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.”

To many 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.³

3 St. Chrys. had made the same complaint at Antioch in the Homilies (a.d. 387) in Principium Actorum, etc. t. iii. p. 54. “We are about to set before you a strange and new dish.…strange, I say, and not strange. Not strange; for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture: and yet strange; because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. Certainly, there are many to whom this Book is not even known (πολλοῖς γοῦν τὸ βιβλίον τοῦτο οὐδὲ γνώριμόν ἐστι) and many again think it so plain, that they slight it: thus to some men their knowledge, to some their ignorance, is the cause of their neglect……We are to enquire then who wrote it, and when, and on what subject: and why it is ordered (νενομοθέτηται) to be read at this festival. For peradventure you do not hear this Book read [at other times] from year’s end to year’s end.”

The greater part, however, of this work is occupied with the acts of Paul, who “laboured more abundantly than they all.” (1 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.⁴

4 The two reasons which Chrysostom urges for the study of the Acts are also the two chief grounds upon which modern criticism depends for establishing not only the general trust-worthiness of the book, but also its authorship by Luke. They are in substance, (1) The continuity of the history as connected with the gospels and, particularly, coincidences of style, matter and diction with the third gospel, and (2) The remarkable undesigned coincidences of statement between the Acts and Pauline Epistles which exclude the possibility of inter-dependence. From Col. i. 11, 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11, we learn that Luke was a close companion of Paul. In the part of the Book of Acts which treats especially of the work of Paul, the writer frequently refers to himself in the use of the first person plural as an associate of the apostle (vid. xvi. 10; xx. 6 sq.; xxi. 1 sq.; xxvii. 1). These considerations demonstrate the fitness of Luke to prepare such a treatise as the Acts and render the supposition of his authorship plausible. When they are combined with those mentioned under (1) and when the dedication of both books to a certain Theophilus is considered, the argument becomes very cogent and complete.—G.B.S.

5 The reference in the Text of the expression: “the Gospel which ye received,” (1 Cor. xv. 1) to Luke’s “gospel” is, of course, groundless. Paul speaks of it as the gospel which he preached unto them. It is “his gospel” as in Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25; Gal. i. 11, etc. The use of ἐυαγγέλιον to denote a book is post-apostolic.—G.B.S.

6 Hom. in Princip. Act. p. 54. “First we must see who wrote the Book.…whether a man, or God: and if man, let us reject it; for, ‘Call no man master upon earth:’ but if God, let us receive 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 could 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:⁷

7 Hom. cur in Pentec. Acta legantur, t. iii. p. 89. E. “The demonstration of the Resurrection is, the Apostolic miracles: and of the Apostolic miracles this Book is the school.”

8 The statement that the Acts is a “Demonstration of the Resurrection” has a certain profound truth, but is incorrect if intending to assert that such was the conscious purpose of the author. The resurrection of Jesus is a prominent theme in the Apostolic discourses but the book is no more designed primarily to prove the resurrection than are the Epistles to the Romans and Corinthians. The immediate purpose of the book is to record the labors and triumphs of the Apostolic Church as supplementary to the narrative of the teaching and work of Jesus (i. 1, 2). The events narrated presuppose the resurrection and would have been impossible without it.—G.B.S.

“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.”⁹

9 Chrys. states too confidently that “the brother” whose praise is referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18, is Luke. It cannot be determined who this “brother” was. See Meyer in loco. Other conjectures are: Barnabas, Mark, Erastus, and an actual brother of Titus.—G.B.S.

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,¹⁰

10 Ms. C. has οἰκτίρμονας, merciful; the rest, ἀκτήμονας, without possessions, which is certainly the true reading. Thus in the Sermon de futuræ Vitæ deliciis, where Chrys. discourses largely on the harmony of Christ’s teaching and actions, he says, Πάλιν ἀκτημοσύνην παιδεύων, ὅρα πῶς διὰ τῶν ἔργων αὐτὴν ἐπιδείκνυται, λέγων, Αἱ ἀλώπεκες, κ. τ. λ.

11 “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.

“Until the day in which He was taken up, after that He, through the Holy Spirit, had given commandments unto the Apostles whom He had chosen. After He had given commandments through the Spirit” (v. 2); i.e. they were spiritual words that He spake unto them, nothing human; either this is the meaning, or, that it was by the Spirit that He gave them commandments.¹²

12 The latter is doubtless the correct interpretation. (So Meyer, Hackett). Cf. Matt. xii. 28; John iii. 34; Luke iv. 1.—G.B.S.

13 i.e. as Œcumenius explains in l. ίνα μή τις νομίσῃ ἐτέρου ουνάμει τοῦτο γενέσθαι, 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.

14 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 resumé 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.

“Being seen of them during forty days.” He was not always with them now, as He was before the Resurrection. For the writer does not say “forty days,” but, “during forty days.” He came, and again disappeared; by this leading them on to higher conceptions, and no longer permitting them to stand affected towards Him in the same way as before, but taking effectual measures to secure both these objects, that the fact of His Resurrection should be believed, and that He Himself should be ever after apprehended to be greater than man. At the same time, these were two opposite things; for in order to the belief in His Resurrection, much was to be done of a human character, and for the other object, just the reverse. Nevertheless, both results have been effected, each when the fitting time arrived.

But why did He appear not to all, but to the Apostles only?¹⁵

15 Chrys. seems to overlook the appearance “to above five hundred brethren at once,” 1 Cor. xv. 6.—G.B.S.

16 Περιπείρουσι, 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 πανταχοῦ ἡ πλάνη ἑαυτὴν περιπείρει, for ἑαυτῇ περιπίπτει.

17 Συναλιζόμενος. In the margin of E.V. “Eating together with them.” The Catena here and below, had pr. man. the other reading, συναυλιζόμενος, but corrected in both places. St. Chrys. so takes the word, Hom. in Princip. Act. §11.767 E. in Joann. 522 D. Œcumen. in 1. explains it, τουτέστι κοινωνῶν ἁλῶν, κοινωνῶν τραπέζης, “Partaking of the salt, partaking of the table.”

18 Chrys. here follows the interpretation which derives συναλιζόμενος (i. 4) from σύν and ἅλς (salt) hence, eating together. So several ancient authorities as Vulgate (convesceus) and even modern, as Meyer. But the preferable derivation is from σύν and ἁλής (crowded), hence to be assembled, to meet with (sc. ἀυτοῖς). So Olshausen, Hackett, Lechler, Thayer’s Lex. and most modern authorities.—G.B.S.

And what did He, when appearing unto them those forty days? Why, He conversed with them, says the writer, “concerning the kingdom of God.” (v. 3.) For, since the disciples both had been distressed and troubled at the things which already had taken place, and were about to go forth to encounter great difficulties, He recovered them by His discourses concerning the future. “He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father.” (v. 4.) First, He led them out to Galilee, afraid and trembling, in order that they might listen to His words in security. Afterwards, when they had heard, and had passed forty days with Him, “He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem.” Wherefore? Just as when soldiers are to charge a multitude, no one thinks of letting them issue forth until they have armed themselves, or as horses are not suffered to start from the barriers until they have got their charioteer; so Christ did not suffer these to appear in the field before the descent of the Spirit, that they might not be in a condition to be easily defeated and taken captive by the many. Nor was this the only reason, but also there were many in Jerusalem who should believe. And then again that it might not be said, that leaving their own acquaintance, they had gone to make a parade among strangers, therefore among those very men who had put Christ to death do they exhibit the proofs of His Resurrection, among those who had crucified and buried Him, in the very town in which the iniquitous deed had been perpetrated; thereby stopping the mouths of all foreign objectors. For when those even who had crucified Him appear as believers, clearly this proved both the fact of the crucifixion and the iniquity of the deed, and afforded a mighty evidence of the Resurrection. Furthermore, lest the Apostles should say, How shall it be possible for us to live among wicked and bloody men, they so many in number, we so few and contemptible, observe how He does away their fear and distress, by these words, “But wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of Me.” (v. 4.) You will say, When had they heard this? When He said, “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you.” (John xvi. 7.) And again, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter, that He may abide with you.” (ib. xiv. 16.)

But why did the Holy Ghost come to them, not while Christ was present, nor even immediately after his departure, but, whereas Christ ascended on the fortieth day, the Spirit descended “when the day of Pentecost,” that is, the fiftieth, “was fully come?” (Acts ii. 1.) And how was it, if the Spirit had not yet come, that He said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost?” (John xx. 22.) In order to render them capable and meet for the reception of Him. For if Daniel fainted at the sight of an Angel (Dan. viii. 17), much more would these when about to receive so great a grace. Either this then is to be said, or else that Christ spoke of what was to come, as if come already; as when He said, “Tread ye upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the devil.” (Luke x. 19.) But why had the Holy Ghost not yet come? It was fit that they should first be brought to have a longing desire for that event, and so receive the grace. For this reason Christ Himself departed, and then the Spirit descended. For had He Himself been there, they would not have expected the Spirit so earnestly as they did. On this account neither did He come immediately after Christ’s Ascension, but after eight or nine days. It is the same with us also; for our desires towards God are then most raised, when we stand in need. Accordingly, John chose that time to send his disciples to Christ when they were likely to feel their need of Jesus, during his own imprisonment. Besides, it was fit that our nature should be seen in heaven, and that the reconciliation should be perfected, and then the Spirit should come, and the joy should be unalloyed. For, if the Spirit being already come, Christ had then departed, and the Spirit remained; the consolation would not have been so great as it was. For in fact they clung to Him, and could not bear to part with Him; wherefore also to comfort them He said, “It is expedient for you that I go away.” (John xvi. 7.) On this account He also waits during those intermediate days, that they might first despond for awhile, and be made, as I said, to feel their need of Him. and then reap a full and unalloyed delight. But if the Spirit were inferior to the Son, the consolation would not have been adequate; and how could He have said, “It is expedient for you?” For this reason the greater matters of teaching were reserved for the Spirit, that the disciples might not imagine Him inferior.

Consider also how necessary He made it for them to abide in Jerusalem, by promising that the Spirit should be granted them. For lest they should again flee away after His Ascension, by this expectation, as by a bond, He keeps them to that spot. But having said, “Wait for the promise of the Father, which ye have heard of Me,” He then adds, “For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” (v. 4, 5.) For now indeed He gives them to see the difference there was betwixt Him and John, plainly, and not as heretofore in obscure hints; for in fact He had spoken very obscurely, when He said, “Notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he:” but now He says plainly, “John baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.” (Matt. xi. 11.) And he no longer uses the testimony, but merely adverts to the person of John, reminding the disciples of what he had said, and shows them that they are now become greater than John; seeing they too are to baptize with the Spirit. Again, He did not say, I baptize you with the Holy Ghost, but, “Ye shall be baptized:” teaching us humility. For this was plain enough from the testimonyof John, that it was Christ Himself Who should baptize: “He it is that shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (Luke iii. 16.); wherefore also He made mention of John.¹⁹

19 So mss. C. F. D. and the Catena. The others have μόνου αὐτοῦ, “of him (John) alone,” not of his testimony.

The Gospels, then, are a history of what Christ did and said; but the Acts, of what that “other Comforter” said and did. Not but that the Spirit did many things in the Gospels also; even as Christ here in the Acts still works in men as He did in the Gospels: only then the Spirit wrought through the Temple, now through the Apostles: then, He came into the Virgin’s womb, and fashioned the Temple; now, into Apostolic souls: then in the likeness of a dove; now, in the likeness of fire. And wherefore? Showing there the gentleness of the Lord, but here His taking vengeance also, He now puts them in mind of the judgment likewise. For, when need was to forgive, need was there of much gentleness; but now we have obtained the gift, it is henceforth a time for judgment and examination.

But why does Christ say, “Ye shall be baptized,” when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided. For in the beginning they were baptized by John; since, if harlots and publicans went to that baptism, much rather would they who thereafter were to be baptized by the Holy Ghost. Then, that the Apostles might not say, that they were always having it held out to them in promises (John xiv. 15, 16), (for indeed Christ had already discoursed much to them concerning the Spirit, that they should not imagine It to be an impersonal Energy or Operation, (ἐνέργειαν ἀνυπόστατον) that they might not say this, then, He adds, “not many days hence.” And He did not explain when, that they might always watch: but, that it would soon take place, He told them, that they might not faint; yet the exact time He refrained from adding, that they might always be vigilant. Nor does He assure them by this alone; I mean, by the shortness of the time, but withal by saying, “The promise which ye have heard of Me.” For this is not, saith He, the only time I have told you, but already I have promised what I shall certainly perform. What wonder then that He does not signify the day of the final consummation, when this day which was so near He did not choose to reveal? And with good reason; to the end they may be ever wakeful, and in a state of expectation and earnest heed.

For it cannot, it cannot be, that a man should enjoy the benefit of grace except he watch. Seest thou not what Elias saith to his disciple? “If thou see me when I am taken up” (2 Kings ii. 10), this that thou askest shall be done for thee. Christ also was ever wont to say unto those that came unto Him, “Believest thou?” For if we be not appropriated and made over to the thing given,²⁰

20 ᾽Εὰν γὰρ μὴ οἰκειωθῶμεν πρὸς τὸ διδόμενον. Erasm. Nisi rei datæ addicti fuerimus.

21 Οἱ τὴν ἁλουργίδα βάπτοντες.…ἵνα μὴ ἐξίτηλον γένηται τὸ ἄνθος. Comp. Plat. Republ. iv. vol. i. p. 289. Stallb. Οὐκοῦν οἶσθα, ἦν δ᾽ ἐγὼ, ὅτι οἱ βαφεῖς, ἐπειδὰν βουληθῶσι βάψαι ἔρια ὥστ᾽ εἶναι ἁλούργα, πρῶτον μὲν ἐκλέγονται ἐκ τοσούτων χρωμάτων μίαν φύσιν τὴν τῶν λευκῶν, ἔπειτα προπαρασκευάζουσι οὐκ ὀλίγῃ παρα σκεύ& 219· θεραπεύσαντες ὅπως δέξεται ὅτι μάλιστα τὸ ἄνθος, καὶ οὕτω δὴ βάπτουσι.

22 The question, fully expressed, is, ‘Why do we baptize, not at Pentecost, but on Easter Eve?’ 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.’ It should be borne in mind, that these Homilies were commenced during the Πεντηκοστὴ, i.e. the period of fifty days between Easter and Pentecost; at which season the Book of Acts was usually read in the Churches.

As if then we were banquetting with Christ Himself, and partaking of His table, let us do nothing at random, but let us pass our time in fastings, and prayers, and much sobriety of mind. For if a man who is destined to enter upon some temporal government, prepares himself all his life long, and that he may obtain some dignity, lays out his money, spends his time, and submits to endless troubles; what shall we deserve, who draw near to the kingdom of heaven with such negligence, and both show no earnestness before we have received, and after having received are again negligent? Nay, this is the very reason why we are negligent after having received, that we did not watch before we had received. Therefore many, after they have received, immediately have returned to their former vomit, and have become more wicked, and drawn upon themselves a more severe punishment; when having been delivered from their former sins, herein they have more grievously provoked the Judge, that having been delivered from so great a disease, still they did not learn sobriety, but that has happened unto them, which Christ threatened to the paralytic man, saying, “Behold thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” (John v. 14): and which He also predicted of the Jews, that “the last state shall be worse than the first.” (Matt. xii. 45.) For if, saith He, showing that by their ingratitude they should bring upon them the worst of evils, “if I had not come, and spoken unto them, they had not had sin” (John xv. 22); so that the guilt of sins committed after these benefits is doubled and quadrupled, in that, after the honour put upon us, we show ourselves ungrateful and wicked. And the Laver of Baptism helps not a whit to procure for us a milder punishment. And consider: a man has gotten grievous sins by committing murder or adultery, or some other crime: these were remitted through Baptism. For there is no sin, no impiety, which does not yield and give place to this gift; for the Grace is Divine. A man has again committed adultery and murder; the former adultery is indeed done away, the murder forgiven, and not brought up again to his charge, “for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance” (Rom. xi. 29); but for those committed after Baptism he suffers a punishment as great as he would if both the former sins were brought up again, and many worse than these. For the guilt is no longer simply equal, but doubled and tripled.²³

23 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.

Perhaps we have now deterred many from receiving baptism. Not however with this intention have we so spoken, but on purpose that having received it, they may continue in temperance and much moderation. ‘But I am afraid,’ says one. If thou wert afraid, thou wouldest have received and guarded it. ‘Nay,’ saith he, ‘but this is the very reason why I do not receive it,—that I am frightened.’ And art thou not afraid to depart thus? ‘God is merciful,’ saith he. Receive baptism then, because He is merciful and ready to help. But thou, where to be in earnest is the thing required, dost not allege this mercifulness; thou thinkest of this only where thou hast a mind to do so. And yet that was the time to resort to God’s mercy, and we shall then be surest of obtaining it, when we do our part. For he that has cast the whole matter upon God, and, after his baptism, sins, as being man it is likely, he may, and repents, shall obtain mercy; whereas he that prevaricates with God’s mercy, and departs this life with no portion in that grace, shall have his punishment without a word to be said for him. ‘But how if he depart,’ say you, ‘after having had the grace vouchsafed to him?’ He will depart empty again of all good works.²⁴

24 Τί οὖν ἃν καταξιωθείς φησιν ἀπελεύσεται πάλιν κενὸς κατορθωμάτων, Cod. C, and so A, but with ἀπελεύσῃ In the latter recension this sentence is omitted, and instead of it, we have, Τί δὲ ταῦτα κατὰ τῆς σεαυτοῦ σωτηρίας προβάλλῃ; ‘But why dost thou put forth such pretences against thine own salvation?’ Chrys. had just said, ἀπελθὼν ἄμοιρος τῆς χάριτος ἀπαιραίτητον ἕξει τὴν τιμωρίον. The objector (with the usual prevaricating formula, τί οὖν ἐ& 129·ν τὸ καὶ τό; Hom. in Matt. 229 D.) says: τί οὖν ἂν καταξιωθεὶς, sc. τῆς χαριτὸς ἀπέλθῃ; to which Chrys. answers: ᾽Απελεύσεται πάλιν κενὸς κατορθωμάτων: 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.

Now God forbid that it should happen to us to fall into so great straits as to sin after baptism. However, even if aught such should happen, God is merciful, and has given us many ways of obtaining remission even after this. But just as those who sin after baptism are punished for this reason more severely than the Catechumens, so again, those who know that there are medicines in repentance, and yet will not make use of them, will undergo a more grievous chastisement. For by how much the mercy of God is enlarged, by so much does the punishment increase, if we do not duly profit by that mercy. What sayest thou, O man? When thou wast full of such grievous evils, and given over, suddenly thou becamest a friend, and wast exalted to the highest honor, not by labors of thine own, but by the gift of God: thou didst again return to thy former misconduct; and though thou didst deserve to be sorely punished, nevertheless, God did not turn away, but gave unnumbered opportunities of salvation, whereby thou mayest yet become a friend: yet for all this, thou hast not the will to labor. What forgiveness canst thou deserve henceforth? Will not the Gentiles with good reason deride thee as a worthless drone? For if there be power in that doctrine of yours, say they, what means this multitude of uninitiated persons? If the mysteries be excellent and desirable, let none receive baptism at his last gasp. For that is not the time for giving of mysteries but for making of wills; the time for mysteries is in health of mind and soundness of soul. For, if a man would not prefer to make his will in such a condition; and if he does so make it, he gives a handle for subsequent litigation (and this is the reason why testators premise these words: “Alive, in my senses, and in health, I make this disposal of my property:”), how should it be possible for a person who is no longer master of his senses to go through the right course of preparation for the sacred mysteries?²⁵

25 Μετὰ ἀκριβείας μυσταγωγεῖσθαι: alluding to the κατήχησις μυσταγωγική, i.e. the course of instruction by which the catechumens were prepared for baptism. See the Catechetical Discourses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem.

26 Τὰ ῥ& 208·ματα ἐκεῖνα: 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,’ that we may rise again to newness of life, not that we should pass at once from the spiritual burial to the literal.”

Now if thou still questionest that Christ is God, stand away from the Church: be not here, even as a hearer of the Divine Word, and as one of the catechumens:²⁷

27 The catechumens were allowed to be present at the first part of the service (Missa catechumenorum); and were dismissed after the Sermon, before the proper Prayers of the Church, or Missa Fidelium.

28 Κατηξιώθησαν τῆς χάριτος, as above, p. 8, note 1, τί οὖν ἄν καταξιωθείς;

29 The Holy Communion, administered immediately after baptism.

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH