¹⁸ kurioj erhmwsewj megalhj. Something perhaps is wanting between kur. and er. m. Indeed the text seems to consist o little more than a few rough notes.

¹⁹ Tafoj gegonen h polij twn cenwn, twn stratiwtwn. In the defective state of the text it is not easy to conjecture what this can mean. Perhaps, alluding to the words in St. Matthew, "a place to bury strangers in." St. Chrys, may have explained, that the strangers were not heathen (ekinouj gar oud an eiasan tafhnai, they would not have allowed such to be buried in or by the Holy City, much less have provided a place of burial for them), but foreign Jews: and if in tafoj gegonen h polij he alludes to the description in Josephus, B. J. v. 12. 3. and 13. 7. this explanation of the term "strangers" would be the more apposite, as the myriads who perished in the siege were assembled from all parts of the world. The `soldiers0' seem to be the mercenaries on the side of the Jews: five thousand Idu-maeans are mentioned, B. J. v. 6. 1.

²⁰ The requirement for the apostolic office is here clearly indicated. The candidate must have associated with Christ and his apostles during the period from John's baptism to the Lord's ascension, i. e. during His public ministry, The character of the apostolate is also significantly implied in the term martuj thj anastasewj autou. The resurrection was the great central theme of apostolic teaching and preaching (vid. Acts iv. 2, Acts iv. 33; Acts xvii. 18, Acts xvii. 32).-G. B. S.

²¹ Here the Edd. have hmeij: poqen dhlon\ ez wn qaumatourgoumen. "ourselves: how is this proved? by the miracles we work." C. has not these words, which are not needed, but rather disturb the sense.

²² The words of the text (v. 23) Kai esthsan duo are better rendered "put forward" (Rev. Vs.) than "appointed." (A.Y.) The meaning is that the company chose two persons as candidates, leaving the decision between them to the lot.-G. B. S.

²³ Oux aplwj de prostiqhsin, D. and E. have oux aplwj de ou protiqhsin ekeinon, according to which the sense would be the same: "Not without reason does he avoid putting Mat-thias first."

²⁴ Here the Edd. add, ouxi twn ecwqen, "not by those without:" but these words are not found in our mss. of either text, nor in the Catena.

²⁵ So, except E. all our mss. and the Catena: and Morel. Ben. But Sav. and Par. "they did not yet think themselves worthy to make the election by themselves: wherefore they desire to be informed by some sign." An unnecessary alteration; for the sign means some miraculous token. So Oecumen.

²⁶ mss. and Edd. pollw mallon entauqa eplhrwse ton, xoron, aphrtise thn tacin. The Catena adds o anadexqeij (anadexqteij), which we have adopted.

²⁷ Edd. Panu ge. Ou gar episkopou. legeij ergon. Read Panu ge (ou gar\) episk. leg. ergon.

²⁸ Qumbainei tina klhron diadecasqai andrwn moxqhrwn. The expression below, oti moxqhoj tij esti shows that the and. mocq., `ill-conditioned men,0' are clerks. The offences meant seem to have been before ordination: and the difficulty is, How to deal with a clerk who ought not to have been ordained at all? You cannot cut him off from the order of clergy, there being no present actual delinquency to justify such a step. Then suppose you do not call him to account for the past, on the ground that the bishop who ordained him must be answerable: what are you to do, when this man should in the regular course be advanced to a higher order of the ministry? To refuse to ordain him, would be to publish his unworthiness, and call attention to the scandal of his having been ordained in the first instance: to advance him, would be even worse.

²⁹ Here the Edd. add antisthson thn geennan, "put in the other balance-hell :" which, however, is not found in any of our mss.

³⁰ ina en amarth amarthua monon ekolazeto pikrwj. On this peculiar construction, see Field, Adnotat, in Hom, in Matt. p. 404. E.-In the next sentence St. Chrys. in applying the term iereuj to Moses, does not mean that Moses was a Priest, but that he held a station similar in some regards to that of Bishops afterwards. Aaron was properly the High Priest, but Moses was a type of Christian Bishops, considered as Chief Pastors and Rulers.

³¹ Mallon de nun oude meta to ekbhnai dhloj toij polloij: ou gar estin autoij polemoj: alla kata touj poimenaj ekeinouj, k. t. l. Perhaps Chryss. is not fully reported here. The meaning seems to be: "The proverb, glukuj o polemoj apeiroij, may well be applied here; it is a fine thing to be a bishop, to those who have not tried it. Little do people think what this war is, before they have entered into it. But in our times, not only pro tou embhnai, but even meta to ekbhnai, after a good bishop has gone through with it, the generality of people do not see that there has been any war in the case. We bishops, in their view, are like Ezekiel's shepherds. And no marvel, for many among us are such." The author of the modern text has given a different turn to the sentiment. Here it is: "The same may well be said in the present case; or rather, we do say it before we have entered into the contest; but after we have embarked in it, we become not even visible to the generality. For to us now there is no war, against those who oppress the poor, nor do we endure to battle in defence of the flock; but like those shepherds, etc."

³² Vigils were celebrated in C.'s time with much pomp. A grand ceremonial of this kind was held in the first year of his episcopate, at the translation of the relics.

³³ Poiw gar suneidopi an (l. kan) genh spoudasaj h, k. t. l. The meaning is strangely mistaken by the Lat. transl. Erasm. has, Quem enim conscium adibis si vel, etc. Ben. Quo uteris conscio si ambias vel, etc. The ofqalmoij following might have shown the meaning, not to mention the ungrammatical rendering of an genh spoudasaj.

³⁴ See de Sacerdot, lib. iv. in the opening, where this question is considered at length.

³⁵ Paraxwrhsw thj didaskaliaj imin: I will cede the teaching to you; let it be yours to teach by your actions, which is the more potent teaching.

³⁶ Ta gar para filwn legomena, Kan ubrij h, forhta. Apparently a quotation.

³⁷ Edd. apuloimhn ei mh: "May I perish if, etc." but none ofour mss. have this word.

¹ i.e. in reference to the harvest. The modern text has, "therefore He calls this the harvest:" missing the author's meaning, i.e. the allusion to the parable of the sower.

² toutesti, proj th penthkosth peri authn wj eipein. Proj, as in the phrase, einai v. ginesqai proj tini. Hom. in Matt. 289. B. Field, not. and similarly peri as in einai peri ti. Only Oecumen. has preserved the true reading, in his comment proj th p.\ peri authn hdh thn eorthn. A, B, C, read, pro thj penthkosthj peri authn wj eipein: so Cat. but with peri for pro. The others, ou pro thj p., alla peri authn, wj eipein.

³ In the mss. and Edd. the order of the following sentences is confused. It is here restored by bringing the clause, kai pantaj ekei sunhgagen into what appears to be its proper connection, and supplying the text to the comment pollhn thn rumhn legei tou Pneumatoj.

⁴ i.e. if the gift descended only upon the Twelve, there would have been specific and distinctive mention of them in this narrative, as there was in the former chapter; and with much more reason here than there. The writer would not have said merely, They were all together: it sat upon each one of them: they were all filled: if he had meant that the Spirit came only upon the Apostles.

⁵ i.e. Mark how the enumeration, "Parthians,' and Medes," etc., goes from east to west. This comment having been trans posed to the end of v. 12, was misunderstood: and E. has in stead of it, "Do you see how it was, that, as if they had wings, they sped their way through the whole world?"

⁶ Ta gar toiauta nhfouswn men yuxwn prospiptonta, ou polu exei ton qorubon: otan de mequswsin tote men outwj, toij profh taij de eterwj. In the modern text, which here also is followed by Erasm. and Edd. it is, alla tote men outwj ekeinoij, toij profhtaij de eterwj. "But here indeed it is on this wise with them (the disciples), but with the Prophets otherwise." -The expression "uninebriated" relates to the Old Testament: no such fire there, no mighty rushing wind, no vehement commotion: this comes of "the new wine" of the Spirit; otan mequswsin, with allusion to John ii. 10.

⁷ So de Sancta Pentecoste, Hom. i. t. ii. 465. "Why does Ezekiel receive the gift of prophecy not by the likeness of fire, but by a book, while the Apostles receive the gifts by fire? For concerning him we read, that one gave him in his mouth a roll of a book, etc.: but concerning the Apostles not so, but "there appeared unto them tongues as of fire." Why is it a book and writing there, here tongue and fire? Because there the Prophet went his way to accuse sins, and to bewail Jewish calamities: whereas these went forth to consume the sins of the whole world: therefore he received a writing, to call to mind the coming calamities: these fire, to burn up the sins of the world, and utterly abolish them. For as fire falling among thorns will with ease destroy them, even so the grace of the Spirit consumed the sins of men."

⁸ This, which we have marked as parenthesis, seems to be out of its place: it interrupts what is said about Ezekiel, and besides is not relevant to the matter immediately in hand, 'Entauqa de auto Pn. to #A. k. t. l. would come in more suitably after the mention of the fire in the bush, in which God appeared to Moses. And so Oecumenius seems to have taken it. "But it is in the likeness of fire, because the Spirit also is God, and to prove by this also that the Spirit is of one Nature (omofuej) with the Father, Who appears in this manner to Moses at the bush."

⁹ #Oti touto ekeino esti: i.e. The Spirit here given to, the disciples, is the same that was given to those: but more intense in operation; therefore it appears not merely under the emblem of cloven tongues, but as tongues of fire.

¹⁰ Chrys. seems to understand by diamerizomenai (v. 3), divided, distributed among the members of the company, rather than of a cloven form, a forked appearance, as indicating the shape of the fire-like tongues. The former is the preferable interpretation. (So the Rev. Vets. vs. A. V.). The latter view cannot explain the singular verb which follows, ekaqisen. - G. B. S.

¹¹ ina deixqh autou gumnh h pistij. Not, "ut palam fieret fides ejus, fides ejus, Ben. but, quo ipsius nuda simplexque fides declararetur," Erasm. The meaning seems to be: David after the victory over Goliath, when the hearts of the people were turned to him, and he might have taken possession of the kingdom to which he was anointed, yet did not seek worldly greatness, but chose rather to suffer persecutions, etc.: as developed in the Homilies de Davide et Saule, t. iv. 752. Below, for anatrefomenon ("Samuel brought up in the temple,") A. has anstrefomenon, which we have adopted.

¹² So C and Cat. B. transposes Elisha and Ezekiel, A. omits the clause. Chrys. elsewhere makes it a special praise of Ezekiel, that he chose rather to accompany his people into captivity, than to remain in his own land: Interp. in Isai. i. t. 1. 2. and ad Stagyr. ii. t. ii. 228. In this manner then (he would say here), Ez. "left all," and having thus given proof of his worth, received the gift of prophecy. The modern text reads: "Ezekiel again. And that the case was thus, is manifest from what followed. For indeed these also forsook all that they had. Therefore they then received the Spirit, when they had given proof of their own virtue." -By these (outoi) We must understand the Old Test. saints just mentioned. It should rather have been ekeinoi, but Chrys. is negligent in the use of these pronouns. See Hom. in Matt. Field. Adnot. p. 709, B.

¹³ 'Hlattouto. Alluding to Numb. xi. 17. "I will take of the Spirit that is upon thee, and will put it upon them."

¹⁴ #Ina de ech. (Cat. ina deich.) Oecumen. ina exwsi, "that they may have it in their power, according to the law of their fathers, to appear thrice in the year, etc." The modern text has, epei echn <\=85_dia touto. "Because it was permitted ...therefore."

¹⁵ 'Ekei de en aixmalwsia hsan polloi h kai ekei diesparto ta eqnh ta twn dogmatwn. A. b.c. N. As ta twn d taken as apposition to ta equh yields no satisfactory sense, we adopt from the modern text proj before ta efnh, and make, as there, ta twn d. the nom. to diesparto. And as in the next sentence Chrys. distinguishes citizens, foreign (Jews), and proselytes, and there is no mention of the last, unless it be in the clause h kai ekei diesparto, we infer that ta twn d. means the Law of Moses. "Or also in those countries (Parthia, Media, etc. in consequence of the dispersion of the Jews) the Law and its religion ad been disseminated among the Gentiles. So that from all quarters, etc." Thus it is explained how there came to be present at Jerusalem "devout men" from Parthia and those other countries: there were many Jews there in captivity, and also proselytes of the Law from among the Gentiles.-In the modenn text the passage is thus altered: "But, in, much as the Jews were in captivity, it is likely that there were then present with them many of the Gentiles: h oti kai proj ta eqnh ta twn dogmatwn hoh katesparto, kai dia touto polloi kai ec autwn parhsan ekei. Or, because ta twn d. had become disseminated among the Gentiles also, and therefore many also of them were there present, kata mnhmhn. wn hkousan. Here ta twn dogmatw/ is taken to mean `the doctrines of the Christian Faith:0' as Erasmus renders the passage, Sive quod ad gentes quoque fidei dogmata seminars fuerint, et hanc ob causam complures ex iis aderant ut memorarent qua audierant. It can hardly be supposed that St. Chryostom meant to represent that some of these Parthians, Medes, etc. were Gentiles who had heard in their own country the tidings of the Faith of Christ, and therefore were present at Jerusalem: yet this is what he is made to say in this text.

¹⁶ It is impossible to gain from this language any clear view of the author's opinion of the gift of tongues. The uncertainty of the text here still further embarrasses the subject. That the narrative means that they received at Pentecost a miraculous gift of speaking foreign languages, is now almost unanimously maintained by modern scholars. The difficult question as to the gift of tongues as referred to in 1 Cor. xiv. should not lead to a weakening or explaining away of such unmistakable expressions as eteraij glwssaij hmeteraij glwssaij (4), hmeteraij glwssaij (II) and th idia dialektw (6, 8). Cf. Mark xvi, 17.-G. B. S.

¹⁷ Panu ge (ou gar\) anqwpoi k. t. l. See above, p. 47. note u. and 66, note c. The modern text has, Panu ge: oti anqrwpoi k. t. l. Below, "Since this was improbable, therefore, to impose upon the hearers, and show that the men are drunken, they ascribe, etc." But in the old text it is, oti ouk an emequsqhsan, meaning, "because [so early in the day] they would not have been drinking much," (this is the force of the tense mequsqhnai as in John ii. 10) "therefore they ascribe all to the quality (of the wine);" because as Oecumen. says, explaining is remark of Chrys., the fumes of gleukoj mount more quickly to the brain, etc. Erasmus, seemingly referring this to memestwmenoi, translates hebetudini crapulaeque rem totam ascribunt: Ben. even more strangely, 'agendi et loquendi modo totum ascribunt.

¹⁸ 'Ekei: referring to ch. i. as expounded in Hom. iii. So Oecumen, in loc. #Anw men thn khdemonian epideiknutai, en oij tw plhqei epitrepei thn eklogh/ k. t. l..

¹⁹ Here the modern text (Edd.) enlarges by the additions "to account the wonder of the tongues the work of drunkenness? But not a whir did this annoy the Apostles; nor did it make them less bold at hearing such scoffing. By the presence of the Spirit they were now transformed, and were become superior to all bodily considerations."

²⁰ The change of subject (from the Jews to the Apostles) is not expressed in the original. To remedy the confusion occasioned by this negligence, the modern text (Edd.) transposes this part: viz. after the sentence ending, "so great a multitude:" it has, "For tell me: did they not fight-in a picture? ' And then, "What? I pray you; did they not exhaust, etc." Clearly the other is the original order. It is shown, first, how the Jews were utterly worsted, and how awfully the whole posture of affairs was reversed for them; and then, how victoriously the preachers of the new Faith maintained their ground against the whole world.

²¹ Edd. "Were they not subjected to the ridicule and mockery of those present? For in their case both these befel together: for some derided them, others mocked." Which is weak enough; but the original text could not be retained, because on the supposition that all this relates to the Jews then present, the mention of "wrath" and "punishment" would be irrelevant.

²² Euqumiaij, i.e. "bursts of self-complacent mirth" (e.g. at Athens), opposed to qumoij "explosions of wrath," Ben. without specifying the authority, notes a various reading aqumiaij, which is found in none of the Paris copies, and is quite unmeaning. Edd. uaniaij.

²³ Ben. interprets: "So unlooked for were these trials. that the Apostles seemed to themselves to be dreaming or beholding these things in a picture." But when the true order of the text is restored, no such far-fetched comment is needed.

²⁴ The text is defective here, arxontwn foboi, oplwn isxuj: polesi kai teixesin oxuroij. The text of the Edd. has: "And the wonder is, that with bare body they took the field against armed men. against rulers having power over them: without experience," etc.

²⁵ St. Chrysostom's habitual use of the term philosophy is thus explained in the index of Mr. Field's edition of the Com. on St. Matt. "Philosophy, according to the custom of Chrys. is not Christian piety, not the exercise of any virtue, not a pious and chaste life, not virtue in general, but that part of virtue, which consists in subduing the carnal appetites and affections. Thus to Christian philosophy are to be referred: forbearance and long suffering; humblemindedness; contempt of wealth; an austere and monastic life; every other mortification (apaqeia). Its contraries are: emulation (zhlotupia see below), envy and vainglory, and all other passions."

²⁶ kai filosofa, fhsin, ina: "And `philosophical,0' forsooth:" but perhaps it should be kai efilosofhsen ina: "this was the upshot of his philosophizing." 'H tou filosofou yuxh: "the soul of the philosopher himself (A tou didaskalou), viz. equally with the souls of other men, becomes, for instance, a fly," etc. Comp. infra: "our soul passes into flies and dogs," etc. and Hom. in Ev. Joann. t. viii. 8. D. "they say that the souls of men become flies, gnats, shrubs." -Edd. "For what is the benefit from learning that the soul of the philosopher," etc. The next sentence (ontwj muia-ouk eij muian metepipten (sc. h yuxh), all epebaine (sc. muia th en Plat. oikoush) yuxh seems to mean, `He talks of the soul becoming a fly: and truly the soul in Plato might be claimed by a fly:0' epeb. thy. as e.g. is epibainein th eparxia to step into possession of, etc. Poiaj gar tauta ou muiaj; Edd. mutaiologiaj; adding, Pofen dh toiauta lhrein epebaleto; "What could put it into his head to rave in this fashion?"

²⁷ The author's depreciation of Plato contrasts unfavorably with the more generous estimates of a long line of Church Fathers from Justin to Augustin.-G. B. S.

²⁸ 'Epei ekeino ge kai anhrei. Erasmus translates, Quandoquidem et illud quod Plato docuit, sustulit: whence Ben. Nam illud Platonis hic (Petrus) sustulit: i.e. for Peter's doctrine (of chastity) has made an end of that lewd dogma of Plato's. But the following sentence rather implies that the meaning is as above given.

²⁹ Di' autwn, Ben. per illas, which they seem to refer to gunaikej. Erasm. per illos, which is doubtless right: by means of the philosophers, as below, en taij ekeinwn yucaij.

³⁰ Kai zhloi par autoij o kuwn kata Platwna. Edd. have this after "polity and laws," where it is clearly out of place, whatever it means.

³¹ Edd. Sfodra ge. on gar frenoj baqdraj. Read Sfodra ge (on gar)\fr. b. as above, p. 22, note 1, and 28, note 2.

¹ The ekeinoi, if the old text be correct, are the mockers, but these are not "the devout men out of every nation under heaven," therefore onj cenouj eipen anwterw can hardly be meant to refer to the following clause, entaiqa proj ekeinouj k. t. l. The omission of the text-words, and the seeming antithesis of anwtew and entauqa, caused a confusion which the modern text attempts to remedy by transposing touj diaxl. to the place of toutouj. "Whom the writer above called strangers, to those Peter here directs his speech, and he seems indeed to discourse with those, but corrects the mockers." This just inverts Chrysostom's meaning, which is clear enough from the following context. He says: "The `dwellers in Jerusalem0' are especially the devout men out of every nation mentioned above, and to instruct these (toutouj) is the real aim of the discourse, which however is addressed in the first instance to the others (ekeinouj), whose mockery gave occasion to it. St. Peter stands up apparently for the purpose of defending himself and his brethren: but this is in fact quite a secondary object, and the apology becomes a sermon of doctrine."

² Kai to en 9I. oikein. Below he explains andrej 'Ioudaioi to mean, "dwellers in Judea:" therefore the kai seems to mean, "to be not only such, but dwellers in Jerusalem also."

³ Here our leading Ms. after ou gar wj umeij, has apoplhroutai, fhsi, kai upolambanetai oti mequousin. "For not as ye."-It is fulfilled (he says) and it is supposed that they are drunken!" which may have been said by Chrys., but certainly not in this place.

⁴ There is no reason to doubt that the company who witnessed the scenes at Pentecost really supposed the Christians to be intoxicated. To this opinion they were, of course, the more readily inclined because of their prejudice against the new sect. The force of Peter's refutation of the charge of drunkenness: "Seeing it is but the third hour, etc.," lies partly in the fact that 9 a. m. was too early for any such general intoxication, and still more in the fact that the third hour was the first hour of prayer, at which time it would have been sacrilege to drink to excess.-G. B. S.

⁵ Here the innovator, again mistaking his author's meaning, as if it were -Peter did not say, "These are not drunk," but what he did say was, "They speak by the Spirit"-finds it necessary to add, Kai oux aplwj, And not merely so, but, etc.

⁶ apologian, as in 2 Cor. vii. 11. "Yea, what clearing of yourselves."

⁷ i.e. The brightness of the miraculous fire appears at a time when there would be many to see it, people not being engaged in their works, nor within their houses at their noontide meal. Oecumenius evidently had the old text before him, for he gives the same sense with the slightest verbal alterations. In the Catena the sense is altered by omission of the negatives. "When people are about their work, when about their dinner, etc. The innovator (followed by Edd.) makes it "For when the brightness of the light is shown, then men are not occupied in the business of dinner (ou peri erga ...ta peri arioton), then the day is cheerful faidra, the brisk and stirring time of day), then all are in the market." By to lampron tou fwtoj he seems to mean bright daylight.

⁸ Here, after eij deuteran, C. has 'Oldan (marg. gr. kai Lobnan. oion deb. kai. Lobnan. B. after Deb. kai 'Oldan adds h Lobnan) It does not appear who is meant by this Lobna, unless it originates in some strange misconception of 2 Kings xxiii. 31, "daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah," LXX. Q. 9I. ek Lobna. Clem. Alex. Str. i. §. 136. has no such name in his list of Old Testament prophetesses.

⁹ Edd. "For it was not expedient, because this also was obscure. I will show, etc. For it frightened them more, being obscure. But if he had interpreted, it would even have offended them more."

¹⁰ What follows in the edited text is obscure and perplexed. The original text seems to labor under some defects, besides the omission of the passages commented upon.

¹¹ Something seems wanting here: e. g. as above, "There were signs in heaven, as Josephus relates. This however, in the full sense, has never been fulfilled." And then, a reference to the Babylonian compared with the Roman judgment.

¹² First blood, i. e. the taking and slaughter of the inhabitants: then, fire, etc., i. e. the burning of the city.

¹³ As B. has this sentence, which is in fact necessary to the sense, the omission of it in C. A. may be referred to the homoeoteleuton, elenqeroj.

¹⁴ kai (=kaiper, or ei kai>\/) foberon to thj kolasewj. i. e. he alleviates the severity of his discourse by speaking of the effects of faith, at the same time that he shows the fearfulness of the punishment. Edd. kai ou fob. kruptwn to thj kolasewj, i. e. light ...and not fearful, by withdrawing out of sight what relates to the punishment: which however Ben. renders as if it were ou to fob. And not concealing the fearfulness, etc."

¹⁵ It is extremely doubtful if Peter understood by "the great and terrible day of the Lord" (20) the destruction of Jerusalem. (Chrys.) It probably refers to the Parousia which is thought of as imminent. The "last days" then would be the days preceding the Messianic age which is to begin at the Parousia. This view harmonizes with the Jewish conception and with the Christian expectation that the then existing period (aiwn outoj) was soon to pass into a new age (aiwn mellwn). The scenes of Pentecost were thought to be the harbingers of this consummation and were so significant both of the joys and woes of the impending crisis, that the bold imagery of the prophet Joel is applied to them. Cf. the prophetic terms in which the destruction of Jerusalem is foretold-an event closely associated with the personal return of our Lord in Matt. xxiv.-G. B. S.

¹⁶ wj otan legh en ampelwni pempein ta strateumata autou. Chrys. is misreported here, for the sending forth of the armies belongs to the parable of the marriage of the king's son.

¹⁷ Something must have been omitted here: viz. a brief exposition of the parable here referred to. The innovator endeavors to mend the text, by leaving out the following sentence.

¹⁸ Wn ouden wmoteron gegonen, agaphtoi, twn tote pepragmenwn pragmatwn. This may be explained as a negligent construction, but perhaps some words are omitted. The next sentence, Kai autoj apefhnato (which phrase is repeated below), refers to Matt. xxiv. 21. "There shall be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world to this time."

¹⁹ 'Obgiskoij (dagger-blades, or spear-heads, or spits) autouj diepran. In Hom. vi. p. 43. infra, we have the phrase tinej obeliskoi pepurwmenoi diepeiran swma. It is evident that something is omitted, and no more probable supposition presents itself, than that Chrys. here read out from Josephus or Eusebius the description of the famine among the besieged (which the reporter of the sermon omitted at the time, intending to insert it at his leisure); and that the short sentence in the text is the preacher's own parenthetical explanation of some part of the description. Thus, B. J. vi. 3. 3. speaking of the cruelties practised upon dying wretches suspected of having food concealed about their persons, Josephus says: 'Alla kai touj ekpneontaj oi lhstai dihreunwn, mhtij upo kolpon exwn trofhn skhptoito ton fanaton autn. Perhaps obeliskoij autouj diepeiran is C.'s comment upon dihreunwn.-Or, in like manner, it may refer to the description in B. J. v. 12. 3. how the lhstai, after ransacking the bodies of the dead, tried the edges of their swords upon them, etc. Taj te akmaj twn cifwn edokimazon en toij ptwmasi, kai tinaj twn errimmenwn eti zwntaj dihlaunon epi peira tou sidhrou. Perhaps, however, the expression may be taken in a metaphorical sense as in the phrase above cited: "they pierced themselves (eautouj for autouj) as with spits or lancets."

²⁰ Against the Marcionites, he says: You say that the God of the Old Testament is a cruel God; whereas Christ, the good God, is all mildness. Yet was not the Roman judgment upon the Jews inflicted by Him? And was it not beyond comparison more ruthless (wmoteron, above) than the Babylonian or any former judgment, inflicted, as you say, by the God of the Old Testament?

²¹ Pwj oun fhsin, i. e. as it is said in the text, "Every one that calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved." The question is the same as was put in the beginning of this section: "What? do you speak of salvation for them after crucifying the Lord? And this, when you have shown us how fearfully that sin was visited?" This question, as a very simple one, he leaves the hearers to answer for themselves, by distinguishing between believers and unbelievers, the penitent and the hardened.-The innovator quite alters the sense; "How then say some that Christ remitted them their sin?" which makes the next sentence idle.

²² Plhn otan kakeinoj eij ekeinhn metasth thn tacin The meaning is obscure: for it may be either, that he is displaced from office (metasthnai, metastasij are common in this sense), and makes one of the stasiazontej; or, that he lays aside the magistrate and demeans himself to take part in their excesses. (Tacij is the expression for the attendants of any high official, and may perhaps be taken in that sense here). Erasmus goes wide of the text: nec exultant eo quod et ille ad hoc opus ordinatus est: and so Montf. nec exultantes quod ille ad hoc officium sit constitutus.

²³ meta ton Qeon, omitted in the modern text.

²⁴ Hom. in Matt. lxxi. p. 699. C. Chrys. describes kenodocia (vainglory) in almsgiving, as the thief that runs away with the treasure laid up in heaven. And something of this sort seems to have been in his thoughts here, where however his meaning is evidently very imperfectly expressed. The texts cited show that ekei, ekeifen, refer to something more than, as above, good laws and government in general; for here he speaks of the Gospel discipline of the inner man. "Where this restraint is, no dissipation of our temporal or spiritual wealth has place: for God, as common Father, has raised a wall to keep out all robbers both seen and unseen, from all our possessions: from the former He guards us, by law and good government; from the latter, by the Gospel prohibition of all vainglory: "Take heed that ye do not your alms," etc.