am speaking of fables much more ridiculous than even those. Where have the poets devised aught so portentous as this? But (not to enter into the discussion of his other maxims), what say you to these—when he equips the females with arms, and helmets, and greaves, and says that the human race has no occasion to differ from the canine! Since dogs, he says, the female and the male, do just the same things in common, so let the women do the same works as the men, and let all be turned upside down. For the devil has always endeavored by their means¹²⁰¹²⁰    Δι᾽ αὐτῶν, Ben. per illas, which they seem to refer to γυναῖκες. Erasm. per illos, which is doubtless right: by means of the philosophers, as below, ἐν ταῖς ἐκείνων ψυχαῖς.to show that our race is not more honorable than that of brutes; and, in fact, some have gone to such a pitch of (κενοδοξίας) absurdity, as to affirm that the irrational creatures are endued with reason. And see in how many various ways he has run riot in the minds of those men! For whereas their leading men affirmed that our soul passes into flies, and dogs, and brute creatures; those who came after them, being ashamed of this, fell into another kind of turpitude, and invested the brute creatures with all rational science, and made out that the creatures—which were called into existence on our account—are in all respects more honorable than we! They even attribute to them foreknowledge and piety. The crow, they say, knows God, and the raven likewise, and they possess gifts of prophecy, and foretell the future; there is justice among them, and polity, and laws. Perhaps you do not credit the things I am telling you. And well may you not, nurtured as you have been with sound doctrine; since also, if a man were fed with this fare, he would never believe that there exists a human being who finds pleasure in eating dung. The dog¹²¹¹²¹    Καὶ ζηλοῖ παῤ αὐτοῖς ὁ κύων κατὰ Πλάτωνα. Edd. have this after “polity and laws,” where it is clearly out of place, whatever it means. also among them31is jealous, according to Plato. But when we tell them that these things are fables, and are full of absurdity, ‘You do not enter (ἐνοήσατε) into the higher meaning,’ say they. No, we do not enter into this your surpassing nonsense, and may we never do so: for it requires (of course!¹²²¹²²    Edd. Σφόδρα γε· οὐ γὰρ φρενὸς βαθείας. Read Σφόδρα γε (οὐ γάρ); φρ. β. as above, p. 22, note 1, and 28, note 1.) an excessively profound mind, to inform me, what all this impiety and confusion would be at. Are you talking, senseless men, in the language of crows, as the children are wont (in play)? For you are in very deed children, even as they. But Peter never thought of saying any of these things: he uttered a voice, like a great light shining out in the dark, a voice which scattered the mist and darkness of the whole world. Again, his deportment, how gentle it was, how considerate (ἐπιεικὲς); how far above all vainglory; how he looked towards heaven without all self-elation, and this, even when raising up the dead! But if it had come to be in the power of any one of those senseless people (in mere fantasy of course) to do anything like it, would he not straightway have looked for an altar and a temple to be reared to him, and have wanted to be equal with the gods? since in fact when no such sign is forthcoming, they are forever indulging such fantastic conceits. And what, pray you, is that Minerva of theirs, and Apollo, and Juno? They are different kinds of demons among them. And there is a king of theirs, who thinks fit to die for the mere purpose of being accounted equal with the gods. But not so the men here: no, just the contrary. Hear how they speak on the occasion of the lame man’s cure. “Ye men of Israel, why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made him to walk? (ch. iii. 12.) We also are men of like passions with you. (Ibid. xiv. 14.) But with those, great is the self-elation, great the bragging; all for the sake of men’s honors, nothing for the pure love of truth and virtue. (φιλοσοφίας ἔνεκεν.) For where an action is done for glory, all is worthless. For though a man possess all, yet if he have not the mastery over this (lust), he forfeits all claim to true philosophy, he is in bondage to the more tyrannical and shameful passion. Contempt of glory; this it is that is sufficient to teach all that is good, and to banish from the soul every pernicious passion. I exhort you therefore to use the most strenuous endeavors to pluck out this passion by the very roots; by no other means can you have good esteem with God, and draw down upon you the benevolent regard of that Eye which never sleepeth. Wherefore, let us use all earnestness to obtain the enjoyment of that heavenly influence, and thus both escape the trial of present evils, and attain unto the future blessings, through the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost be glory, power, honor, now and ever, and to all ages. Amen.