NOTE ON THE HOMILY CONCERNING CHRIST THE SHEPHERD AND THE SHEEP
Concerning this homily, Savile notes the following on page 759: "We corrected this homily, edited at Rome in the year 1581, from a manuscript in the Royal Library at Paris, also making use of the conjectures of Florent Chrestien; and first, having removed the title of the Roman Codex—which Florent very rightly condemns, since there is not a word about Acacius in this whole discourse—we substituted another, more suitable one from the Royal Codex. Florent, for 'Acacius,' substituted 'innocent' based on his own conjecture, so that it might be understood of Christ." Fronton du Duc says things consonant with this in his Notes: "In the Roman edition," he says, "of the year 1581, the title prefixed to this discourse was, *On St. Acacius the Shepherd and on the Sheep*; but the Savile edition corrected the Greek text from the Royal manuscript and substituted the title which we have presented; for indeed, no mention of Acacius is made throughout the entire course of the oration. There was a certain bishop of Caesarea in Palestine of this name who attended the Synod of Seleucia, as is evident from the *Tripartite History*, book 5, ch. 34. Another was bishop of Beroea in the times of the Emperor Gratian, from the same history, book 9, ch. 3. Perhaps it was written here, *on the innocent shepherd*." Whether this reading, *On St. Acacius*, originated from the error of copyists, or whether it was introduced by the daring of some Greekling, it is not so easy to determine. Certainly, the title is thus, not only in the Roman Codex but also in the Royal one, the readings of which we have placed at the bottom of the pages. And I would wish you to observe that, although at the beginning the memory of the martyrs is said to be celebrated in the plural, at the end of the homily A [811] one martyr alone is mentioned as having been commemorated.
IN MEMORIAM MARTYRUM, ET QUOD CHRISTUS SIT PASTOR ET OVIS; NECNON DE VELO ET PROPITIATORIO
B Again the memory of the martyrs, again the feast days of the pious, again the theme of the angels, again the celebration of the Church. It is the memory of those who have suffered martyrdom; but the honor of martyrs is the glory of Him for whom they underwent martyrdom. The martyrs are honored because they suffered for Christ; Christ is adored, who suffered for all. They, indeed, through punishment raised themselves from a humble station to a sublime one; but the Savior descended from the sublimity of the Godhead to the humility of human nature, not that He departed from His dignity, but that He might accomplish His economy. For we have heard Him saying: *I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd layeth down his life for his sheep* (John 10:11); with which statement He both showed His kindness and proclaimed His power. For that He should suffer for the sheep, that belongs to kindness; but that He should Himself lay down His life, that is of His power: for He does not suffer force, but accomplishes the economy. C For although the Apostle says that the Father delivered Him up for us (Rom. 8:32), he does not argue that the Son underwent the punishment of necessity, but shows that the will of the Son concurred with the paternal will. The Son delivers Himself up, not serving out of necessity, but cooperating with the Father's sentence. For it is one thing to minister in the manner of a servant, another to cooperate in the divine manner. For the Only-Begotten cooperates with the Father, even if the heretics, who by their own wickedness divide the indivisible nature, do not wish it to be so, they who proclaim the Father as Creator, the Son as a sub-minister, and the Holy Spirit likewise as a minister; and who do not even reverence the words of Paul, who called the ministers of preaching not "sub-ministers," but "cooperators of God," when he said, *We are God's cooperators* (1 Cor. 3:9). Is Paul a cooperator, but the Son a sub-minister? Do not seek, therefore, what Christ said through Isaiah, but what He said through Himself. For He is the shepherd for His own sake, and for your sake He is the sheep; for these two readings have converged today. D Isaiah certainly provided the reading about Him to the eunuch: *He was led like a sheep to the slaughter* (Isa. 53:7; Acts 8:32); but the Savior says: *I am the good shepherd* (John 10:11). Therefore, show me the difference between the sheep and the shepherd; in what way He is the sheep, and in what way the shepherd. For unless you know the difference between the names, whence will you recognize the dignity of excellence? It is clearly manifest that He is the sheep on account of the economy of the punishment, but the shepherd on account of the power of kindness. Nor is God ashamed to be called shepherd. It was indeed fitting that we should recognize Him as God and King: but because we do not know God as men endowed with reason, He wishes us, as irrational sheep, at least to recognize the Shepherd. For if the Savior, when He came into the world, had found you a rational man, He would necessarily have appeared to you as God; but because He did not find you a man, but as a sheep wandering from the most ancient times, and calling upon the Lord through the prophets: *I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost; seek thy servant* (Ps. 118:176), therefore He hides His royal dignity, and puts forward the care of a shepherd. For this reason He ordained from the beginning that His body should be placed in a manger: 812 and He leads his mother and the minister of the economy, Joseph, into straits; for I would not call him either the father of the Savior or the husband of Mary, but a partner and mediator of the mystery. Since he was the betrothed of the virgin, not her husband; or husband indeed in name, but in reality a minister of the economy. He is therefore brought into straits with Mary in Bethlehem: so that, because of the narrowness of the inn, it was necessary for the infant to be laid in a manger. But those straits were the work of God, so that the Kind One might necessarily be deposited in that place; deposited, I say, because of the carnal economy. Why does He manage it in this way? Because the manger is the table of the brute beasts; but humanity had degenerated into the nature of brute beasts (*Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he was compared to senseless beasts, and was made like unto them* [Ps. 48:13]): He places the heavenly food on the table of brute beasts, so that those who had the mind of a brute might no longer find the hay of the brutes in the manger, as if in their own proper table; but [might find] Him who said, *I am the bread that came down from heaven, and which giveth life to the world* (John 6:35, 41). The sheep, therefore, is for the sake of the economy, but God is for the sake of His own glory. He lays down, therefore, His own life for the sheep, not of necessity, as it were...