8 Ms. C. has oiktirmonaj, merciful; the rest, akthmonaj, without possessions, which is certainly the true reading. Thus in the Sermon de futurae Vitae deliciis, where Chrys. discourses largely on the harmony of Christ's teaching and actions, he says, Palin akthmosunhn paideuwn, ora pwj dia twn ergwn authn epideiknutai, legwn, Ai alwpekej, k. t. l.
9 "He taught them to be poor." Here we have a tinge of asceticism. Even if we suppose that the beatitude of the poor refers to literal poverty (Luke vi. 20) as well as to poverty in spirit (Matt. v. 3), it is still incorrect to say that Jesus taught his disciples that poverty was in itself a virtue. The ascetic principle is of heathen, not of Christian origin. It is noticeable that Chrys. quotes no passage to sustain his statement.-G. B. S.
11 1. e. as Oecumenius explains in l. ina mh tij nomish eterou ounamei touto genesqai, lest any should suppose this to have been done by the power of another, he adds, to show that it was His own act, To whom also, etc.
12 It is more than doubtful whether the mention of the resurrection is introduced (i. 3 sq.) for the purpose of meeting sceptical objections. The writer will rather make it the point of departure for his subsequent narrative. He has mentioned the ascension; the resurrection is the other great event and he will introduce a resume of the more important circumstances which happened during the period between these two events and which have an important bearing upon the history about to be related. -G. B. S.
14 Peripeirousi, Ms. C. and Cat. (see 1 Tim. vi, 9, pierced themselves through with many sorrows), and in this sense Hom. in Matt. 455 B. 463 A. The word is used as here, ibid. 831 C. where several mss. have pantaxou h planh eauthn peripeirei, for eauth peripiptei.
15 Sunalizomenoj. In the margin of E. V. "Eating together with them." The Catena here and below, had pr. man. the other reading, sunaulizomenoj, but corrected in both places. St. Chrys. so takes the word, Hom. in Princip. Act. §11.767 E. in Joann. 522 D. Oecumen. in 1. explains it, toutesti koinwnwnalwn, koinwnwn trapezhj, "Partaking of the salt, partaking of the table."
16 Chrys. here follows the interpretation which derives sunalizenoj (i. 4) from sun and alj (salt) hence, eating together. So several ancient authorities as Vulgate (convesceus) and even modern, as Meyer. But the preferable derivation is from sun and alhj (crowded), hence to be assembled, to meet with (sc. autoij). So Olshausen, Hackett, Lechler, Thayer's Lex. and most modern authorities.-G. B. S.
19 Oi thn alourgida baptontej. <\=85_ina mh ecithlon genhtai to anqoj. Comp. Plat. Republ. iv. vol. i. p. 289. Stallb. Oukoun oisqa, hn d egw, oti oi bafeij, epeidan boulhqwsi bayai eria wst einai alourga, prwton men eklegontai ek tosoutwn xrwmatwn mian fusin thn twn leukwn, epeita proparaskeuazousi ouk oligh para: skeuh qerapeusantej opwj decetai oti malista to anqoj, kai outw dh baptousi.
20 The question, fully expressed, is, `Why do we baptize, not at Pentecost, but on Easter Eve?0' And the answer is, `Because the lenten fast forms a meet preparation for the reception of baptism. And moreover, there is a reason which weighed with our fathers, in respect of this season of the fifty days, the time of the Church's great festivity. The baptism newly received would restrain the neophytes from giving loose to carnal lusts; having prepared them to keep the feast with a holy and awful gladness.0' It should be borne in mind, that these Homilies were commenced during the Penthkosth, i.e. the period of fifty days between Easter and Pentecost; at which season the Book of Acts was usually read in the Churches.
21 This view, that baptism cleansed from all sin, and that, therefore, sin after baptism was far more heinous and hard to be forgiven, held wide sway in the early church and operated as a powerful motive for the delay of baptism. The reception of the grace of baptism involves this increased liability to deadlier sin. For this reason Tertullian had urged its postponement. "And so according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children." "If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay," etc. De Baptismo, xviii. Chrys. did not carry the idea to this length.-G. B. S.
22 Ti oun dn kataciwqeij fhsin apeleusetai palin kenoj katorqwmatwn, Cod. C, and so A, but with apeleush In the latter recension this sentence is omitted, and instead of it, we have, Ti de tauta kata thj seautou swthriaj proballh; `But why dost thou put forth such pretences against thine own salvation?0' Chrys. had just said, apelqwn amoiroj thj xaritoj apairaithton ecei thn timwrion. The objector (with the usual prevaricating formula, ti oun ean to kai to; Hom. in Matt. 229 D.) says: ti oun an kataciwqeij, sc. thj xaritoj apelqh; to which Chrys. answers: 'Apeleusetai palin kenoj katorqwmatwn: He will depart as empty of good works as he was before his baptism: adding, For it is, I think, utterly impossible that such an one [though he should live ever so long after baptism] would have wrought out his own salvation.
23 Meta akribeiaj mustagwgeisqai: alluding to the kathxhsij mustagwgikh, i.e. the course of instruction by which the catechumens were prepared for baptism. See the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.
24 Ta rhmata ekeina: i.e. not (as Ben seems to interpret) "Buried with Christ; "as if this were part of the form of words put into the mouth of the person to be baptized; but the words, "I renounce thee, O Satan, and all thy angels, and all thy service, and all thy pomp: and I enlist myself with Thee, O Christ." St. Chrysost. Serm. ad pop. Antioch, xxi. p. 244. The words, "buried with Him," serve to show more clearly the absurdity of such delay: "we are `buried with Christ in His death,0' that we may rise again to newness of life, not that we should pass at once from the spiritual burial to the literal."
1 The emphatic position of en tw xronw toutw as well as the answer of Jesus shows that the disciples' earnest hope and expectation were that their Lord should, during their life-time, personally organize a kingdom on the basis of the Jewish theocracy. Chrys. is explicit in pointing out their incorrect conception of the kingdom of Christ, but does not here explain the specifically Jewish character of that conception. In the early disciples we behold the constant struggle of the Christian spirit to break away from the forms of Jewish nationalism.-G. B. S.
3 The connection must be supplied: e.g. It was not that this point of knowledge was too high for them; for, as has been shown, they knew already, or were soon to know, things much higher than this, and which their hearers would find much harder to believe. For tell me, etc.
6 These illustrations, which seem to admit a half deceptive element in our Lord's conversations, are as little justified by the passage in hand as by the character of Jesus. What Jesus promises, viz.: the Holy spirit, is not promised in order to "divert" the disciples from their desire, but to assure to them a greater blessing than they then knew how to anticipate. The disciples wish a temporal kingdom with personal prerogatives; Jesus promises them the Spirit of Truth and opens before them the life of spiritual growth and usefulness. The illustration would have been more appropriate, had Chrys. said: "The child persists in his crying, but Jesus quiets him by giving him something far better than he had asked."-G. B. S.
8 Chrys. therefore explains these sayings of our Lord (polemically against the Arians) as oikomia: i.e. the thing said is not objectively true, but the morality of all actions depends on the subjective condition of the proairesij or purpose (parathn twn xrwmenwn proairesin gignetai faulon h kalon, de Sacerdot. 1. 8.), so that where this is right and good, a deception is lawful. This lax view of the morality of Truth was very general in the Greek Church: not so in the early Latin Church. See the two Treatises of St. Augustine, De Mendacio ("Lib. of Father," Seventeen Short Treatises of St. Aug.) The stricter doctrine however is maintained by St. Basil, who in his shorter Monastic Rule peremptorily condemns all oikonmia, and pious fraud (officiosium mendacium) of every description, on. the ground that all falsehood is from Satan, John v. 44. and that our Lord has made no distinction between one sort of lying and another. Again, the monk Johannes of Lycopolis in Egypt: "All falsehood is foreign from Christ and Christian men, be it in a small or in a great matter: yea, though a good end be served by it, it is never to be allowed, for the Saviour hath declared, that all lying is from the Wicked One." Pallad, Hist. Lausiac in Bibl. Patr. t. xiii. p. 965.
9 Porrwqen gar ouk enhn idontaj gnwnai; i. e. had they but seen the Ascension from a distance, and not been conversing with the Lord at the moment of His Assumption. Cod. E. transoses the clause to the end of the sentence; meaning that they could not by mere sight have been cognizant of the fact of His ascension into heaven.
11 At first sight it looks as if this sentence were out of place here. But the connection may be thus explained: this circumstance, of the cloud, is not idle, but very significant; and the minds of the disciples were alive to its import, as betokening His Godhead. True, might it not also be said of Moses on the mount Sinai, that a cloud received him out of their sight? For "Moses entered into the darkness," Exod. xx. 21. But the cloud there was because of Him, "where God was," not because of Moses.
12 i.e. the Angels had before used the phrase of assumption: but this does not express the whole matter; therefore, to show that it is the act of His own Divine power, they now say, going and afterwards express it that He will come, not that He will be sent. He ascended, as He descended, by His own Divine power. So again it is said, "A cloud received Him:" but in this He was not passive. as God He stepped upon the cloud: epebh alluding to the expression in the Psalm above cited, tiqeij thn epibasin.
13 All the Editions and the Latin Versions connect with this the following sentence: "Much more would they have said now, Dost Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" But it is evident, that at this point begins the recapitulation, or renewed exposition. It is in fact a peculiarity of these Discourses, that Chrys. having gone through the exposition of the text, often, as here, goes over the same ground again, usually with some such formula as, "But let us look through what has been said from the beginning."
14 The reference here must be to such parables as: "The Sower," "The Leaven," "The Grain of Mustard Seed." (Matt. xiii. 1-43), and the parable of the Growing Seed (Mark iv. 26-29), all of which seem to represent the progress of his truth as a long and slow development. To these might be added such expressions as ewj thj sunteleiaj tou aiwnoj (Matt. xxviii. 20) and ewj esxatou thj ghj (Acts i. 8).-G. B. S.
17 Here Erasmus has followed another reading (of E.), the very reverse in sense; "And if indeed the Prophets did not foretell this, be not astonished, for it was superfluous to say any thing individually about this, being necessarily involved in the idea of the resurrection, (th anastasei sunnooumenhj)."
20 The emphasis of the outwj and on tropon is better preserved if we interpret them to mean visibly, or with the accompaniment of a cloud, in reference to the nefelh (9), rather than merely (as Chrys.) "with a body." They had not raised the question as to his coming with or without a body. What they wanted to know was whether he was coming in such a way that they could recognize him.-G. B. S.
21 The text in both classes of manuscripts, and in the Edd., needs reformation. The argument is, If good and evil be, as the Manichaeans say, both self-subsistent, then evil must subsist for ever. For if, as they affirm, God cannot create out of nothing, neither can He change a thing into its opposite; nay, much less, for this is harder than that. In E. (the text of the Edd.) the reading is, to fusei kakon kalon kalon poihsai (ei ge ti esti kaq' umaj gar legw: fusei gar ouden espi poihsai kakon kalou sunergon) h to ec ouk ontwn: which as usual in this Ms. is an attempt to explain the meaning, but is not what the context requires. in C. A. (the original text) to fudei kakon poihsai (ei ge ti esti: kaq' umaj gar legw: fusei gar ouden esti poihsai kakon h kalon koi kalou sunergon) h to !ouk. A.@ ec ouk ontwn. Read, to fusei kakon (ei ge ti esti: kaq' umaj gar legw: fusei gar ouden esti kakon) poihsai h kalon h kai kalou sunergon.
22 #Wste anagkh h mhden tou Qeou einai ei mh tauta: h kai Qeon einai. For so it seems the passage should be read, for which the mss. have h ei tauta, and then in the older text, h kai Qeo/ einai, for which the modern recension, D. E. F. and Edd. have h kai Qeon mh einai.
23 thn enswmatwsin tou Qeou. Edd. metenswmatwsin. But the Manichees affirmed a metenswmatwsin of the particle of the Divine Substance, the human soul; viz. the more polluted soul transmigrates into other men, and animals (Archelai et Manet. Disput. §. ix. Routh, Rell. Sacc. iv. 161.), but in the last stage of the process of its purgation, into vegetable substances less attached to the earth by roots, such as gourds, etc. in which the Divine particle is self-conscious and intelligent (see the following note), whereas in animal substances it is brutified. In this sense it is said above, h metenj. ekbainei eij sikuouj k. t. l. What they denied was, an enswmatwsij Qeou by Incarnation.
24 'All' ouk aisxron\ pwj gar\ oper (om. A.) an eij hmaj genhtai: to de son ontwj aisxron. Edd. all' ouk aisxron\ pwj\ oper gar an eij hmaj genhtai ontwj aisxron. Erasmus; An non hoc turpe est? Quomodo non turpe sit in Deum, quod, si no-bis contingat, revera turpe futurum sit? Ben. Quandoquidem si in nobis fiat, vere turtle est. i.e. For, that same which, if it take place in us. is indeed shocking [how should it not be so in God?]. The exclamation, Eidete surfeton asebeias' seems to imply either that ontwj aisxron is part of the Manichaean's reply, or that something is omitted. Perhaps the reporter wrote, to de j. ontwj aisxron, meaning: swma: "But the body, etc." sAn eij hmaj genhtai can hardly be, as taken by Erasm., quad si nobis contingat, i.e. that our substance should migrate into plants, etc. but rather, if it be into us that this (embodying of the Divine Substance) takes place. For illustration of the Manichaean tenets here alluded to, comp. Euod. de Fid. adv. Manich. §35. (Opp. St. Augustine., Append. t. viii. Ben.) Non Deus Manichaei luctum pateretur de partis suae abscissione vel amissione; quam partem dicunt quum in fructibus vel in herbis fuerit, id est, in melone, vel beta, vel talibus rebus, et principium suum et medietatem et finem nosse, cum autem ad carnem venerit omnem intelligentiam amittere; ut propterea magister hominibus missus sit, quia stulta in illis facta est pars Dei, etc. "Then the God of the Manichaean would not suffer grief in consequence of the cutting off or loss of part of his substance; which part, they say, if it be in fruits or in herbs, as in the melon or beet or such-like, knows its beginning and middle and end; but when it comes to flesh, loses all intelligence: so that the reason why the Teacher was sent to men was, because in them the particle of God was stultified, etc." And Commonitor, de recip. Manich. Art. 3. (ibd.) ut credatur pars Dei polluta teneri in cucumeribus et melonibus et radicu-list et parris et quibusque vilissimis herbulis, etc.
3 The meaning of 'Ioudaj 'Iakwbou (1. 13, cf. Luke vi. 16) is a disputed point. Whether the genitive denotes the relation of orother or son has never been decided. The interpretation of the English translators is allowed to stand because it is, probably, the more common one and has many able modern exegetes in its favor among whom are Buttmann, Gram. N. T. Gk. (Eng. Trans.) p. 94. and, more doubtfully, Winer, N. T. Gram. (Eng. Trans., p. 190. It is, however, certain that usage is strongly in favor, of supplying uioj. The former view identifies this Judas with the author of the Epistle (Jud. i. 1) and is that of our older English Trans. The latter understands this Judas to be the son of an unknown James and is favored by Thayer's Lex., Meyer and the Revised Vs. To me this view seems probably correct.-G. B. S.
4 Palin de sunagagwn autouj outwj kathlqen. So the older text: i. e. When they were scattered every man to his own home, that disciple had taken her eij ta idia. But after the Resurrection Christ had gathered them together, and so (with all assembled) had returned to the usual place or mode of living.
5 Protimoteroj, b.c.: protimwmenoj A. and Catena: tou xorou prwtoj, E. D. F. Comp. Hom. in Matt. liv. t. ii. 107. "What then saith the mouth of the Apostles Peter ? He, the ever ardent, the coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles."
6 Chrys. seems to have read on to the end of the chapter. The rest of the citation being omitted in the mss. the remodeller of the text makes alterations, and adds matter of his own, to make the exposition run smoother. "Why did he not ask Christ, alone, to give him some one in the place of Judas? And why of their own selves do they not make the election?" Then instead of beltion gegone loipon prwto/ men gar, k. t. l. he has, beltiwn loipon hn gegonwj o Petroj autoj eautou, k. t. l. "Peter has now become a better man than he was. So much for this point. But as to their request to have their body filled p not simply, but by revelation, we will mention two reasons; first." etc.
7 Edd. "Wherefore he uses this address, they all being present." But the old text has simply pantwn parontwn, i.e., all, both men and women. Chrys. is commenting on the address andrej adelfoi as including the women also who were before said to be present. Comp. Hom. in Matt. lxxiii. p. 712, B. on the separation of men and women in the Churches.
8 lanqanontwj legei thn aitian, paideutikhn ousan: i.e. "in speaking of the wages of Judas, he indicates, that the Jews, by whom he was hired, were the authors of the wickedness: but because this carried reproof, he does it covertly, by implication." In the next sentence, he goes on to another point of the exposition, Kai ou legei, k. t. l. i.e. "And observe also, that with the same wise forbearance, he says it not of the Jews, but of Judas, that a piece of ground was all that was gotten by this wickedness: now, in fact, not Judas earned this, but the Jews." The modern text has ou legei gar.
10 Here also Chrys. seems to be imperfectly reported. His meaning may be gathered from what is said further on, in the recapitulation: i.e. in giving the field that name, "because it was the price of blood" (Matt. xxvii. 8), they unconsciously prophesied; for indeed the reward of their iniquity was this, that their place became an Aceldama.
12 #Allwj de kai metabolhj biou ioswj de kai proairesewj hn h onomasia. i. e. St. Luke gives both the names Joseph (or Joses) and Justus, perhaps for the sake of distinction. The name (as Latin) may have been given in consequence of a change of life (viz. of circumstances), and (as meaning `the Just0') perhaps also from a change of character (proairesij.)-Or, proairesij (Bion) may be opposed to metabolh bion and then the meaning would be, that the name may have related to a change, i.e. reformation of life, or perhaps to his original choice or moral purpose of life. But iswj de kai seems best to suit the former explanation.
13 This clause of the text is added, though wanting in our mss. The comment is, wste mhde makran badizousin odon fobn tina genesqai tremousin eti kai dedoikosin autoij: i.e. "so that not being a long way for them walking, it was not, etc.," which construction being somewhat obscure, the modern text has, touto fhsin, ina deich oti makran ou badizousin odon, wj fobon tina mh genesqoi tremousin eti kai dedoikosin autoij.
15 'H mhthr sou kai oi adelfoi sou ezhtoumen de. A. C. o pathr sou k. t. l. B. For ezht. we must read zhtousin. The passage referred to is Matt. xiii. 47, where however it is not Mary that speaks, but "A certain person said unto Him, Behold, Thy mother and Thy brethren stand without seeking to speak with Thee. "In the Homily on that passage, Chrys. interprets that Mary presented herself on that occasion ouden oudepw peri autou mega fantazomenh, "having as yet no high idea of His Person," and that both she and His brethren, wj anqrwpw proseixon wilw "looked upon Him as mere man." In the same way he adverts tomhthr that incident here, for contrast with the higher faith of Joseph; but as the statement, "His mother said," is not accurate, the modern text substitutes the passage, Luke ii. 48, and reads, h mhthr elegen, 'Egw kai o pathp sou odunwmenoi ezhtoumen se. It seems that Chrys. cited this passage also (hence our mss. have ezhtoumen for zhtousi). meaning, that it was not Joseph who said this, but Mary.-Oecumenius, however, gives a different turn to this passage of St. Chrys. "And if Joseph had been alive, he too would have been present; especially as he never, like his sons (oi ec autou viz. the adelfoi), entertained a doubt of the mystery of the Incarnation. But it is manifest that he was long dead; since even on the occasion when, as Jesus was teaching, His kinsfolk demanded to see Him, Joseph was not present. For what says the Gospel? "Thy mother and thy brethren without see: thee ; but not also, Thy father."
17 Kaitoige isotupon apasi/ eixe thn katastasin which Erasm. justly renders, Quanquam habebta jus constituendi por omnibus: i. e. the ordination by St. Peter singly, would have been as valid as the ordination by the whole body. D. F. have kaitoi oude, i.e. and yet he possessed a power of ordaining, in which they were not all upon a par with him: which reading is accepted by Morel. Sav. and Ben., and is rendered by the last, Quanquam non pari forma apud atones ejus vigebat auctoritas. This reading originated in a mistake as to the meaning of the other, as if that asserted only that St. Peter had the same power of ordaining as any of the rest.