Homily XV

Acts VI. 8

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

See how even among the seven one was preëminent, and won the first prize. For though the ordination was common to him and them, yet he drew upon himself greater grace. And observe, how he wrought no (signs and wonders) before this time, but only when he became publicly known; to show that grace alone is not sufficient, but there must be ordination also; so that there was a further access of the Spirit. For if they were full of the Spirit, it was of that which is from the Laver of Baptism. “Then there arose certain of them of the synagogue.” (v. 9.) Again he uses the phrase of “rising up” (ἀνάστασιν, Hom. xiii. p. 81), to denote their exasperation and wrath. Here we have a great multitude. And observe the difference in the form of accusation: for since Gamaliel had stopped them from finding fault on the former plea, they bring in another charge. “And there rose up, it says, certain of them of the synagogue of those who are called (τὥν λεγομένων. Edd. τἥς λεγομένης) Libertines, and of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia, disputing with Stephen. And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake. Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” (v. 9–12.) That they may establish the charge, the phrase is, “he speaks against God, and against Moses.” And with this object too they disputed, that they might force him to say somewhat. But he now discoursed more openly, and perhaps spoke of the cessation of the Divine Law: or, spoke it not, but hinted as much: since had he spoken plainly, there had been no need of suborned men, nor yet of false witnesses.³⁴³³⁴³    The accusations against Stephen were probably true in part and false in part. He had doubtless spoken against Jewish legalism and narrowness and had perhaps shown the bearing of O.T. prophecy and of Jesus’ doctrine of fulfilment upon the fate of the Jewish system. The charge that he had spoken “against Moses” had, then, a certain verbal truth which made its moral falseness all the more subtle. The perversion of his words was due in part to their utter incapacity to apprehend Christianity as the fulfilment of their own religion which necessarily involved the passing away of the latter, and partly from their bitter jealousy and hatred of the Christian “sect” and the determination to find some excuse to bring against it all the legal and social forces of the whole Jewish people. In his preaching Stephen had doubtless sought to set forth the distinctive character of Christianity as a religion historically founded in Judaism, but not to be limited and bound by its forms. He but developed germs of truth found in the teaching of Jesus concerning the Sabbath, ceremonial purifications, etc. He was the forerunner of Paul, who brought upon himself the same accusations (Acts xviii. 13; xxi. 21).—G.B.S.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 95intolerable to them. “They could not resist, etc.: then they suborned men.” Everywhere out of hand, but by means of a sentence, that they might hurt their reputation also: and leaving those (the Apostles), they attack these (the disciples), thinking in this way to terrify those also. They say not, “he speaketh,” but, “he ceaseth not to speak. And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law.” (v. 12, 13.) “Ceaseth not,” say they, as if he made this his business. “For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” (v. 14.) “Jesus,” they say, “the Nazarene,” as a term of reproach, “shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs.” This is also what they said about Christ. “Thou that destroyest this Temple.” (Matt. xxvii. 40.) For great was their veneration for the Temple (as indeed they had chosen to leave their own country (μετοικεἴν) in order to be near it) and for the name of Moses. The charge is twofold. If³⁴⁴³⁴⁴    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.” He “shall change the customs,” He will also introduce others instead: observe how the charge is a bitter one, and fraught with perils. “And all that sat in the council, looking steadfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” (v. 15.) So possible is it even for one in a lower degree to shine. For what, I ask, had this man less than the Apostles? He lacked not miracles, and great was the boldness he exhibited.³⁴⁵³⁴⁵    A. B. C. N. Οὐχὶ σημεὶων ἐδεήθη, καὶ (A. B. οὐ) πολλὴν ἐπεδείξατο την παρρησίαν. Cat. has πολλῶν forσημείων, 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?”—“They saw His face,” it is said, “as it had been the face of an angel.” (Ex. xxxiv. 30.) For this was his grace, this was the glory of Moses. God made him thus gracious (ἐπίχαριν) of visage, now that he was about to say somewhat, thus at once by his very look to awe them. For there are, yes, there are faces full-fraught with spiritual grace, lovely to them that love, awful to haters and enemies. It mentions also the reason, why they suffered his oration.—“Then,” it proceeds, “said the high-priest, Are these things so?” (ch. vii. 1.) Observe, the question is put with mildness, that he may effect some great mischief. For this reason Stephen too begins his speech in a tone of gentleness, and says, “Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran.” (v. 2.) Immediately at the outset he overthrows their conceit, and makes it appear by what he says, that the temple is nothing, that the customs are nothing either, without their suspecting his drift: also that they shall not overcome the preaching; and that from powerless (ἀμηχάνων) things God evermore contrives Him powerful (εὐμήχανα) instruments. Mark then how these threads make the texture of the whole speech: and moreover that having evermore enjoyed exceeding goodness, they still requited their Benefactor with the opposite conduct, and that they are now attempting impossibilities. “The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he came into Charran.” Both the temple was not, and sacrifice was not, and yet a vision of God was vouchsafed to Abraham, and yet had he Persians³⁴⁶³⁴⁶    Chrys. commonly denotes the oriental nations, generally, by the name “Persians.” Ben. 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.” How³⁴⁷³⁴⁷    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. then saith the Scripture, that Abraham’s father was willing to go out? Hence we learn, that it was in consequence of Abraham’s vision, that his father was moved to join in the migration. (Gen. xi. 31.) “And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into a land which I shall show thee.” (v. 3.) It shows how far these men are from being children of Abraham, how obedient he was. “And³⁴⁸³⁴⁸    E. Edd. “but these disobedient: or rather, we learn from what he does, as he was bidden, that he endured,” etc. 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 96his father was dead, He removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And He gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on.” (v. 4, 5.) See how he raises their thoughts away from (their possession of) the land.³⁴⁹³⁴⁹    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.” 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.” (ch. vi. 8). For it is possible to have a grace that does not consist in works of healing: “For to one is given the grace of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 8, 9) in such and such wise (τοιὣσδε). But here, it seems to me, it says that he was also gracious to look at: “They saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” “Full of faith and of power”: (v. 15) which is also the character given of Barnabas “he was a good man, full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” (ch. xi. 24.) Whence we learn that the sincere and innocent are, above all others, the³⁵⁰³⁵⁰    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. men to be saved, and that these same are also more gracious. “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words.” (v. 11.) In the case of the Apostles they were annoyed that they preached the Resurrection, and that much people flowed unto them: but in this case, that they were getting their diseases healed. (ch. iv. 2.) The things for which they ought to give thanks, they made matter of blame: O the madness! The men who overcame them by works, they expected to overcome by words! It is just what they did in the case of Christ, and always they forced them to words. For they were ashamed to seize them without more ado, having nothing to charge them with. And observe, not the persons themselves who bring them to judgment bear witness against them; for they would have been refuted: but they simply hire others, that it may not seem to be an act of mere violence. It is all of a piece with their proceeding in the case of Christ. And observe the power of the preaching, that, though they are not only scourged but stoned, it still prevails: not³⁵¹³⁵¹    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, forπλάττοντας: A. E. πράττοντας C. we readπράττοντας 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. 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” (v. 10), though they were exceeding shameless: so mightily did it overthrow them, for all that they could do with their preposterous figments (as the saying that He had a devil—He that cast out devils!). For the battle was not man’s, but God’s against men. And there were many combined together; not only they in Jerusalem, but others as well. (v. 9.) For “we have heard him,” say they, “speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God.” (v. 11.) O ye shameless ones! Ye work blasphemous deeds, and think nothing of it. This is why Moses is added—because the things of God were no great concern to them: and it is ever and always Moses that they make mention of: “This Moses, which brought us out.” (ch. vii. 40.) “And they stirred up the people.” (v. 12.) Fickleness³⁵²³⁵²    τὸ εὐρίπιστον τοῦ ὄχλου. Edd. addἀνερεθίζοντες, “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.” 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 97the worst of it (in argument).—This was what most annoyed them. “We have heard him,” they say, “speaking blasphemous words against Moses and against God” (v. 13): and again, “This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place and the law,” and with an addition, “the customs” “which Moses delivered to us” (v. 14); Moses, not God. Upon the supposition of a design to overturn their manner of life (πολιτείας), they accused him of impiety also. But to show that it was not in the nature of such a man to speak such things, and harshly [“Then all,” it says, “which were in the council, looking steadfastly upon him, saw his face, as it had been the face of an angel”] (v. 15): so mild was he even in countenance. For, in cases where persons were not falsely accused, Scripture mentions nothing of this kind: but as in this case it was all false accusation, with reason does God rectify it by the very look of the man. For the Apostles indeed were not falsely accused, but were forbidden: but this man is falsely accused: and therefore before all else his countenance pleads for him. This abashed even the priest. “And he said,” etc. (ch. vii. 1.) He shows here, that the promise was made before the Place, before Circumcision, before Sacrifice, before the Temple, and that it was not of their merit that these received either Circumcision or Law, but that the land was the reward of obedience alone. Moreover, that neither on the giving of circumcision does the promise receive its fulfillment. Also, that these were figures, and (so was) both the leaving his country at God’s command—not³⁵³³⁵³    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 afterσυγγένειαν. against the law (for home and country is where God shall lead): “Then came he out,” it says, “of the land of the Chaldeans” (v. 4):—and that if one look closely into the matter, the Jews are of Persian origin: and that, without miracles, one must do as God bids, whatever hardships be the consequence; since the Patriarch left both the grave of his father and all that he had, in obedience to God’s command. But if Abraham’s father was not allowed to take part with him in the privilege of migrating to Palestine, because he was unworthy: much more shall the children (be excluded at last), for all that they may have gone a good distance on the way. “And He promised,” it says, “to give it to him, and to his seed after him.” (v. 5.) Herein is shown the greatness both of God’s goodness and of Abraham’s faith. For the expression, “when as yet he had no child,” does show his obedience and faith. “Promised to give it to him and to his seed.” And yet the events showed the contrary: namely, after he came, he had not “so much as to set his foot on,” had not a child; which very things were contrary to his faith.

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

Not the being afflicted is an evil; the evil is, to sin. This is the sore affliction, however we may pass our days in luxury:—not to speak of the life to come, it is so even in this life present. Think how our conscience is stung with remorse, and whether this is not worse than any kind of torture! I should like to put the question searchingly to those who live in evil ways (ἐν κακοἵς), whether they never come to reflect upon their own sins, whether they do not tremble, and are in fear and anguish, whether they do not think those blessed who live in abstinence, them of the mountains, them of the strict rule? (τοὺς ἐν πολλῇ φιλοσοφί& 139·.) Dost thou wish to find rest in the life to come? Suffer affliction in this life 98for Christ’s sake: there is nothing equal to this rest. The Apostles rejoiced when scourged. Paul gives this exhortation, saying, “Rejoice in the Lord.” (Philip. iv. 4.) And how can there be rejoicing, where there are bonds, where there are tortures; where there are courts of justice? There, most of all, is rejoicing. But³⁵⁴³⁵⁴    E. F. D. Edd. “And how there may be rejoicing where these are, learn (thus). He who in nothing is conscious of evil,” etc. 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 wounds³⁵⁵³⁵⁵    παρρησίας ὑπόθεσιν ἔχων τὰ τραύματα. Ben “argumentum audaciæ.” Erasm. “testimonium libertatis.” as his title for speaking up boldly, and as evidence of his glory and renown? And thou, if thou be able to exclaim as Paul does, “I bear the marks of Jesus” (Gal. vi. 17), wilt be able to become great and glorious and renowned. “But there is no persecution.” Make thy stand against glory: and should any one speak anything against thee, fear not to be evil-spoken of for Christ’s sake: make thy stand against the tyranny of pride, against the fighting of anger, against the torment of concupiscence. These also are “marks,”³⁵⁶³⁵⁶    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.” 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.”³⁵⁷³⁵⁷    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. 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 order³⁵⁸³⁵⁸    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. to draw it, the anger will be quenched. Christ would not have us be angry on his account: (hear what He saith to Peter: “Put up again thy sword into the sheath:”) (Matt. xxvi. 52) and art thou angry on account of a boy? Teach thy boy also to be philosophical: tell him thy own sufferings: imitate (herein) thy Teacher. (Matt. xxvi. 52.) When they too (His disciples) were about to be treated with dishonor, He said not, “I will avenge you:” but, “to Me also,” saith He, “they have done the same: bear it nobly, for ye are not better than I.” These words too do thou speak to thy son and thy boy: “Thou art not better than thy master.” But these words of philosophy are counted as the talk of a widow woman. Alas! that it is not in the power of words to bring it home to people in the way that it is possible to be taught it by actual experience! And that you may learn this; stand between two combatants, take part with the wronged, not with the wrong-doers 99[that you may learn]³⁵⁹³⁵⁹    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.” whether you shall not see the victory on your side, whether you shall not get splendid crowns.—See, how God is insulted, and how He answers; how gently, “Where,” saith He, “is Abel thy brother?” and what saith the other: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. vi. 9.) What could be more contumacious than this? Would any one have heard it (patiently) even from a son? and if from a brother, would he not have thought such conduct an insult? What then? See how again God gently answers, “The voice of thy brother’s blood,” saith He “crieth unto Me.” “But God,” it will be said, “is superior to wrath.” Yes, but for this reason the Son of God came down, that He might make thee a God as far as human power can go. “But I cannot,” says one, “seeing I am man.” Well then, let us give you men for instances. And do not suppose I speak of Paul or of Peter: no, but of some of inferior sort, yea, very much lower down. Eli’s menial insulted Hannah, saying, “Put away thy wine from thee.” (1 Sam. i. 14.) What could be more insulting than this? What then said she? “I am a woman of a hard lot.”³⁶⁰³⁶⁰    γυνὴ ἐν σκληρᾷ ἡμέρᾳ εἰμὶ, Chrys.γυνὴ ἡ σκληρὰ ἡμερὰ (or ἡμέρᾳ) LXX. Indeed, there is nothing equal to affliction: she is the mother of true philosophy. But this same woman, though she has her rival, insulted her not: but what does she? She takes refuge with God, and in her prayer does not even make mention of her, nor say, “Avenge me, for such an one reproaches me:” so magnanimous was that woman (let us men be ashamed):—and yet ye know, that there is nothing like jealousy. The publican, when insulted by the Pharisee, insulted not in return, though, had he wished it, he might have done so: but he bore it like a philosopher, saying, “Be merciful to me a sinner.” (Luke xviii. 13.) Mephibosheth,³⁶¹³⁶¹    Memphibaal, Chrys. here andSynops. Sacr. Script. t. vi. 349. andTheodoret Quæst. 31, in lib. 2. Reg.Μεμφιβοσθέ, LXX. Elsewhere he is called Meribbaal, 1 Chron. viii. 34. So Jerubbaal,Judg. vi. 32. Jerubbesheth, 2 Sam. xi. 21. Memphibaal is compounded of the two forms. Ben. having been accused and calumniated by his servant, neither said, nor did, any evil to him, not even in the presence of the king himself. (2 Sam. xix. 26.) Shall I tell you even of a harlot, what philosophic magnanimity she showed? Hear Christ saying, as she was wiping His feet with her hair, “The publicans and harlots go into the kingdom before you.” (Matt. xxi. 31.) Do you see her standing, and taking courage, and washing away her own sins? Observe, how she was not angry even with the Pharisee, when reproached by him: “for had He known,” says he, “that this woman is a sinner, He would not have suffered her (Luke vii. 39): and how she said not to him, “What then? Say, art thou pure from sins?” but felt more, wept more, and let fall hotter tears. But if women and publicans and harlots play the philosopher, and that before grace (i.e. of Baptism), what pardon can they deserve, who, after so great grace, fight, and worry, and kick one another, worse than beasts? Nothing is more base than passion, nothing more 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 100if 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.

Homily XIV

Acts V. 34

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

This Gamaliel was Paul’s teacher. And one may well wonder, how, being so right-minded in his judgment, and withal learned in the law, he did not yet believe. But it cannot be that he should have continued in unbelief to the end.³¹⁸³¹⁸    In the Clementine Recogn. i. 65, Gamaliel is spoken of as having been early a Christian in secret. Lucian the Presbytera.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.) Indeed it appears plainly from the words he here speaks. He “commanded,” it says, “to put the men forth a little space [and said unto them.]” Observe how judiciously he frames his speech, and how he immediately at the very outset puts them in fear. And that he may not be suspected of taking their part, he addresses them as if he and they were of the same opinion, and does not use much vehemence, but as speaking to men intoxicated through passion, he thus expresses himself: “Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.” (v. 35.) Do not, he would say, go to work rashly and in a hurry. “For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody: to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to naught.” (v. 36.) By examples he teaches them prudence; and, by way of encouragement, mentions last the man who seduced the greatest number. Now before he gives the examples, he says, “Take heed to yourselves;” but when he has cited them, then he declares his opinion, and says, “Refrain from these men.” For, says he, “there rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to naught. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow them.” (al. it) (v. 37–39.) Then³¹⁹³¹⁹    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. 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.” (v. 40.) How were they persuaded? So as not to slay them, but merely to scourge. For, it says, “And when they had called the Apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.” See after what great works they are scourged! And again their teaching became more extended: for they taught at home and in the temple, “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ. (v. 41, 42.) And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Hellenists against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily88ministration.” (ch. vi. 1.) Not absolutely in those immediate days; for it is the custom of Scripture to speak of things next about to happen, as taking place in immediate succession. But by “Hellenists” I suppose he means those who spoke Greek [“against the Hebrews”]: for³²⁰³²⁰    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.” they did not use the Greek language. Behold another trial! observe how from within and from without there are warrings, from the very first! “Then,” it says, “the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” (v. 2.) Well said: for the needful must give precedence to the more needful. But see, how straightway they both take thought for these (inferior matters), and yet do not neglect the preaching. “Because their widows were overlooked:” for those (the Hebrews) were treated as the persons of greater consequence (αἰδεσιμώτεροι). “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost” (v. 3–5.) so were the others also full of faith;³²¹³²¹    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. 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.” (v. 5–7.)

But³²²³²²    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.” let us look over again what has been spoken. “Ye men of Israel take heed to yourselves.”(Recapitulation, v. 35.) See here, I pray you, how mildly Gamaliel reasons, and how he says but a few words to them, and does not recount ancient histories, although he might have done so, but more recent instances, which are most powerful to produce belief. With this view he throws out a hint himself, saying, “For before these days” (v. 36): meaning, not many days before. Now had he at once said, “Let these men go,” both himself would have fallen into suspicion, and his speech would not have been so effective: but after the examples, it acquired its own proper force. And he mentions not one instance, but a second also: “for,” saith the Scripture, “in the mouth of two witnesses” (Matt. xviii. 16): and yet he had it in his power to mention even three. “Refrain from these men.” (v. 38.) See how mild his manner is, and his speech not long, but concise, and his mention even of those (impostors) how free from passion: “And all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered.” And³²³³²³    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. for all this he does not blaspheme Christ. They heard him, all these unbelievers, heard him, these Jews. [“For if this council or this work be of men, it will come to naught.”] Well then, since it did not come to nought, it is not of men. [“But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it.”] (v. 39.) Once more he checks them by the impossibility and the inexpediency of the thing, saying, “Lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”³²⁴³²⁴    Meyer finds in the expression of Gamaliel (38, 39): “if it be of men—ἔαν ἦ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων” and “if it is of God—ἐι δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστίν” an indication that he leaned to the latter opinion. While this distinction is grammatically valid it can scarcely be justified as intentional. Gamaliel, although tolerant toward Christianity, as the Pharisaic party in general were at this time, was not a Christian in secret, but an orthodox Jew. His advice was politic even from a Jewish point of view. He saw, as the more bitter party did not, that this sort of opposition would only serve to rouse all the energy and perseverance of the Christian disciples and thus indirectly tend to the increase and spread of their doctrines among the people.—G.B.S. And he does not say, If Christ be God; but the work (itself) declares (this). He does not pronounce upon it, either that, it is “of men,” or that it is “of God;” but he leaves the proof to the future. “They were persuaded [by him].” (v. 40.) Then why, it may be asked, do ye scourge them? Such was the incontrovertible 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. 89“³²⁵³²⁵    E. F. D. and Edd. (except Savile) add,μᾶλλον δὲ μονονουχὶ τοιαῦτα δικαιολογούμενος τρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀποτείνεται. “Or rather he all but with just remonstrance thus expostulates with them: “Ye were persuaded,” etc. Below,᾽Εκεῖ τετρακόσιοι, ἐκεῖ τετρακισχίλιοι· καὶ ὧδε κ. τ. λ. But the mention of the four thousand, here referred to the second instance (Judas of Galilee), is in fact derived from the case of the Egyptian, ch. xxi. 38, being the third instance which “he might have cited.” Accordingly the modern text substitutes, “There four hundred stood up, and after this a great multitude.”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. (ch. ii. 41; iv. 4.) He might also have mentioned another instance, that of the Egyptian, but what he has spoken is fully sufficient. And he closes his speech with an alarming topic: “Lest haply,” etc. And he does not pronounce upon it, lest he should seem to be pleading their cause; but he reasons by way of syllogism from the issue of the matter. And he does not venture to pronounce that it is not of men, nor yet that it is of God; for had he said that it was of God, they would have gainsaid him: but had he said that it was of men, they would again have taken prompt measures. Therefore he bids them wait for the end, saying, “Refrain.” But they once more threaten knowing indeed that they avail nothing, but doing after their manner. Such is the nature of wickedness: it attempts even impossibilities.—“And after this man rose up Judas,” etc. These things Josephus relates in detail. (Ant. xx. 8; ib. v. 2; xviii. 1. B. J. ii. 8. 1.) But what a great thing it was that he ventured to affirm: that it was of God, when in the sequel it received its proof from the events! Great boldness of speech, great freedom from all respect of persons!³²⁶³²⁶    E. and Edd. omit the following sentence, substituting the first two clauses of v. 40 and after “the character of the man,” add, “wherefore also they desist from their purpose of killing the Apostles, and having only scourged they dismiss them.” And he does not say, “But if ye do not overthrow it, it is of God;” but, “If it be of God, it will not be overthrown.” “And to him they agreed.” (v. 40.) They reverenced the high character of the man. “And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the name of Christ.” (v. 41.) What miracles so wonderful as this? Nowhere is the like of this recorded of the old saints: for Jeremiah indeed was scourged for the word of God, and they threatened Elijah, and the rest: but in this case, even by this very thing, and not only by their miracles, these showed forth the power of God. He does not say, that they were not pained, but that though pained they rejoiced. How does this appear? From their boldness afterwards: they were so instant still, even after their beatings, in preaching the word. “But in the temple,” it says, “and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.” (v. 42.) “And in those days”—when these things were done, when there were scourgings, when there were threatenings, when the disciples were multiplying—also, it says, “there arose a murmuring.” (ch. vi. 1.) And this comes of the multitude: for it is impossible to have strict order in a multitude. “There arose a murmuring,” etc. to,—“And³²⁷³²⁷    Standing here by itself, this last clause of v, 7 is quite out of its place. It is best explained as marking the conclusion of the text v. 1–7 here again read out. In the old text it is followed by the comment,᾽Εκεῖνο γὰρ τὸ γένος ἐδόκει τιμιώτερον εἶναι· as if “this description of people” meant the priests: and then, “And there arose,” it says, “a murmuring,” v. 1. We have restored the comment to its proper place.—The innovator adds as comment on v. 7: Τοῦτο αἰνιττομένου ἐστὶ καὶ δεικνύντος ὅτι ἀφ᾽ ὧν ὁ κατὰ Χριστοῦ θάνατος ἐσκευάσθη, πολλοὶ ἀπὸ τούτων πιστεύουσιν. “This is by way of hint, to show that of those very persons, by whose machinations the sentence of death against Christ was procured, of those same many believe. “There arose,” it says, “a murmuring,” etc. And so Edd. 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.”³²⁸³²⁸    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. (v. 1–7.) So then there was a daily ministration for the widows. And observe how he calls it a “ministration” (διακονία), and not directly alms: extolling by this at once the doers, and those to whom it was done. “Were neglected.” This did not arise from malice, but perhaps from the carelessness of the multitude. And therefore he brought it forward openly, for this was no small evil. Observe, how even in the beginning the evils came not only from without, but also from within. For you must not look to this only, that it was set to rights, but observe that it was a great evil that it existed.³²⁹³²⁹    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. “Then the twelve,” etc. (v. 2.) Do you observe³³⁰³³⁰    ῾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. how outward concerns succeed to inward? They do not act at their own discretion, 90but 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:³³¹³³¹    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. not now twelve, but “seven, full of the Spirit and of wisdom: well reported of” for their conversation. (v. 3.) Now when Matthias was to be presented, it was said, “Therefore must one of these men which have companied with us all the time” (ch. i. 21): but not so here: for the case was not alike. And they do not now put it to the lot; they might indeed themselves have made the election, as moved by the Spirit: but nevertheless, they desire the testimony of the people. The fixing the number, and the ordaining them, and for this kind of business, rested with them: but the choice of the men they make over to the people, that they might not seem to act from favor: just as God also leaves it to Moses to choose as elders those whom he knew. (Num. xi. 16.) “And of wisdom.” For indeed there needs much wisdom in such ministrations. For think not, because he hath not the word committed unto him, that such an one has no need of wisdom: he does need it, and much too. “But we,” saith he, “will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” (v. 4.) Again they plead for themselves, beginning and ending with this. “Will give ourselves continually,” he saith. For so it behooved, not just to do the mere acts, or in any chance way, but to be continually doing them. “And the saying,” we are told, “pleased the whole multitude.” (v. 5, 6.) This too was worthy of their wisdom. All approved of what was said so sensible was it. “And they chose,” it says (again it is the people (αὐτοί) that choose,) “Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” They separated them from the multitude, and it is the people (αὐτοί) that draw them, not the Apostles that lead them. Observe how he avoids all that is superfluous: he does not tell in what way it was done, but that they were ordained (ἐχειροτονήθησαν) with prayer: for this is the meaning of χειροτονία, (i.e. “putting forth the hand,”) or ordination: the hand of the man is laid upon (the person,) but the whole work is of God, and it is His hand which toucheth the head of the one ordained, if he be duly ordained. “And the word of God,” it says, “increased: and the number of the disciples multiplied.” (v. 7.) It is not for nothing that he says this: it shows how great is the virtue of alms and good order. And as he is about in the sequel to enlarge (αὔξειν) upon the affair of Stephen, he puts first the causes which led to it. “And many,” he says, “of the priests were obedient to the faith.” For³³²³³²    ᾽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?” 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. But³³³³³³    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 andεἶναι, or indeed even as the words stand, we get the sense expressed in the translation, which is more suitable. So Erasmus: Unde neque diaconorum neque presbyterorum nomen esse opinor quod clarum ac manifestum. St. Chrys. says, “Their appellation and office is neither deacons nor presbyters: they were ordained upon a special emergency.”—It seems to have been commonly held in earlier times, that Acts vi. 1–6 is the history of the first institution of the Diaconate. Thus the Council of Nicocæsarea ordains (a.d. 314) that in each city, however large, the number of 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, CorneliusEp. ad Fab. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 43 states, that the clergy of Rome consisted of one Bishop, forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, etc. (Accordingly St. Jerome, Ep.146 al. 101 ad Evang. remarks: Diaconos paucitas honorabiles facit. Comp. Sozomen. vii. 19.) But the rule which assigned to each Bishop seven deacons, neither more nor less, was not always followed in large cities, as appears even from the Canon above cited: how greatly that number was exceeded in later times, may be seen in the Novellæ of Justinian, when it is enacted (iii. c. 1.) that the number of deacons in the metropolitan Church at Constantinople should be a hundred. The Council or Councils commonly called the fifth and sixth General (Conc. Quinisextum, or Trullanum,) held under the same Emperor, a.d. 692, sanctioned this departure from the earlier rule, in the following Canon (xvi). “Whereas the Book of Acts relates that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles, and the Council of Neocæsarea in its Canons determines that “The number of deacons in each city,” etc. (as above): we, having applied the sense of the Fathers to the Apostolic text, find that the said history relates not to the deacons who minister in the mysteries, but to the service of tables, etc.: the history in the Acts being as follows, “And in those days,” etc. (Acts vi. 1–6.) The doctor of the Church, John Chrysostom, expounding the same, thus speaks: “It is a subject for wonder…….neither deacons nor presbyters is their designation,” (as above.) Hereupon therefore do we also publish, that the aforesaid seven deacons be not taken to mean those which minister in the mysteries, as in the doctrine above rehearsed: but that these are they which were charged with the service of the common need of the people then gathered together; albeit herein these be unto us a pattern of humane and diligent attendance on them that be in necessity. is it to the Presbyters that 91the 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.³³⁴³³⁴    There is no sufficient ground to doubt that this narrative describes the formation of the diaconate which we find existing later in the apostolic age (Phil. i. 1;1 Tim. iii. 8–12). Although the wordδιάκονος does not here occur, we have the corresponding verb διακονεῖν and abstract noun διακονία (1, 2). The chief grounds of this opinion are: (1) the substantial identity of the duties here described and those of the later diaconate; (2) the almost universal testimony of patristic tradition to their identity: (3) the continuance for centuries of the number seven in the diaconate of churches (like that at Rome) where more than seven would naturally be required, out of deference to the apostolic mode. See Lightfoot, Com. on Philippians, pp. 187–9.—G.B.S. 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,³³⁵³³⁵    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.” 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. xi. 14.) “Only,” it is said, “that we should remember the poor.” (Gal. ii. 10.) And³³⁶³³⁶    Πῶς δὲ προῆγον τούτους;᾽Ενήστευον. Edd. from E., “But how they also brought these forward, learn thou. They fasted, they continued in prayer. This ought also to be done now.”—As there is no mention of fasting in Acts vi. 1–6perhaps this refers to the history xiii. 2, 3 of the mission of Paul and Barnabas, to which he has just alluded.—Below, καὶ ταύτῃ δὲ θαυμαστὸς ἦν ἁ Φ. The clause to which this refers is misplaced in the old text, viz. before the sentence, “In Jerusalem,” etc. where E. and Edd. restore the proper clause of v. 7 καὶ ἐπληθύνετο, κ. τ. λ. The connection is: “The Apostles desired seven men full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom:” and such was Stephen, “a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost:” such doubtless were the others likewise; (supra, p. 88) certainly Philip was eminent in this regard, for [besides the history of his preaching at Samaria, ch. viii.] he is afterwards conspicuous in the history as Philip the Evangelist. how did they bring these forward? They fasted. “Look you out seven men,” etc. (v. 3.) It is not simply, spiritual men, but, “full of the Spirit and of wisdom,” for it needed very great superiority of mind (φιλοσοφίας) to bear the complainings of widows. For what profits it, that the dispenser of alms steal not, if nevertheless he waste all, or be harsh and easily provoked? “And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” (v. 5.) And in this regard Philip also was admirable: for it is of him that the writer says: “And we entered into the house of Philip the Evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.”—(ch. xxi. 8.) Dost thou mark how matters are ordered quite otherwise than after the matter of men? “And the number of disciples was multiplied in Jerusalem.” (v. 7.) In Jerusalem the multitude increased. Wonderful, where Christ was slain, there the preaching increased! And not only was it not the case that some were offended then in the manner of Ananias, but the awe became even greater: while these are scourged, those threatening, those tempting the Spirit, those murmuring. But I would have thee remark under what circumstances the multitude increased: after these trials, then it was that the multitude increased, and not before. Mark also how great the mercy of God. Of those chief-priests, of the very men who had indignation and sore displeasure and so cried out and said, “He saved others, Himself He cannot save;” of these same, “Many,” it says, “were obedient unto the faith.” (Matt. xxvii. 42.)

92Him 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):³³⁷³³⁷    καὶ μείζονα θελῆσαι παθεῖν ἢ βούλεσθαι: so all our mss. Erasm. “Et majora voluisse pati, vel velle.” Ben. Et majora velle pati.” But the meaning is, “To be ready to suffer greater wrongs than an enemy chooses to inflict:” alluding to Matt. v. 39–41. Comp. Hom. xviii. in Matt. p. 238. D. τὸ καὶ παρασχεῖν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὸ παθεῖν κακῶς·…τὸ καὶ πλἐον παρασχεῖν ἢ ἐκεῖνος βούλεται ὁ ποιήσας. If forβούλεσθαι we read βούλεται, the sense is clearer: ἢ βούλεσθαι, “than that he should wish it,” is somewhat abrupt. 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. He³³⁸³³⁸    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.” 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 told³³⁹³³⁹    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. haveἐννοήσαντας 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. that he had about him any other ordinary 93and 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 all³⁴⁰³⁴⁰    τὰ λεγόμενα συνάγομεν, B. C. N. omiting ἔξωθεν, which Sav. supplies. A. E. D. F. Ben. τὰ ἔξωθεν εἰρημένα λέγομεν.—Below, for καθὼς τὰ ἔθνη (φησὶν) ποίησατε, which is not found in Scripture, E. Edd. have, Οὐχὶ καὶ οἱ ἐθνικοὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποιοῦσιν; Matt. v. 47. these maxims of the heathen moralists, it is not because Scripture does not contain hundreds of such sayings, but because these are of more force to put you to the blush. As in fact Scripture itself is wont to use this appeal to our sense of shame; for, instance, when it says, “Do ye even as the heathen.” (Jer. xxxv. 3.) And the prophet Jeremiah brought forward into public view the children of Rechab, how they would not consent to violate the command of their father.—Miriam and her company spake evil of Moses, and he immediately begged them off from their punishment; nay, would not so much as let it be known that his cause was avenged. (Num. ch. xii.) But not so we: on the contrary, this is what we most desire; to have all men know that they have not passed unpunished. How long shall we breathe of the earth?—One party cannot make a fight. Pluck the madmen from both sides, you will exasperate them the more: but pluck from right or from left, and you have quenched the passion. The striker, if he has to do with one who will not put up with blows, is the more set on: but if with one who yields, he is the sooner unnerved, and his blow is spent upon himself. For no practised pugilist so unnerves the strength of his antagonist, as does a man who being injuriously treated makes no return. For the other only goes off ashamed, and condemned, first by his own conscience, and secondly by all the lookers on. And there is a proverb too, which says, that “to honor another, is to honor one’s self”: therefore also to abuse another is to abuse one’s self. None, I repeat, will be able to harm us, unless we harm ourselves; nor will any make me poor, unless I make myself such. For come, let us look at it in this way. Suppose that I have a beggarly soul, and let all lavish all their substance upon me, what of that? So long as the soul is not changed, it is all in vain. Suppose I have a noble soul, and let all men take from me my substance: what of that? So long as you do not make the soul beggarly, no harm is done. Suppose my life be impure, and let all men say just the contrary of me: what of that? For though they say it, yet they do not judge thus of me in their heart. Again, suppose my life be pure, and let all say of me just the reverse: and what of that? For in their own conscience they will condemn themselves: since they are not persuaded of what 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,³⁴¹³⁴¹    Τοῦτο μὲν οὖν αὐτὸ κακὸν, φησίν. Αὐτὸ μὲν οὖν τοῦτο καλὸν τὸ μὴ κατ᾽ ἀξίαν παθεῖν. Morel. from E. κακὸν forκαλὸν: 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, inApol. 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. 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 94turned 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?³⁴²³⁴²    We supply this from the modern text, which, however, has τὸν οὐχ οὕτως; Butἐκεινονis better, as this will account for the omission. Our mss. have: τοὺς δικαίως ἀποθανόντας, ἢ ἐκεῖνον καὶ θαυμάζεις 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.