The Homilies On The Acts of the Apostles E-Book

St. John Chrysostom

• Herausgeber: Jazzybee Verlag
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 1289

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

As a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, this Work stands alone among the writings of the first ten centuries. The Expositions of St. Clement of Alexandria (in the Hypotyposes), of Origen, of Diodorus of Tarsus, and St. Chrysostom's teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as of Ammonius and others whose materials are used in the Catena, have perished. Those who are acquainted with the characteristic qualities of St. Chrysostom's exegesis, will perceive here also the same excellencies which mark his other expository works-especially the clear and full exposition of the historical sense, and the exact appreciation of the rhetorical momenta in the discourses of St. Peter, St. Stephen, St. James and St. Paul, as recorded in the Acts.

Leseprobe

The Homilies On The Acts of the Apostles

St. Chrysostom

Contents:

John Chrysostom – A Biography

Preface to the American Edition.

The Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles

Preface to Part I. Of the Oxford Edition.

Preface to Part II. Of the Oxford Edition.

Homily I.

Homily II.

Homily III.

Homily IV.

Homily V.

Homily VI.

Homily VII.

Homily VIII.

Homily IX.

Homily X.

Homily XI.

Homily XII.

Homily XIII.

Homily XIV.

Homily XV.

Homily XVI.

Homily XVII.

Homily XVIII.

Homily XIX.

Homily XX.

Homily XXI.

Homily XXII.

Homily XXIII.

Homily XXIV.

Homily XXV.

Homily XXVI.

Homily XXVII.

Homily XXVIII.

Homily XXIX.

Homily XXX.

Homily XXXI.

Homily XXXII.

Homily XXXIII.

Homily XXXIV.

Homily XXXV.

Homily XXXVI.

Homily XXXVII.

Homily XXXVIII.

Homily XXXIX.

Homily XL.

Homily XLI.

Homily XLII.

Homily XLIII.

Homily XLIV.

Homily XLV.

Homily XLVI.

Homily XLVII.

Homily XLVIII.

Homily XLIX.

Homily L.

Homily LI.

Homily LII.

Homily LIII.

Homily LIV.

Homily LV.

The Homilies On The Acts of the Apostles, St. Chrysostom

Jazzybee Verlag Jürgen Beck

86450 Altenmünster, Germany

ISBN: 9783849621001

www.jazzybee-verlag.de

[email protected]

John Chrysostom – A Biography

John Chrysostom, a bishop, doctor, and saint of the eastern church, born in Antioch, according to the best authorities, Jan. 14, 347, died Sept. 14, 407. His name was only John, the appellation Chrysostom (Greek for "the golden-mouthed"), by which he is usually known, not having been given to him until the 7th century. His father, Secundus, who was magister militum Orientis, died while John was still in his infancy. Arethusa, his mother, left a widow in her 20th year, resolved to remain single in order to devote her whole life to her boy. Intending him to follow the legal profession, she sought for him the best school of eloquence, and placed him with the renowned Libanins, then teaching at Antioch. Libanius, who had formerly had among: his pupils the great Basil of Csesarea, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and his bosom friend Gregory Nazianzen, had also been the master of the emperor Julian, and his most ardent auxiliary in his endeavor to put down Christianity and restore the worship of the old gods. He welcomed John, soon discovered his genius, labored to develop it, and predicted the preeminence which his favorite pupil afterward attained. At the age of 18 he was practising at the bar, where even then more than one great success laid the foundation of his fame.

This, as well as his social position and the virtues of his mother, drew on him the eyes of Meletius, bishop of Antioch, who wished to secure as a member of his clergy one so full of promise. He instructed and baptized him, gave him his first lessons in ecclesiastical science, ordained him lector or reader, and assigned him a residence beneath his own roof. This was not what his mother had designed for him; she had set her heart on seeing him foremost in the race for worldly honors, and resisted with all her might his entrance on a career so different. She represented to him that for love of him she had in youth renounced all earthly joys, and that he must not think of forsaking her now when old age and its infirmities were fast approaching. It was all in vain. The same wave of ascetic fervor which was carrying away into solitude and the austerities of monastic life the very elite of Christian youth, bore John into the mountains which surrounded his native city. For six years, two of which were spent in a hermitage, he gave himself up to a life divided between the study of the Scriptures and prayer, mortifying his body meanwhile with such rigor that his limbs were nearly paralyzed.

The urgent solicitations of his friends at length drew him back to Antioch, where the pallor of his countenance and his extreme emaciation touched all beholders with pity or veneration. Several years passed before he was ordained deacon. In 381 Meletius died. A rival Christian faction, with Paulinus as its bishop, had divided the church at Antioch. John, while yet a deacon, strove in vain to heal the schism. Flavian, successor to Meletius, appreciated his learning, eloquence, and disinterestedness. So great, indeed, was the esteem in which he was held throughout Asia Minor, that even before his elevation to the priesthood the neighboring bishops sought to raise him to the episcopal office. He shrank from the honor and responsibility, but induced his friend Basil to accept the proffered rank. In 386 John became a priest, and commenced his course as a preacher. He was justly considered even then as the shining light of the eastern church. In 397 the see of Constantinople became vacant by the death of Nectarius. For three months rival candidates and contending factions sought to no purpose to fill the coveted see.

The eunuch Eutropius, then all-powerful at court, and who had heard John's preaching, submitted his name to the emperor Arcadius. The latter approved of the choice; and forthwith a messenger was sent to Asterius, prefect of the East, who resided at Antioch, bidding him to secure by some stratagem the person of the presbyter John, and send him to Constantinople. John was invited by Asterius to accompany him on a visit to a new church just erected outside of Antioch, and his chariot was driven amid an armed escort toward the Bosporus. After the first emotion of surprise and anger, John thought he saw in all this the hand of an overruling Providence, and submitted passively. The episcopal chair of Constantinople, in which John now found himself, had a few years before been adorned by Gregory Nazianzen. Nectarius, whom Theodosius chose as his successor, had not even been baptized when, to his dismay, he, in the midst of the second general council, saw himself raised to such an exalted rank. But he discharged his episcopal functions with a careful piety, charming Theodosius and his court by his majestic presence and graceful manners, and dispensing in the patriarchal residence a princely hospitality to the many churchmen whom business drew to the capital.

Chrysostom brought a new spirit to these halls. He resolved to make his household a model for every household of churchman and layman within his jurisdiction, and his own life a mirror in which every bishop and priest should see what they must be themselves in order to be true shepherds in Christ's flock. He made a monastic frugality preside over his table and all his domestic expenses. The rich furniture of his predecessors and their abundant wardrobe of silks and cloth of gold were sold at auction, and the proceeds given to the poor. Nectarius had purposed erecting a magnificent basilica, and collected a large quantity of precious marbles and other rare building material. John did not hesitate to sell them for the benefit of the needy classes. The very sacred vessels which he judged too costly for the altar were similarly disposed of. This displeased the clergy, while the people were taught to attribute these reforms to parsimony or avarice. But when the poorly clad archbishop appeared in the pulpit of St. Sophia, his hearers forgot everything but that they possessed a man of God in their midst. It is impossible to study his works without being impressed with his deep devotion to the people.

Hence, in Constantinople as at Antioch, whenever he preached the largest edifices could not contain the crowds who flocked to hear him. They surrounded him in the streets, pouring blessings on his head as he passed along; and when his liberty or his life was threatened at a later period, they watched night and day around his dwelling. "I love you," he one day exclaimed to the worshipping throng "I love you as you love me. What should I be without you? You are to me father, mother, brothers, and children; you are all the world to me. I know no joy, no sorrow, which is not yours." This popularity constituted one great source of his power, and he used it in his vain attempt at reform both in court and church. Eutropius, who had been mainly instrumental in his elevation, did not find favor with the archbishop, who denounced his tyranny and the corruption which he encouraged in every branch of the administration, He retaliated by having a law passed which repealed or abridged ecclesiastical immunities, and in particular limited the right of asylum granted to churches. John inveighed against the extravagance and licentiousness of the court.

Arcadius dreaded the remonstrances which tended to rouse him from his unmanly love of ease, and the empress Eudoxia hated the man who dared to reprove openly her illicit amours. The courtiers and ministers of state shared their master's enmity, and only waited for an opportunity to make the archbishop feel the weight of their resentment. Eutropius fell into disgrace and fled for his life to the church of St. Sophia, where Chrysostom gave him a shelter, and protected him against the united rage of the courtiers, the military, and the populace. But it was only for a time. Eutropius was induced to leave his asylum, and perished by the hands of Eudoxia's satellites. She now ruled with absolute sway both the emperor and the empire. Her avarice was equal to her ambition, and she went so far as to take open possession of a vineyard which the owner would neither sell nor give up to her. Chrysostom denounced her from the pulpit as a second Jezebel. This brought matters to a crisis. Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, who had himself aspired to the succession of Nectarius, found new matter of complaint as well as of hatred against Chrysostom in the toleration which the latter extended to some monks expelled from Egypt and excommunicated on account of their attachment to Origen and his doctrines.

This caused the accusation of heresy to be made against the archbishop, although at that time no council had condemned the opinions attributed to Origen. Chrysostom summoned before himself every member of his clergy in order to examine into the scandalous reports about their relations with deaconesses and other women. He reformed or rebuked wherever he found just cause; and thus there was wide-spread discontent among the clergy. It had been reported to him that the episcopal office was bought and sold in the provinces dependent on his patriarchate. In the midst of winter he set out, visiting every diocese, and before; he returned to Constantinople deposed 13 bishops convicted of simony and immorality. He even extended his visitation into provinces which owed him no obedience, and there exercised the same rigor against the guilty. This raised a great outcry against him, and gave the advantage to his enemies. Eudoxia and Theophilus joined hands; and in 403 a council of 36 bishops assembled at Chalcedon, a suburb of Constantinople. There Chrysostom was accused, among other crimes, of pride, oppression of the clergy, inhospitality, avarice, gluttony, undue familiarity with women, and high treason.

He refused to appear before his self-constituted judges until their president, Theophilus, and three other bishops, his declared enemies, had been excluded. Meanwhile he continued to give his usual homilies in the cathedral, and the people watched unceasingly his coming and going lest any evil should befall him. He was found guilty and deposed from his see, and a new bishop was appointed by the council and approved by the emperor. At length his house was surrounded in the night by soldiers, and himself borne off into exile at Nicaea. The people on hearing this rose and besieged the imperial palace, demanding his instant recall. An earthquake happened at this very moment, and seemed even to Eudoxia a manifest sign of the divine displeasure. She rushed into the presence of Arcadius and besought him to lose not one moment in bringing back the exiled archbishop. But his return did not cause the court to mend its morals, nor the city to lay aside its love of the most costly pleasures. The connection of the empress with the count John was now a subject of comment in every household, while the courtiers tried to cloak over the scandal by showing new honor to Eudoxia, and she endeavored to divert the attention of the populace by inventing for them new games in the circus.

The erection of a silver statue to her in the square adjoining the church of St. Sophia was made the occasion of the most extravagant festivities, at a time when the people were suffering from want. The archbishop publicly reproved the people for their love of dissipation, and as openly blamed those whose vanity had caused this display. The empress took mortal offence, and threatened a second exile. The courtiers, too, replied to the archbishop's denunciation by inaugurating a new feast, in which the honors paid to the statue verged on idolatry. Chrysostom was not to be intimidated. On appearing in the pulpit, he alluded in his commentary on the gospel to Herodias dancing, and demanding as a reward the head of John. The allusion was too transparent. This time the court resolved to take no half-way measures. A second assembly of bishops was summoned, more numerous than the first; and, although 42 among the number were faithful to Chrysostom, he was condemned. In 404, six years after he had been forcibly borne off from his native Antioch to assume the spiritual government of the capital, when every appeal to the Roman pontiff had only increased the rage of his enemies, and the efforts made to assemble a full council had proved abortive, ho was compelled to set out for a second exile.

Feeble in body, but unbroken in spirit, the high-souled old man traversed Asia Minor, and took up his abode in Cucusus, a town of the Armenian Taurus. Again the indignant populace arose to demand his recall; but, although in their fury they burned to the ground the senate house and the metropolitan church, the emperor firmly withstood all their clamor. The devoted adherents of the exiled archbishop would not acknowledge while he lived the jurisdiction of any other, and, under the name of "Johannites," they worshipped apart until his remains were brought to Constantinople in 438. For about 18 months Chrysostom resided in Cucusus, when an attack of the Isaurians compelled him to take refuge in the distant stronghold of Arabissus. In the latter place, as in the former, he continued to be the light and life of the Asiatic church. At length a new decree banished him to the remote desert of Pityus. On foot, bareheaded, beneath a burning sun, he was driven pitilessly along by his military escort, until he broke down on reaching Comana in Cappadocia. He felt that the end was at hand; and putting on a white robe, he dragged himself feebly a few miles further to the tomb of St. Basiliscus, where he laid himself down to rest for ever.

The surrounding country flocked to his obsequies, and honored his remains as those of a man of God. Thirty years later the entire population of Constantinople, headed by Theodosius II., welcomed the relics back with solemn pomp and rejoicing. Chrysostom was a voluminous writer. The best edition of his works is that of the Benedictines, in Greek, with a Latin translation (13 vols, folio, Paris, 1718-'38; reprinted in Venice, 1734-'41; in Paris, 1834-'39; and in Migne's Patrologia, 1859-'60). A translation into English of his homilies is contained in the "Library of the Fathers " (Oxford, 1842-'53). Most of his works are homilies and commentaries on the Bible. A minute analysis of his writings is contained in Butler's " Lives of the Saints." His biography has been written, among others, by Neander (2 vols., Berlin, 1821-'2; 3d ed., 1848), Perthes (English translation, Boston, 1854), Rochet (Paris, 1866), and Stephens (" St. Chrysostom, his Life and Times," London, 1872).

Preface to the American Edition.

Inthe preparation of this volume of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Acts and Romans, the effort has been to improve the Oxford edition by some changes and corrections, and by the addition of critical and explanatory notes. The translation remains substantially unchanged. Frequent minor changes have, however, been made in phraseology, where it has seemed to me that the sense could thereby be made plainer. Archaic and obsolescent words or expressions have often been replaced by more idiomatic modern language. In Biblical quotations where the translation was an inaccurate rendering of the original, I have substituted either the Revised Version or a translation conformed to the recent critical texts. A considerable number of errors in the English edition have been corrected. The imperfect state of the original text of the Homilies on Acts is a serious embarrassment, alike, to translator and editor, in this part of the work. Often the reports of the discourses are in hopeless confusion, and it is impossible to determine confidently the meaning of what has been reported, much less of what the preacher originally said. Happily this remark applies to only a part of the exposition.

The notes which I have added are intended to bring modern criticism into relation with the statements of Chrysostom upon points of special difficulty or importance. Sometimes they are added by way of correction to what is stated in the text. More frequently however, they are intended to present briefly the opinions of critical interpreters upon disputed or doubtful points, and thus to supplement for the modern reader the practical expositions of these books of the New Testament. At other times it has seemed desirable to explain matters which are but lightly touched upon in the text or passed over without explanation or notice. There is frequent occasion to observe how the spiritual insight of the great preacher has led him, in the case of difficult passages, to a right discernment of the same sense which critical exegesis discovers. I trust that these brief annotations, touching upon a great variety of points, may contribute somewhat to the usefulness of the edition.

These notes are distinguished from those of the English editors by having appended to them the initials, G. B. S.

The annotations of the English editors which are so copious upon the Homilies on Acts have been, with trifling exceptions, retained and the references have been, so far as possible, adapted to the American edition. It is obvious, however, that this adaptation could not be perfectly made because but few of the volumes of the American edition of the Homilies had appeared when this volume was prepared for the press. References to English editions of works not yet accessible in an American edition were, of necessity, left unchanged. Some small-portions of the work of the English editors which seemed to have no present value have been omitted. It is not improbable that still other omissions might well have been made, but the editor has been slow to follow his own judgment in this particular in dealing with the conscientious and painstaking labors of the Oxford editors.

It will be noticed that the English notes to the Homilies on Romans are few and brief. These have been retained with such adaptations as could be made, and the American editor has added a considerable number of statements of critical opinions, together with such explanations of the course of thought and connections of ideas in difficult passages of the Epistle, as seemed desirable and useful. In the Homilies on Romans the state of the text is such and the work of the translators so well performed, that one is rarely at a loss to perceive the author’s meaning; the nature and limitations of his exposition, however, seem to call for occasional supplementing and correction.

The indexes have been carefully revised. Topics which seemed unimportant and texts which are merely quoted or alluded to, without being explained, have often been omitted. By this process of revision the size of the indexes has been considerably reduced. It is hoped that they will be found sufficient to guide those who consult the volume to what is said upon the main themes which find place in it.

GeorgeB. Stevens.

Yale University, New Haven, March, 1889.

The Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles

Translated, with Notes and Indices, by Rev. J. Walker, M. A., of Brasenose College; Rev. J. Sheppard, M. A., of Oriel College, Oxford and Rev. H. Browne, M. A.,of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

Revised, with Notes, by George B. Stevens, Ph.D., D.D.,professor in Yale University.

Preface to Part I. Of the Oxford Edition.

Thepresent volume of St. Chrysostom on the Acts of the Apostles has been delayed for some time by the difficulty of fixing the Text. Some farther account of the grounds on which this has been done will be given in the Preface to Part II. (vid. infra.) It may suffice for the present to say, that these Homilies appear to have been less carefully reported than usual, and published without a revision by the Author. The printed text was formed for the most part (Erasmus’s Latin Version entirely) from a manuscript, said to be of the tenth century, in which these Homilies are given in a very different form, evidently the work of a later hand, and intended to make them read more smoothly. The earlier text, shown to be such by internal evidence, and alone followed in the Catena and all other ancient extracts and compilations, is preserved in other mss. and appears to have been in general disregarded by former editors, from its difficulty. The Translation was originally made from Savile’s Text, by the Rev. J. Walker, M.A. of Brasenose College, and the Rev. J. Sheppard, M.A. of Oriel College, Oxford. The Editors are much indebted to the Rev. H. Browne, M.A. of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, who has restored the Text and corrected the Translation accordingly, the difference being frequently so great as to require a passage to be translated anew. He has likewise undertaken to prepare the Greek Text for publication, and to supply the prefatory matter. Many passages will still be found imperfect and unsatisfactory, but it has been thought better to leave them evidently so, than to resort to uncertain conjectures. A few conjectural emendations, however, have been admitted intothe Text, and many more suggested.

C. Marriott.

Oxford, Feast of St. James. 1851.

Preface to Part II. Of the Oxford Edition.

Themanifestly imperfect condition in which these Homilies have come to us may partly be accounted for by the circumstances of the times in which they were preached. It was in the Easter weeks of the third year of his residence at Constantinople as Archbishop, that St. Chrysostom began this course of Sermons; and during all the remaining part of that year (a.d. 400), the Capital of the East was kept in constant trouble and alarm by the revolt of Gainas and the Goths. Moreover, scarcely had the preaching commenced, when the complaints from the Churches of Asia Minor were brought (May, 400) before the Metropolitan See, which business during many months painfully occupied the Archbishop’s thoughts, and eventually demanded his presence at Ephesus. Few of St. Chrysostom’s Sermons were originally prepared in writing: certainly these were not: and as certainly the text, drawn up by no skilful hand from notes taken during the preaching, can never have been revised by the Preacher himself. This was a serious disadvantage: for these Homilies, if only from the novelty of the subject, stood especially in need of revision. The Acts of the Apostles, though read in the churches in the season between Easter and Pentecost, were seldom preached upon; and we find St. Chrysostom complaining in the opening of these Homilies, as also on an earlier occasion at Antioch, that this portion of the Scriptures was not so much read as it ought to be, nay, that there were “many to whom this Book was not even known.” (p. I and note l). Hence it is not surprising, if the Preacher was not always understood; and, in fact, the attentive reader will not unfrequently see reason to suspect, that the scribe (or “reporter,”) from whose notes the text was formed, did not rightly apprehend the sense of what he heard. Nor has the transcriber (or “redactor”) remedied the defects, whatever they may have been, of the original report. On the contrary, in other ways, of which we shall have to speak presently, he has often perplexed the sense, and sometimes entirely misrepresented the Preacher’s meaning.

The earliest mention of our Homilies is by Cassiodorus (a.d. 514), who relates, that with the assistance of friends he caused “the fifty-five Homilies on the Acts, by St. John, Bishop of Constantinople,” to be translated into Latin, Opp. t. ii. p. 544. This version unfortunately is lost. In the Canons of the Fifth and Sixth General Councils, St. Chrysostom’s view of the Seven Deacons in the Acts is cited at length from Hom. xiv. (p. 91). John of Damascus, de Fid. Orthod. iii. 15, (a.d. 730), cites as from the second of these Homilies a passage which appears in the first, being the comment on i. 9. Photius has an entry in the Bibliotheca relating to them, but by some mistake the number is given as fifty. Of the Catena on the Acts, compiled by a certain Andreas Presbyter of unknown age and country, but not later than the tenth century (for there is a manuscript of that age), a large proportion is taken from St. Chrysostom: and the Commentaries of Oecumenius (990) and Theophylact (1077) are in many places formed from the Catena: as also are the Scholia in mss. of the Acts. To these may be added the Florilegium or Eclogoe, a compilation the date of which is unknown, but certainly riot later than the first half of the eleventh century. The Author of this work seems to have resorted to our Homilies once only (Hom. xix. p 139): but there, he, as all the rest who have been mentioned, used the text which in the notes we call the old text, and from which the present l’ranslation is made.

For there is another and a widely different text, by which alone, unfortunately, these Homilies have been known in modern times, except by the few who have had access to Manuscripts. In the National Library at Paris there is (No. 729) a manuscript (in our notes marked E, in Par. Ben. 2, D), which the Parisian Editor describes thus: Quorum (of six mss. on the Acts) antiquissimus, olim Colb. nunc Reg. 729, soec. X., nitide et accurate scriptus, desinit in hom. quinquagesima. (This is a mistake; it reaches to the end of the 55th.) Of the other mss. he assigns A. b.c. (No. 725, 6, 7), to the twelfth, fourteenth and thirteenth centuries respectively. These, and a copy in the Library of New College (N), contain the old text. Two others D, F, (728, and 73 suppl.) exhibit a text compiled from old and new, and with alterations peculiar to itself. of the six Parisian mss. a full collation was made for “the Library of the Fathers:” of N we have at present but a partial collation.

The Ms. E. came into the hands of Erasmus, and from it he made his Latin version, down to the end of Hom. liii. and there for some reason which is not explained he goes off to the other text, of which he has nowhere taken notice in the preceding Homilies. Of this work he says in an Epistle to Tonstal, Bishop of Durham: Ex Chrysostomo in Acta verteram homilias tres; cujus operaae me poehituit, cum nihil hic viderem Chrysostomi. Tuo tamen hortatu recepi codicem in manum; sed nihil unquam legi indoctius.Ebrius ac stertens scriberera meliora. Habet frigidos sensiculos nec cos satis commode potest explicare.In his Preface, however, he considerably abates the severity of this censure, and contents himself with hinting a doubt whether the work be St. Chrysostom’s: quod stylus concisum quiddam et abruptum habeat, id quad a phrasi Chrysostomi videtur alienum: si docti tamen censebunt opus Chrysostomo dignum, libenter hoc ego quicquid est suspicionis ponam.

Of the Greek text, the editio princeps, that of Commelin, professes to be formed from manuscripts Biblioth. Palatinae, Bavarae, Augustanae, Pistorianae, of which at present we are unable to give any account. Perhaps Commelin’s leading Ms. was of a composite order: such however is his text; for it occasionally deserts E, to which, as a general rule, it closely adheres. This was inconsistent, for the circumstances of the two texts are such, that one or other ought to be followed throughout. There can be no valid reason for alternating between the two: for they are not different reports of the same matter, such that between them one might hope to approximate to the truth: the one is a refashionment of the other, and where it differs, it does so, not because its framer had a more correct report of the Sermons, but because he wished to improve upon the materials which lay before him in the other text.

Commelin’s text, in substance, is retained in all the subsequent editions. Savile, from the New College Ms. has corrected words and phrases here and there, but in the main his text is still that of the editio princeps. (He describes it as composed from the New College Ms., another belonging to J. A. de Thou (Thuanus), et tertio non ita pridem excuso in Germania.) The edition of Morel (which commonly goes under the name of Fronto Ducaeus) repeats Commelin, but without Savile’s emendations: and the Benedictines (here not Mont-faucon), though they profess to have collated the Parisian mss., have reprinted with but slight improvements, and with not a few disimprovements, the text of Morel. In the Parisian reprint of the Benedictine Chrysostom (Par. Ben. 2), the Editor has occasionally, but not constantly, recurred to the manuscripts, rarely gives the preference to the text of A. b.c., and constantly assumes the inferiority of those copies, in contents and authenticity as well as in antiquity, to the manuscript (E), which furnished the Latin version of Erasmus, and in substance, as we have explained, the printed text of the original.

Had the Editors collated the manuscript copies of these Homilies—a labor from which they, or those whom they employed, seem to have shrunk—they would probably have reversed their estimate of the relative value of the two recensions. The general superiority of the other text in point of sense and coherence, notwithstanding its frequent abruptness and uncouthness, is too evident to be called in question. Had they also collated the Catena, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and the Scholia, they would have found the external testimony to be coincident with the internal evidence to the higher antiquity as well as greater authenticity of the text which (for the most part unknown) they rejected. It would have been seen that this, besides being, with all its faults, incomparably better, was the older of the two; and that the other could claim no higher antiquity than that of the manuscript (said to be of the tenth century) in which it appears: that it is the work of some scribe, who, offended by the manifest abruptness and ruggedness of the earlier text, set himself to smooth out the difficulties, and to make it read more easily. For this is clearly the true state of the case. With this view, the scribe sometimes alters words and phrases, sometimes transposes: often omits, where he found something that he did not understand, oftener still amplifies, or rather dilutes: and interpolates matter which sometimes is demonstrably borrowed with little disguise from the Catena (see p. 113, note 1; 279, note 3; 280, note 2); or which, when it is his own, is little worth. In short, he has thought more of sound than of sense, and if he could make a passage run smoothly to the ear, has given himself little concern whether St. Chrysostom was likely to have so thought, or so expressed himself. The notes appended to our Translation will abundantly substantiate this censure. To have noted all the variations, either of the printed text, or of E alone, would have been a task as unprofitable as it was wearisome: perhaps as it is, we have given more than enough to vindicate the claims of the older text. If any one desires larger materials for comparison, Erasmus’ Latin version, which, except in the two last Homilies, keeps close to E, will show that the text which we represent in our Translation is, with all its imperfections, incomparably the better of the two. Even if it were otherwise and were the alterations not, as they mostly are, disfigurements, but, considered in themselves, decided improve. ments, still our duty was plain: the text which came to us accredited by all the testimony known to be extant, we were not at liberty to reject in favor of an alien recension, unknown to the Ancients, and, as far as our evidence goes, unheard of before the tenth century. Therefore, in forming the text for this Translation we have entirely dismissed E, except where it has preserved readings which came strictly under the description of “various readings.”

But while confining ourselves to that older text, we were not to leave unnoticed its more patent defects and errors. We could not but perceive, that we had before us an unrevised report of St. Chrysostom’s Sermons, which, especially in the Expositions, was frequently imperfect—sometimes, indeed, little more than a set of rough notes thrown together, with, apparently, little or no attempt at arrangement. So far as this imperfection was caused by the reporter’s negligence or incapacity, there was no remedy: and leaving the matter as we found it, or, at most, inserting in the text the marks of a lacuna, we have only ventured, in the notes, to surmise what may have been the general purport of St. Chrysostom’s remarks. In other places, where the defects of our sources seemed to be rather chargeable upon the redactor, we have sought to apply a remedy, sometimes, but rarely, by conjectural emendation; very often by inserting portions of sacred text or other connecting matter in [], and also by transposing parts which had fallen out of their true order. For it seems that the original transcript from the reporter’s notes was defective in these two regards. (1) The reporter would frequently omit to note in his tablets thekeimenonor some other text of Scripture, or would indicate it in the shortest possible way by a word or two at the beginning and ending of the passage, intending to insert it afterwards at his leisure. It appears, however, that in many places this was either not done at all, or done in the wrong place. Hence where the text seemed incurably defective or perplexed, we have often been able to restore coherency by the simple expedient of inserting texts which were omitted, or else, by removing the texts altogether, and redistributing them among the comments. Almost any page of the Translation, especially in the Recapitulations, will illustrate this remark.

(2) It often happens, that the order of the comments both in the first and in the second exposition (or recapitulation), does not follow the order of the texts. Of course the Preacher might be supposed to have sometimes returned upon his own steps, but it was scarcely conceivable that St. Chrysostom should have delivered an Exposition perplexed, as we often found it, by disjointed remarks thrown together without the slightest method. It was necessary therefore to consider whether it might not be possible to educe something like connected exposition, by assuming that the reporter’s notes had been transcribed from his tablets in a wrong order. Where it could be seen that one sentence or portion was given as comment on such a verse, another on some other verse, and so on, some clue to the true order was given us in the sequence of the texts themselves. Even so, the difficulties which beset this part of our task were greater than can be readily estimated by any one who has not tried it. Sometimes the complication resisted all attempts at disentanglement. We are far from supposing that we have done all that might have been done in this way: but it is hoped that the labor which has been bestowed has not been altogether wasted, and that the restoration will carry with it its own evidence. And as in these attempts we have indicated by letters the order in which the trajected parts lie in the manuscripts, the reader in every case has the means of forming his own judgment. In the first seventeen Homilies, we have only now and then resorted to this method: not because it was less needed there, but because we had not then so clearly perceived what was the state of the case, and what was practicable in this way. The eighteenth furnishes a remarkable instance, pp. 116–120. Let any one read it in the order denoted by the letters, i.e. the six parts marked (a) consecutively, then the seven parts marked (b), inserting in the third of the latter (see p. 116, note 3), the comment on v. 25, from page 117, (“And they when they had testified,” etc., to “when the Samaritans believed,”) and he will have the entire “recapitulation” or second exposition of the history of the Samaritans and Simon Magus as it appears in the mss.—which he will plainly perceive could not have proceeded in that form from St. Chrysostom. The same matter, read as we have arranged it, will be found to form a continuous exposition, not indeed perfect, for the dislocated state into which it had fallen seems to have led to further corruptions on the part of the scribes: but at any rate coherent, and with the parts fitting into each other. Moreover, if the fourteen parts, as here arranged, be numbered 1. 2. 3. etc., it will be seen that the order in which they lie in the mss. is 1. 3. 5: 8. 10. 12: 2. 4. 6: 14: 7. 9. 11. 13., whence it seems that the derangement proceeded by some kind of method. The like was often found to be the case in subsequent instances. In p. 229, the trajection is 1. 3. 5. 7. 9. 11. 13:2. 4. 6. 8. 10. 12: i.e., the transcriber missed the alternate portions, and brought them all together at the end. In p. 229 (before the series just noticed), and 260, it is 3. 2. 1., and in 170, 4. 3. 2. 1., i. e. three, and four, parts read in reverse order. In a great number of instances the transposition is only of two parts, 2. 1: sometimes repeated as in 235, 2. 1., 1: 2. 1: 234, 2. 1: 1: 2. 1: 2. 1: 196, 2. 1: 1: 2. 1: 1: 2. 1: 1: 2. 1. A form of frequent occurrence is 2. 4., 1. 3., as in 188, 220, 225, 247; and combined with others as in 213, 2. 4. 1. 3. 2. 1: in 275, 2. 1: 1: 2. 4. 1. 3. and 183, 2. 1: 1: 2. 4. 1. 3: 2. 1. There is the like regularity in the scheme 2. 1. 4. 3., p. 125; and 3. 1. 4. 2. p. 216, 301. In the last Homily, which is extremely confused, the trajection seems to yield this very regular scheme, 2. 4. 6. 1. 3. 5: 1: 5. 3. 1. 6. 4. 2. In other instances where the trajection is less regular, or does not seem to follow a rule, as in 151, 4. 1. 3. 2: 152, 3. 2. 4. 1: 242, 4. 6. 1. 3. 5. 7. 2. 8: 250, 2. 1. 4. 8. 5. 3. 6. 9. 7. and in 298, 316, 321 (on which three see the notes), the transcriber may have gone wrong on other grounds, and not, as in the generality of instances, from mistaking the order in which the reporter had set the matter on his tablets. The trajections we have attempted to remedy occur mostly in the expository parts. In the Ethica it often appeared to us, that the coherency might be greatly improved by transposition, but the evidence of the true order was more precarious here, than where the sequence of the texts furnished a clue; in these parts, therefore, we have rarely ventured upon applying this remedy.

In these ways it is hoped that something has been done towards presenting these Homilies in a form nearer to that in which they were delivered, than the form in which they are exhibited in the unadulterated manuscripts, much more in the printed editions. The task was arduous, and we are far from supposing that our labors have always been successful; but at least we have not spared pains and diligence. The Translation was a work only less difficult than the reconstruction of the text. Here again much indulgence is needed on the score of the difficulty of producing a version, which, while it represented the original with its roughnesses and defects, should not be altogether unreadable. We have attempted, however, to give faithfully, though not always literally, the sense, or what seemed to be the sense, of our materials.

As a commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, this Work stands alone among the writings of the first ten centuries. The Expositions of St. Clement of Alexandria (in the Hypotyposes), of Origen, of Diodorus of Tarsus, and St. Chrysostom’s teacher, Theodore of Mopsuestia, as well as of Ammonius and others whose materials are used in the Catena, have perished. Those who are acquainted with the characteristic qualities of St. Chrysostom’s exegesis, will perceive here also the same excellencies which mark his other expository works—especially the clear and full exposition of the historical sense, and the exact appreciation of the rhetorical momenta in the discourses of St. Peter, St. Stephen, St. James and St. Paul, as recorded in the Acts. Of the Ethica it is perhaps not too much to affirm, that not the most finished work of St. Chrysostom will be found to furnish more of instruction and interesting matter (apart from the expression) than will be found in these Homilies, on the religious and moral subjects of which they treat: for example, On the delay of Baptism, On spiritual indolence and excuses derived from the cessation of Miraculous Grace, On the nature and uses of Miracles, On Prayer, On the Study of the Scriptures, On Alms, On Anger and Gentleness, Against Oaths and Swearing, and many others. Nor does any work exhibit a livelier portraiture of the character and life of the great Preacher and Bishop, and of the manners of the times in which his lot was cast.

Homily I.

Acts I. 1, 2.—“The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, concerning all things which Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day on which, having given charge to the Apostles, whom He had chosen, by the Holy Spirit, He was taken up.”

Tomany persons this Book is so little known, both it and its author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence. For this reason especially I have taken this narrative for my subject, that I may draw to it such as do not know it, and not let such a treasure as this remain hidden out of sight. For indeed it may profit us no less than even the Gospels; so replete is it with Christian wisdom and sound doctrine, especially in what is said concerning the Holy Ghost. Then let us not hastily pass by it, but examine it closely. Thus, the predictions which in the Gospels Christ utters, here we may see these actually come to pass; and note in the very facts the bright evidence of Truth which shines in them, and the mighty change which is taking place in the disciples now that the Spirit has come upon them. For example, they heard Christ say, “Whoso believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall hero” (John xiv. 12): and again, when He foretold to the disciples, that they should be brought before rulers and kings, and in their synagogues they should scourge them, and that they should suffer grievous things, and overcome all (Matt. x. 18): and that the Gospel should be preached in all the world (Ib. xxiv. 14): now all this, how it came to pass exactly as it was said, may be seen in this Book, and more besides, which He told them while yet with them. Here again you will see the Apostles themselves, speeding their way as on wings over land and sea; and those same men, once so timorous and void of understanding, on the sudden become quite other than they were; men despising wealth, and raised above glory and passion and concupiscence, and in short all such affections: moreover, what unanimity there is among them now; nowhere any envying as there was before, nor any of the old hankering after the preeminence, but all virtue brought in them to its last finish, and shining through all, with surpassing lustre, that charity, concerning which the Lord had given so many charges saying, “In this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye love one another.” (John xiii. 35.) And then, besides, there are doctrines to be found here, which we could not have known so surely as we now do, if this Book had not existed, but the very crowning point of our salvation would be hidden, alike for practice of life and for doctrine.

The greater part, however, of this work is occupied with the acts of Paul, who “laboured more abundantly than they all.” (I. Cor. xv. 10.) And the reason is, that the author of this Book, that is, the blessed Luke, was his companion: a man, whose high qualities, sufficiently visible in many other instances, are especially shown in his firm adherence to his Teacher, whom he constantly followed. Thus at a time when all had forsaken him, one gone into Galatia, another into Dalmatia, hear what he says of this disciple: “Only Luke is with me.” (2 Tim. iv. 10.) And giving the Corinthians a charge concerning him, he Says, “Whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches.” (2 Cor. viii. 18.) Again, when he says, “He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve,” and, “according to the Gospel which ye received” (1 Cor. xv. 5, 1 Cor xv. 1), he means the Gospel of this Luke. So that there can be no mistake in attributing this work to him: and when I say, to him, I mean, to Christ. And why then did he not relate every thing, seeing he was with Paul to the end? We may answer, that what is here written, was sufficient for those who would attend, and that the sacred writers ever addressed themselves to the matter of immediate importance, whatever it might be at the time it was no object with them to be writers of books: in fact, there are many things which they have delivered by unwritten tradition. Now while all that is contained in this Book is worthy of admiration, so is especially the way the Apostles have of coming down to the wants of their hearers: a condescension suggested by the Spirit who has so ordered it, that the subject on which they chiefly dwell is that which pertains to Christ as man. For so it is, that while they discourse so much about Christ, they have spoken but little concerning His Godhead; it was mostly of the Manhood that they discoursed, and of the Passion, and the Resurrection, and the Ascension. For the thing required in the first instance was this, that it should be believed that He was risen, and ascended into heaven. As then the point on which Christ himself most. insisted was, to have it known that He was come from the Father, so is it this writer’s principal object to declare, that Christ was risen from the dead, and was received up into Heaven, and that He went to God, and came from God. For, if the fact of His coming from God were not first believed, much more, with the Resurrection and Ascension added thereto, would the Jews have found the entire doctrine incredible. Wherefore gently and by degrees he leads them on to higher truths. Nay, at Athens Paul even calls Him man simply, without saying more (Acts xvii. 31). For if, when Christ Himself spoke of His equality with the Father, they often attempted to stone Him, and called Him a blasphemer for this reason, it was little to be expected that they would receive this doctrine from the fishermen, and that too, with the Cross coming before it.

But why speak of the Jews, seeing that even the disciples often upon hearing the more sublime doctrines were troubled and offended? Therefore also He told them, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John xvi. 12.) If those conld not, who had been so long time with Him, and had been admitted to so many secrets, and had seen so many wonders, how was it to be expected that men, but newly dragged away from altars, and idols, and sacrifices, and cats, and crocodiles (for such did the Gentiles worship), and from the rest of their evil ways, should all at once receive the more sublime matters of doctrine? And how in particular should Jews, hearing as they did every day of their lives, and having it ever sounded in their ears, “The Lord thy God is one Lord, and beside Him is none other” (Deut. vi. 4): who also had seen Him hanging nailed on the Cross, nay, had themselves crucified and buried Him, and not seen Him even risen: when they were told that this same person was God and equal with the Father, how should they, of all men, be otherwise than shocked and revolted? Therefore it is that gently and little by little they carry them on, with much consideration and forbearance letting themselves down to their low attainments, themselves the while enjoying in more plentiful measure the grace of the Spirit, and doing greater works in Christ’s name than Christ Himself did, that they may at once raise them up from their grovelling apprehensions, and confirm the saying, that Christ was raised from the dead. For this, in fact, is just what this Book is: a Demonstration of the Resurrection:  this being once believed the rest would come in due course. The subject then and entire scope of this Book, in the main, is just what I have said. And now let us hear the Preface itself.

“The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach.” (v. 1) Why does he put him in mind of the Gospel? To intimate how strictly he may be depended upon. For at the outset of the former work he says, “It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order.” (Luke i. 3.) Neither is he content with his own testimony-but refers the whole matter to the Apostles. saying, “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” (Luke, i. 2.) Having then accredited his account in the former instance, he has no need to put forth his credentials afresh for this treatise, seeing his disciple has been once for all satisfied, and by the mention of that former work he has reminded him of the strict reliance to be placed in him for the truth. For if a person has shown himself competent and trustworthy to write of things which he has heard, and moreover has obtained our confidence, much more will he have a right to our confidence when he has composed an account, not of things which he has received from others, but of things which he has seen and heard. For thou didst receive what relates to Christ; much more wilt thou receive what concerns the Apostles.

What then, (it may be asked), is it a question only of history, with which the Holy Spirit has nothing to do? Not so. For, if “those delivered it unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word;” then, what he says, is theirs. And why did he not say, ‘As they who were counted worthy of the Holy Spirit delivered them unto us;’ but “Those who were eyewitnesses?” Because, in matter of belief, the very thing that gives one a right to be believed, is the having learned from eyewitnesses: whereas the other appears to foolish persons mere parade and pretension. And therefore John also speaks thus: “I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.” (John. i. 34.) And Christ expresses Himself in the same way to Nicodemus, while he was dull of apprehension, “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and no one receiveth our witness.” (Ib. iii. 11.) Accordingly, He gave them leave to rest their testimony in many particulars on the fact of their having seen them, when He said, “And do ye bear witness concerning Me, because ye have been with Me from the beginning.” (John xv. 27.) The Apostles themselves also often speak in a similar manner; “We are witnesses, and the Holy Spirit which God hath given to those that obey Him.” (Acts ii. 32); and on a subsequent occasion, Peter, still giving assurance of the Resurrection, said, “Seeing we did eat and drink with Him.” (Acts x. 41.) For they more readily received the testimony of persons who had been His companions, because the notion of the Spirit was as yet very much beyond them. Therefore John also at that time, in his Gospel, speaking of the blood and water, said, he himself saw it, making the fact of his having seen it equivalent, for them, to the highest testimony, although the witness of the Spirit is more certain than the evidence of sight, but not so with unbelievers. Now that Luke was a partaker of the Spirit, is abundantly clear, both from the miracles which even now take place; and from the fact that in those times even ordinary persons were gifted with the Holy Ghost; and again from the testimony of Paul, in these words, “Whose praise is in the Gospel” (2 Cor. viii. 18); and from the appointment to which he was chosen: for having said this, the Apostle adds, “But also appointed of the Churches to travel with us with this grace which is administered by us.”

Now mark how unassuming he is. He does not say, The former Gospel which I preached, but, “The former treatise have I made;” accounting the title of Gospel to be too great for him; although it is on the score of this that the Apostle dignifies him: “Whose praise,” he says, “is in the Gospel.” But he himself modestly says, “The former treatise have I made—O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach:” not simply “of all,” but from the beginning to the end; “until the day,” he says, “in which He was taken up.” And yet John says, that it was not possible to write all: for “were they written, I suppose,” says he, “that even the world itself could not contain the books written.” (John xxi. 25.) How then does the Evangelist here say, “Of all?” He does not say “all,” but “of all,” as much as to say, “in a summary way, and in the gross;” and “of all that is mainly and pressingly important.” Then he tells us in what sense he says all, when he adds, “Which Jesus began both to do and to teach;” meaning His miracles and teaching; and not only so, but implying that His doing was also a teaching.

But now consider the benevolent and Apostolic feelings of the writer: that for the sake of a single individual he took such pains as to write for him an entire Gospel. “That thou mightest have,” he says, “the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.” (Luke i. 4.) In truth, he had heard Christ say, “It is not the will of My Father that one of these little ones should perish.” (Matt. xviii. 14.) And why did he not make one book of it, to send to one man Theophilus, but has divided it into two subjects? For clearness, and to give the brother a pause for rest. Besides, the two treatises are distinct in their subject-matter.

But consider how Christ accredited his words by His deeds. Thus He saith, “Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart.” (Ib. xi. 29.) He taught men to be poor,  and exhibited this by His actions: “For the Son of Man,” He says, “hath not where to lay His head.” (Ib. viii. 20.) Again, He charged men to love their enemies; and He taught the same lesson on the Cross, when He prayed for those who were crucifying Him. He said, “If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also” (Ib. v. 40): now He not only gave His garments, but even His blood. In this way He bade others teach. Wherefore Paul also said, “So as ye have us for an example.” (Philip. iii. 17.) For nothing is more frigid than a teacher who shows his philosophy only in words: this is to act the part not of a teacher, but of a hypocrite. Therefore the Apostles first taught by their conduct, and then by their words; nay rather they had no need of words, when their deeds spoke so loud. Nor is it wrong to speak of Christ’s Passion as action, for in suffering all He performed that great and wonderful act, by which He destroyed death, and effected all else that He did for us.